First Person Account--The Caucus

So here is how the caucusing worked in Ward 2 in Wallaceville. Henrietta and Henry Q. were delighted to stay home alone while Mrs. Wallace and I went around the corner to the elementary school to caucus.

The school parking lot was packed. Cars were parked along both sides of the driveway. We had to park in the snow behind the school. Our ward met in the Media room. Volunteers and campaign workers were passing out candidate stickers. We signed in at the table for registered Democrats.

After signing my name then I marked an oval for attendance and another oval under the candidate of my choice. There was a large group of people filing past the table for people who are not registered Democrats. It was crowded. But some of the other wards were even larger. (The Des Moines CBS affiliate just reported that the statewide turn out is at least 205,000--up from the record 120,000 four years ago.)

The chair called us to order. She asked how many people were new to caucusing. Everyone laughed when it looked like every hand in the room went up. After making some announcements and explaining how we would proceed, we took a count. Sixty-one people. I asked the secretary how that compared to last time. She didn't remember a number but she said it was a lot more. The cookies were already going around. So were nomination sheets for Senator Harkin and other the challengers for the Republicans who hold every other office that represents western Iowa.

After going through the math to determine how many people it would take to make the candidate viable (10), we divided into our preference groups. The count was Obama 21, Edwards 18, Clinton 13, Richardson 3, Biden 3, Undecided 4. Overall, the whole ward was older, but the young people were all in the Obama, Richardson, and Biden camps. In fact there were two teens in the Richardson group, one of whom was the Richardson precinct captain.

One of the reasons I love going to the caucuses--and the local campaign events--is that I get to see who else in town are committed Democrats. I saw some other church members, a couple of lawyers, the assistant police chief, the fire chief, a new wealthy young couple who I had assumed were Republicans. The husband said to Mrs. Wallace and I that he peeked at the sign-in sheets for new democrats and said that most of them where for Obama. There was a lot of laughter. But not so much in the Hillary group.

The chair announced that the Richardson, Biden, and Undecided groups were not viable. It sounded kind of mean. She told us that each group could send one member to the nonviable groups to try to convince them to join. I announced that all round cookies are officially Obama cookies.

The Congregational minister, a woman in her mid 60's told me to go over and lobby some of the other groups. I checked with the Obama precinct captain to see who is going which direction. She didn't know. So I went over to the Biden people. I asked what it was about Biden that they liked. The young CEO of the hospital said, "Because he is the best one to be president!" I told him that I had seen Biden speak. I said a couple of nice things about Biden; but when I began to talk about Obama, the guy explained that if we gave him three people, we wouldn't lose any delegates. Yikes! He was the precinct captain for Biden.

A Richardson person came over and my Biden guy put his wife in charge of the kid while he headed over for the undecideds. I went back to the Obama group. After a little joking about how the Biden dude almost got me, I went over to the three Richardson people. Looking for my angle, I asked what they like about Richardson. The two 17 year olds started showing me baseball cards with Richardson's qualifications written on them. Dang. One of them is a precinct captain, too! They asked why I don't support Richardson. I said, "Because he called my daughter a boy."

The kid with long hair said, "A lot of people think I look like a girl."

I said, "You kinda do." (yeah, I really did)

He said, brilliantly, "See, Richardson is a regular guy. He makes exactly the kind of mistakes you do." There was a little more back and forth, including questions about what my daughter Henrietta looks like.

[Keep Reading, there might be violence after the jump]
I said something about Obama and then added, "Just don't go with Hillary". And the woman said, "Oh, we already said we were going to go with Obama." What the hell? One of the lawyers had already been there.

Over to the Undecideds.

The Edwards guy was working over two of them pretty hard. I listened to him for a minute, waiting my turn. My turn didn't come. I walked around him to a friend who leads the high school youth group at church. I asked who she was leaning toward. She wasn't sure. Then there was a bunch of applause. The Biden people had joined the Obama group. I explained that I thought that Obama can actually take us forward as country, that Hillary's campaign is going to take us back to the wars of the 90's. Obama is about the future; Hillary is about the past. Yadda, yadda, yadda. I thought, Dang, I wish I had some baseball cards like the Richardson kid.

The chair announced that time was up. Time to choose. I went back to sit by Mrs. Wallace, who was chatting happily with the nearby women. She's a trooper. Did I mention that she was diagnosed with shingles yesterday? She might have appreciated a regular primary, where she could just vote and go back to bed. But she wasn't going to miss this. It's fun.

I lead a cheer for my friend from church. We chanted her name. She sheepishly sat down with us. "Yeah!!" I leaned over to the Biden guy and offered his candidate the Secretary of State position. Should I have cleared that first?

Then the chair took over again. Man, she was joykill. She didn't smile the whole time. And I haven't told you about the times she had us re-count ourselves. Well, it was time to count again. She was annoyed that the Obama people hadn't counted yet. We had 29 (we added the three Biden people, the three Richardson supporters, and two of the four undecideds). Clinton still had 13. Edwards added the two people that mister-no-take-turns hounded into membership.

The chair then took us through the math equations to determine how to distribute the delegates. Our ten delegates divided out like this: Obama 5, Edwards 3, Hillary 2. Basically, we got a delegate for every six people. Rounding helped us and hurt Edwards and Clinton. We were the only ones to pick up delegates in the second round. (By the way, if we had ten delegates for 60 people, it seems reasonable that 6 should be enough to be viable.)

Then each group was directed to chose their delegates. Mrs. Wallace nominated me. Damn, she really wanted to get this thing over with. A couple of us guys had to work to coax a couple women to go to the county convention. We are so enlightened.

The chair then announced that she was going to call in the results. She was going to find a quiet place and invited people to follow her and listen in if they wanted. Somehow it quickly transpired that she would stay there and we would all be quiet and listen. I'm pretty sure that this is as transparent as the process can possibly get. No hanging chads, no Diebold, no rigged machines.

I slipped out to go see what the results were in the rest of the wards. Most striking about every ward was the turn out. There was a huge group meeting in the gym. I could see a farmer leading it, so obviously it was a rural ward. A friend confirmed, telling me that there had been someone at the door saying, "If you have a long driveway, your meeting is in here."

As a bonus, here's my report from the last primary I voted in:
I went in. I teased the old ladies at the sign in table. I voted.

Caucuses have their problems, but they aren't boring.

There's more: "First Person Account--The Caucus" >>

First Person Accounts--Who is going to Win Iowa?

Enough with caveats, qualifiers, and 'if/then' hedges. Here is my Iowan's prediction for the winner in the Democratic Iowa Caucus tomorrow: Barack Obama.

Five Reasons I believe that Obama will claim a surprisingly strong win in Iowa:

1. Wishful Thinking
I like all the top six democratic candidates, but I really dig Obama. This affection skews my judgement and makes me prone to rosy predictions. I've been whistling a lot. I truly believe that Obama appeals to a better part of our nature, a belief that we can solve problems on the national level the same way we typically do in our communities, businesses, and families: by coming together and focusing on solutions. Because he has run a mostly positive campaign, it will make it easy for his supporters to coax others into the Obama group--his supporters are psyched up and he has largely avoided offending the other camps.

2. Hillary Fatigue
I've actually warmed up to Hillary during the campaign. No, that's not quite it: I've come to an acceptance that she might win the nomination and be a decent enough candidate to win. But I still have my original disdain for the idea that a country with 300 million people must turn to the same two families to lead the nation for four straight presidencies. Granted, it's worked out really well with George W., but what are the chances it will again?

A Clinton restoration, even in the most positive light, will be more about the past than about the future. I'm more than sure that I'm not the only one that wants to avoid eight more years of heightened Boomer Angst and the Clinton Derangement Syndrome that Hillary conjures among the insane and the not-usually-insane alike.

Although the polls haven't entirely borne me out on this, I think that there is a majority, "Anti-Hillary" vote out there. I just don't think that she is going to do well on second choice votes.

Also, she has only recently reached out to smaller communities. Until her HillaCopter tour in December, she was over-relying on media and larger town appearances. Hillary is the only major candidate to have skipped my town of 5,000. She has barely touched Western Iowa. If her support is too concentrated in the larger communities, she is sunk. Like the congress and the electoral college, the allotment of delegates is skewed in favor of the rural areas. There may be many small communities in which she isn't even viable.

[After the jump: John and Jackie Norris, Dennis Kucinich, and more]

3. John and Jackie Norris
Jackie Norris is Obama's Iowa political director. She used to teach Political Science in my former community. I know her, but not well enough to just call her up. She was with Al Gore's campaign in 2000. She is married to John Norris a fraternity brother of mine who graduated just before I started my freshman year. In '82 he paid us in beer to put together "Harkin for Congress" signs. John lost a bid for congress in '02, then directed John Kerry's Iowa caucus campaign in '04. He was the one who convinced Kerry to pull workers out of other states to focus on Iowa. John also orchestrated Tom Vilsack's stunningly surprising win for Governor in '98. Now with pre-schoolers at home and comfortably ensconced in a well-paying job as chairman of the Iowa Utilities Board, he is only a 'consultant' to the Obama campaign. But you're getting where I'm going with this.

Before this campaign even started I said in an email to well-known liberal blogger, "Whoever gets John Norris is going to win." Obama has never dominated this campaign. But Norris has a history of engineering surprise victories. I don't know how much influence he and Jackie have in campaign decisions, but if there is going to be a surprise in this caucus race, I'm positive that it will come from Obama.

4. Dennis Kucinch
In 2004 Kucinch directed his supporters to move to the Edwards' camp if they were not viable in their own caucus. Edwards seemed to come out of nowhere to claim second place. This year, Kucinch has done the same for Obama's campaign. There was scuttlebutt yesterday that Biden and Richardson may do the same (though I doubt Richardson will. [update: looks like I could be wrong about Richardson]).

5. Momentum
Even though some polls have suggested a slight surge for Clinton and Edwards, neither has shown the kind of sustained upswing that Obama has over the last month. The Des Moines Register's Iowa Poll released this week which showed Obama with a big lead has caught a lot of criticism for including a large number of Independents and Republicans in their poll results. Gordon Fischer, former Iowa Democratic party chair, defends the distinguished poll and it's director saying, "But no pollster, absolutely no pollster, knows Iowa, the Iowa Caucus, and Iowa Caucus goers better than Ann Selzer. She is simply the best pollster from/for Iowa. Period. There is (or at least should be) wide agreement on this." That said, the Iowa Poll screwed up on the last caucus--if I remember right, they caught the beginning of the movement toward Kerry and Edwards, but the order of the candidates hadn't changed much when their last poll came out.

But back to the wishes and gut feelings in which I excel. I saw people show up at Obama's local events who have no business at a Democratic function. Along with youth, Independents and wayward Republicans are the key wild cards in this election. It's unknown how they are going to turn out, but it is well-known whom they support. Obama has an appeal to these groups that Hillary--with her history--will never have. Edwards, with his relentless, though gratifying, attacks, er critiques, of big business has no traction with traditional republicans. Both Hillary and Edwards are strong with older party regulars who are likely to show up. But Obama has the only shot at a surprise turnout of new voters. Also, there is a history in open statewide elections of Iowans going for the younger, fresher face.

So I'm pretty confident that it is going to turn out well for Obama.

It can happen.

Just purse your lips and whistle that's the thing.

There's more: "First Person Accounts--Who is going to Win Iowa?" >>

First Person Account--of Barrack Obama

I have only seen 4 of the Democratic candidates this cycle. (Actually, I've seen them all, but more on that tommorrow.) On Sunday I reported on Joe Biden. On Monday I wrote about Bill Richardson. Late last night I posted my impressions of John Edwards. Today I'll focus on Barrack Obama who is shown in the picture to the right giving a high-five to a pumped-up and forward-leaning Henry Q.

One day last spring, I watched several of Obama's early campaign speaches on the internet. After viewing them, I called my wife and said, "This man is going to win the nomination and the win in a rout in the fall." So the first time I saw him speak in person was in a community college gymnasium late last spring. The place was packed. The atmosphere was electric. He got up and spoke. I thought he was just OK. He was low-key most of the time. He stumbled here and there. For commas he used "ummm". It was similar to the performances we've seen from him in the debates.

But he still held that crowd. About 1,400 on metal chairs and hard plastic bleachers were eager to fall in love. I thought, If only he could have been a charisma donor to Gore and Kerry." I think this translates on television. Mainly it's his voice. But it is also his intelligence and his naturalness. In July we took the family to see Obama at a county park outside Des Moines.

I wrote an account of it at the time.

Obama's tone was much more conversational and relaxed [than Edwards]. He moved from issue to issue, laying out his positions and insights. He didn't come across as polished as Edwards. He didn’t punch his lines and give us cues when to applaud. He also didn’t base it around a theme—like fairness—that can build momentum and help the listeners to mentally organize what they are hearing. I’m not sure whether it was just a subdued crowd—out in the shade on a warm summer day by one of the bridges of Madison County—or whether his speech was just more low-key. Where Edwards was constantly on the attack against Bush, Republicans, and big business, Obama was much more circumspect, mentioning “the last six years” and “those in power”. I guess that is the ‘positive’ campaign that he has been running. Overall, he came across as thoughtful, warm, and relaxed.

He came to our small town in November. It went surprisingly well. Three hundred people showed up. We didn't think there were that many Democrats in the county. He was much more polished this time. He was still using parts of his Jefferson-Jackson Day speech. He handled questions especially well. It was a festival atmosphere that I haven't seen with any other candidate not named Clinton. I saw a couple of men in suits flanking the stage as he spoke. They never moved anything but their heads. I said to my wife, "Those are the worst sign language interpreters ever." She said something about the secret service and then mumbled something more about her life-long burden.

[more great stuff after the jump]

Obama came to town again two weeks ago. There was a mostly new group of 300 people there to see him. It was a similar stump speech as the one in November, hitting a number of issues, but employing broad generalities. This is probably my biggest frustration with Obama. While I know that specifics change quickly once they're exposed to the noxious environment of the legislative process. While I understand that the greatest challenge a president will face is typically unknown at the time of his or her election. While I realize that specifics are where many politians get tripped up. And while I believe that few people base their choice of a candidate on the nuts and bolts of his or her position, I want to hear the candidate talk about the specifics occasionally--if only to reassure me that he or she knows them and understands them. I want to see how their logic works and what assumptions they use. Obama has already stumbled in this area when he employed the Republican assumption that Social Security is in crisis. And I'm not as impressed with his health plan as I am with Edwards' or even Bidens'.

My other concern with Obama is that he is not as strong in foreign policy. No, strike that. It's that he just doesn't come off as strong in general. Hillary just seems tougher, somehow. Now, I've been in the 'anyone but Hillary' camp the entire campaign, but if the Republicans nominate Guiliani (which they won't) or McCain (which I fear they will) AND if there is a significant national security threat (or a successful pretend one, courtesy of the Vice President's office), the Democrats would be in a much better position with Clinton as the nominee.

However, I've just got this gut feeling that Obama could be a great president. He would likely be a conventional centrist in most areas. But, as they say about the next basketball recruit, this kid has a great upside. He has the skills and the intellect and the work ethic (sorry, still going with the basketball metaphor). And the height.

I'm in substantial agreement with the article "Goodbye to All That" by Andrew Sullivan in The Atlantic last month. I won't summarize the article. In fact I don't think I read the whole thing, because I was hooked as soon as I gathered the thesis, that Obama is uniquely qualified to bridge many of the divisions to which America has become addicted. Obama and I and our peers are Baby Boomers by the rules of demographics. But we don't remember Kennedy being shot (in my defense, I was still in utero), were never subject to the draft, were children when the Roe decision was announced, and when Watergate was being unravelled. We have been watching the fights and flights of older Baby Boomers our whole lives. And frankly, we are tired of every election still being about Vietnam. And I have no interest in the next election being all about the 90's. Obviously, not everyone from our age group could change this. But I know that someone from the first wave of Boomers will never be allowed to.

Besides, if you read the link to my earlier article on Obama you'll find that he told me "You have a beautiful family". I'm a sucker that stuff.

There's more: "First Person Account--of Barrack Obama" >>

The Yard Sign War

I'm not usually one to put much stock in observing the yard sign battles. But on the way to the baby sitter with the kids this morning I saw three new John Edwards signs. Not a big deal? They were in the yards of the chair and secretary of the county party and one other prominent Democrat. Edwards had a solid organization. With this group working the caucus, he is likely to be viable.

Which reminds me of something else. We keep reading about how a candidate needs 15% to be viable in a given precinct; but he or she may need much more. Four years ago, Howard Dean had 20 supporters in our caucus. But we had a surprise turnout of 100 people and only four delegates to choose. So he needed to have 25% in order to be viable. They could have joined with the 7 or 8 Gephart supporters to choose an undecided delegate but instead almost everyone filtered into the Kerry and Edwards groups.

By the way, Hillary has had a hand full of signs in town for several weeks. Then a few Obama signs showed up before his second visit a couple of weeks ago.

There's more: "The Yard Sign War" >>

First Person Accounts--of John Edwards

This is my third post in a series on the Democratic Candidates I have seen speak in person. The first article was on Biden and the second was on Richardson.

Going back to 2004, I've seen John Edwards speak in person four times. In this cycle, I saw him with about 200 other excited people in a college cafeteria in Council Bluffs last summer. Then, in October I went out in the country near our small town of Wallaceville to attend his event set up in a barn. On the way out, I came across two cars of journalists that were stuck in the mud on a low-maintenance road that Tom-Tom had hilariously directed them to take. The fact that it was muddy and marked "B Maintenance" hadn't stopped them. I rolled down the window and asked if they were taking a short cut. I then asked if they needed help. The one woman among them said "no thanks" a farmer with a tractor was already on his way.

I arrived late to the rally and Edwards was being introduced. The crowd of about 40 people were sitting on hay bales. Edwards was standing in front of a wall adorned with all types of farm implements. A small Massey-Ferguson tractor was parked over in the far corner. And about 25 members of the press and their cameras were in the back. A few of their number were missing.

Edwards was magnificent. He is clearly the best speaker of all the candidates. And he serves up heapin' helpings of all the red meat issues that feed the liberal appetite. When I saw him back in July, this surprised me. Now, his new fighting attitude is familiar to anyone around the country who has been paying attention. He jabs his finger at the air like he is poking the big guys in the chest and says, "The system is rigged." and "They are corrupt." and "The oil companies and the big insurance companies aren't just going to give us what we want, we're going to have to fight them for it, and I've been fighting them all my life." You know how it goes.

(find out what happened to the muddy reporters on the flip-side)

This was were I first heard an Edwards phrase I have stolen for my own use on various occasions since. While summarizing the problems of the No Child Left Behind battery of tests, he said "You don't make a hog fatter by weighing it." I know it's not an air tight argument, but it's goooood.

Every time I have heard Edwards speak, I've thought, I agree with him on almost every issue. I like his strength and fight. I think that most Democrats would agree. But this nomination doesn't seem to turn on the issues. For most people's taste, the leading candidates are close enough on the issues that it comes down to electability, likability, experience, competence, or some particular constellation of qualities that are most important to you.

I think that this is why Edwards' support has not dropped in Iowa below the 22-25% that he has polled throughout the fall and winter. His people are solid. He has a good organization. And he has worked the rural areas thoroughly, ready to take advantage of the higher proportion of delegates given to smaller precincts.

But there are some things about Edwards that I find disconcerting. His hard-edged populist message is unlikely to play well with people outside the democratic party. He has handicapped himself for the general election by taking matching funds. And for us here in Iowa who have seen him over and on commercials (I swear to you there is one playing on the TV behind me right as I type this sentence), he is relying on the same rhetorical emphases over and over. I'm tired of his passionate voice. And he seems to be suffering from some type of stroke that narrows his right eye and turns his mouth to one side. Then there's the shaking the head with the eyes closed briefly, a gesture denoting sincerity.

People often refer to him as 'slick', not really knowing just what it is about him that they don't like. They say he's too perfect. Is that really a problem? Or do people dislike him for other reasons and pick on him for his best qualities. He is so good that he seems like an actor playing politician. In fact, he looks more like and actor than he does a self-made populist. But the thing about actors is that their lines are written down and memorized (pretty much like a politician on the hustings). Poor actors recite lines in a flat, emotionless tone--that's Hillary Clinton. The average ones are smooth and passionate, but you have no real sense that they are responding to the moment. The emotion seems conjured up, somehow. This is how Edwards can sound. The very best actors typically pause and stumble here and there. You have a sense that they are reaching for the right word and thinking through that moment right then. You experience it along with them. Marlon Brando refused to completely memorize his lines so that he would have just that effect. Barack Obama isn't quite in that league; but I think he is more effective at it than Edwards.

Halfway through Edwards' presentation in the barn, the muddy journalist stumbled in. They were young and confident and well-dressed. I tried to make eye contact as they went by. Nothing. Afterward, I tried again. They where right to avoid me because I was absolutely going to tease them. Instead I began formulating theories in my head about arrogant easterners and out-of-touch journalists.

My prediction is that Edwards will do well in Iowa. He is going to be viable in many rural areas where one of the other front runners aren't. His people will show up. But I don't think that he has any good surprises coming. People know him already. In 2004 he had freshness on his side. Now, we're a little tired of him. He's going to do well enough to stick around for a while. And he's going to stick around because he doesn't really have any job to get back to.

(Final note: Edwards' commercial has run two more times while I finished typing and proof-reading.)

There's more: "First Person Accounts--of John Edwards" >>

First Person Accounts--of Bill Richardson

Yesterday, I said that I was surprisingly impressed by Joe Biden during his local campaign stop here in small-town western Iowa. Today I reflect how Bill Richardson's visit convinced me that he was not the man for the job.

I couldn't miss the Richardson visit. A friend of mine from church called earlier in the day to invite me. She knows Richardson because she opened a branch of her successful business in New Mexico a few years ago. Richardson himself apparently wooed her to New Mexico and helped her avail herself of multiple tax breaks for new businesses. She has had at least one fundraiser for him at her palatial home in the Loess Hills. (I wasn't invited. We're not that close. Oh, and I'm poor.)

So on September 3rd she hosted a campaign event for him in town in the parking lot of her business. She had it catered. Half-pound burgers sizzled on the grill. She arranged for a horse and saddle for him to ride in on. But the crowd was thin, maybe 25 people--counting my two young children.

Richardson has a low-key, regular guy style. But I wouldn't quite call it a comfortable style. He seems like he's winging it. All the pauses and stumbling made me feel uncomfortable--for him. While he spoke, my 5 year old son and 9 year old daughter played football in the parking lot around the corner. My friend kept checking around the other corner to see if anyone else was coming.

Richardson recounted the items on his resume. He spoke about the progress they have made in New Mexico--including the tax cuts for businesses that attracted my friend. He told the old story about meeting with Saddam Hussein--the one where he crossed his legs and offended Hussein but refused to apologize. He talked about the huge budget deficit, saying that it's not right that the Bush tax cuts are going to have to be paid off by, "this young boy right here." He was pointing at my daughter, who had wandered back from the parking lot. She doesn't look like a boy. But in Richardson's defence, this night she was dressed in athletic shorts and was holding a football.

[more on the flip side]



I asked Richardson about health care. I said that I thought that our current system penalizes businesses and discourages new start-ups. His answer on health care was to offer more tax breaks. I was stunned. I couldn't tell the difference between his answer and any Republican's.

But none of these short-comings and fax pas were the primary reasons I walked away unimpressed. It was his demeanor. Typically I have often thought that I would like a candidate who seems like a 'real guy' and speaks 'off-the-cuff'. Looking 'Presidential' is a concern for the Republican primaries. But I have to tell you, it was like I was watching Horatio Sanz stumble though a skit on SNL. And I mean at the end of a show where they don't really give a crap anymore. (Just did some checking. Sanz has already played Richardson. Guess I'm not the first to see the resemblance.) Out of fairness, I should point out that Richardson was not having a good day. He was clearly tired. Earlier in the same day he made the well-remembered comment that Iowa has both divine and constitutional reasons to be the first caucus.

All that said. I'm not strongly against Richardson. I just don't think he made the case for his presidency. My 71 year old dad likes Richardson. I've heard a number of older people (sorry Blue Girl) say they like his experience and/or his style. As I will argue later in the week, I am not impressed by someone who wants to be president as a way to complete their resume. And, if the resume is to be his argument, I would like to have seen more substantial accomplishments. He would be a good choice for Vice President for Clinton; but I don't think that he would add the kind of gravitas that Obama would need for his ticket. Unlike Biden or Dodd, he is from a swing state, and could make a difference in the Southwest.

Tomorrow (or Wednesday): John Edwards--and some thoughts on why he seems to be surging in Iowa.

There's more: "First Person Accounts--of Bill Richardson" >>

First Person Accounts--of Joseph Biden Jr.

I've been trapped this week with relatives and without a working laptop. (Come to think of it, most of my relatives don't work either.) In any case, I haven't delivered yet on my vow last week to write up my impressions after seeing the democratic candidates up close here in Iowa.

I'll start with the democratic candidate who surprised me the most, Joe Biden. I saw him the day after Iowa's Jefferson-Jackson Day dinner. He spoke to a crowd of about 30 people at the County Historical Society. He was INTENSE. He swooped in and made an apology about being late, adding that he had to attend Mass earlier in the day because his 89 year old mother would chide him later if he didn't. We laughed. He held up his hand and said, "Don't laugh. I'm not joking. She will take me to task." This was a gesture and comment he made several times during his subsequent monologue. He would take a swipe at George Bush, the audience would laugh, he would raise his palm up and say, "I'm serious. This is serious business." I think mother Biden passed on her chiding ways to her oldest son.

Biden is taller than I realized. He was well-dressed (many candidates wear work shirts or a coat without a tie). And he was better-looking and more charismatic than I had ever noticed over the small screen. Don't laugh. I'm serious. This guy took control of that room. He didn't pump us up with a campaign speech as much as he throttled us with a lecture.

Biden has long had a reputation as a long-winded speaker. Pundits and Washington elites probably say that because...

[Click "There's More" for the big secret]



Joe Biden is a long-winded speaker. Man, this guy can talk! He talked about his respect for his fellow candidates. He talked about his visits to Iowa in 1974 to help his friend John Culver (father of the current Governor) with his successful bid for the U.S. Senate. He talked about his own first Senate campaign and his opposition to the Vietnam war. He talked about his long experience in the Senate. He talked about the central importance of Pakistan in world affairs and about his friendships with Musharraf and Bhutto. Someone I saw later in the week mentioned his speaking style, "I thought I was hearing a lecture from a university professor." He exuded both gravitas and entitlement. While he spoke positively about the other democrats in the race (perhaps angling for that VP nomination), he also seemed to be just down-right pissed that he's not in the top-tier.

After a half-hour he started taking questions. I asked about his health care plan. He answered in the role of an experienced pragmatist. He asked for a show of hands from anyone who thinks that we are going to get universal health care with one vote. We didn't dare raise our hands. He then laid out a strategy of incremental changes--starting with initiatives that have the strongest support. Expand S-CHIP and Medicare. Establish catastrophic medical insurance, which would lower insurance costs for everyone. Allow individuals and employers to buy into the Federal medical insurance plan. And he had a couple other steps that he thought could find enough support to get through congress. I'm a supporter of the efficiencies of a single-payer plan, but, frankly I found his plan to be a reasonable step--or series of steps--in the right direction.

Recognizing the quirks of Iowa's caucus system, Biden asked for our vote and said, "If I'm not your first choice, please make me your second choice." However, it seems unlikely that he is going to get more second choice votes than he would first choice votes. He's unlikely to be viable in more than a few precincts. But he does have his supporters. I often hear voters--typically older ones--complain that he is not a more viable candidate.

Rather than a second choice, he is more likely to be a choice for number two. It is certainly possible that the winning candidate would choose Biden for the Vice Presidential nomination. Don't laugh. I'm serious. If Obama were the candidate and was looking for an experienced cohort and some white male street cred, it's possible. Plus, he has the ability to deliver Delaware's 3 delegates.

There's more: "First Person Accounts--of Joseph Biden Jr." >>

Yeah for Me! Iowa Impressions of the Candidates On the Way

I was trying to find another old post on the site and came across this post that I made after the Iowa Republican Straw Poll in August. I think my predictions have held up pretty well.

[By dumping big money into the state early, Romney] forced Giuliani and McCain to abandon the Straw Poll; he may well force them to abandon Iowa altogether, or simply put in token effort. If the other leaders--Fred Thompson, Giuliani, and McCain--effectively pull out of Iowa, conceding the state to Romney, they will also allow a space for Huckabee to finish prominently in the first caucus. If he were to finish a robust fifth place it would be no big deal. A second place finish could give him a big boost. But I think he has a shot at first, or a least a close second. He is an attractive candidate who typically appears thoughtful and comfortable in his skin. Romney comes across wooden and programmed. Maybe Iowa GOP voters will have a surprise in them come January.

Apparently the heavy lifting involved in making such prescient and weighty predictions left me so exhausted that I have only blogged once since August. So during the Christmas break (Yes, Mr. O'Reilly, I said Christmas), I will post a series on the Democratic Candidates, focusing on the ones I have heard in small-venue events. (I had to leave the Jefferson-Jackson Day dinner early for a late-night meeting between my car and an eight-point buck. I made it just in time.) I will offer an Iowa perspective on their campaigns, their advertising, and the impact they seem to be having in the state.

Teaser: Bill Richardson thinks my daughter is a boy.

[That's All Folks]

There's more: "Yeah for Me! Iowa Impressions of the Candidates On the Way" >>

Is Hillary Planning to Attack Obama on Abortion and Edwards on the War?

I just received another call from a pollster. This was perhaps our sixth or seventh poll, the majority obviously from campaigns. Such is the burden of living in Iowa.

This afternoon's poll sounded like a push poll, but I suspect it was Hillary's campaign testing new lines of attack on Obama and Edwards. The questioner started by asking me whom I support and how strong my support is. I said the name of someone other than Hillary and said, when asked, that I was fairly certain. (Actually, I'm more than fairly certain that it will never be Hillary--at least in the primary season.)

He began with a question that made me think he was calling for the Edwards campaign.(Which is still possible.) It was a longer version of this question: "Do you agree that the government in this country has been rigged in favor of the wealthy and against the middle and the working classes?"

Then the pollster said something to the effect of, "If you knew that Senator Obama, when he was in the Illinois State Senate, failed to vote against several anti-abortion measures introduced by conservative Republicans, that instead he voted "Present", which is often a way politicians avoid casting controversial votes, would you be very concerned, somewhat concerned, not very concerned, or not concerned at all?"

Then he asked something like, "If you heard that John Edwards is a liberal trial lawyer who advocates a withdrawal of troops from Iraq within his first year of office, a timeline experts say is irresponsible, would this make you very concerned, somewhat concerned, not very concerned, or not concerned at all?"

After answering a couple other demographical questions, I asked him who he was calling for. He said the name of the private company, a name that didn't mean anything to me. (Did it have 'Richmond' in the name?)

So what do you think? What was the purpose of this poll? And who do you think was behind it? I guess we'll know for sure as soon as we hear someone going after Obama as a gutless pawn of the anti-abortion crowd.

[That's All]

There's more: "Is Hillary Planning to Attack Obama on Abortion and Edwards on the War?" >>