Tomorrow night, the strange spectacle of the Democratic Presidential caucuses will unfold across the frozen steppes of Iowa, an evening when Democrats around the nation yield their party membership to a single state, and not just to that state but to the activists willing to visit schools and church halls and gymnasiums in sub-freezing weather and argue with their neighbors.
Almost no one is predicting that my candidate, Senator Hillary Clinton, will win the caucuses and their mythical slingshot effect heading into the more democratic (lowercase) New Hampshire, where residents honor their pledge to live free or die by maintaining the secret ballot. The punditocracy favors Barack Obama. Maybe they're right, and I certainly can't make much from the polls and their averages. But something tells me not to trust the Chris Matthews choir - that high-pitched chorus insisting that Obama "changes American politics" forever.
And Jane Hamsher's post today from Iowa gave me pause from the choking media backdraft of the imagined Obama juggernaut; Jane sees the Clinton crowd as more serious, more experienced and she believes that matters in the caucuses:
...all things being equal, I'd have to say that if it were strictly a matter of Clinton supporters in a room with Obama supporters, the gravitas of the Clinton supporters would probably carry the day.
Clinton's also running a very effective radio ad right now of an older woman saying "I was born before women had the right to vote, and before I die I want to see a woman in the White House." It's very emotional and a direct plea to the kinds of people who are going to show up and carry a lot of weight in an open, community decision making process.
Candidates need people who can show up and argue persuasively for them in a community situation. If the person who grants you your bank loan, who sits on the city council, who employs your kid at the local hardware store is saying one thing and a bunch of impassioned teenagers are arguing another, after eyeballing their respective crowds I'd have to give the advantage to Clinton.
"Why Iowa?" my 15-year-old daughter just asked me with that quizzical look she shoots my way when I say something dumb. I had no answer exception tradition. The polls tell the story of a three-way tie, and something tells me that kind of result - within a few points from first to third - will render Iowa fairly useless as the barometer of big momentum. Clinton has made a big move in New Hampshire polls over the last week almost uncommented on by the kind of professionals who inhabit Hardball.
In truth, Iowa won't "change everything" even if Obama wins. For one, Hillary Clinton won't concede this race until an opponent goes over the delegate count needed for nomination - and quite possibly not then if she thinks she can turn a few votes. She's going nowhere, and unlike Rudy Giuliani - whose big-state gambit is failing - Senator Clinton still maintains her huge lead in all the national polls. She'll fight to the last man, as Markos Moulitsas noted today in a post that shocked the so-called "netroots" for its almost-endorsement of Clinton less that a week after the DailyKos macher moved publicly away from Obama.
Winning is important. The last thing we can afford as a country is another 4-8 years of continued Republican rule. If nothing else, Justice Stevens is not long on the bench, and losing his vote in the Supreme Court would inflict the nation with a solid conservative majority for generations. So who is doing everything possible to win?
Hillary Clinton, by far. She's not limiting her campaign's ability to raise money (nor her supporters' to give it) by accepting public financing. Obama has opted out for the primary, but has said he'd accept it for the general if the Republican did so as well. Why give Republicans veto power over what the Democrats do? Given our better ability to raise money this cycle, why would Obama willingly surrender that advantage to the Republicans? That's not playing to win. Edwards is the opposite, saying he could opt out of public financing for the general, but already opted in for the primary. That means that unless he's opposite a similarly limited Republican (i.e. McCain), he'll be at a gross disadvantage all summer as he has less than $20 million left to spend until September.
What's more, Clinton was the only top-tier candidate to refuse the ultimate Iowa and New Hampshire pander by removing her name from the Michigan ballot. That makes her essentially the de facto winner since Edwards and Obama, caving to the cry babies in Iowa and New Hampshire, took their name off Michigan's ballot. Sure, the DNC has stripped Michigan of its delegates, but that won't last through the convention. The last thing Democrats can afford is to alienate swing states like Michigan and Florida by refusing to seat their delegates.
So while Obama and Edwards kneecap their chances of winning, Clinton is single-mindedly focused on the goal.
Who is tested against the Right Wing smear machine?Clinton, by far. No one has taken more shit from the VRWC, not by a long shot. Edwards earned valuable campaign experience in 2004. It makes me wonder why he'd go through it all again a second time, but still, it's something. Obama has never had a competitive race against a Republican. His best experiences comes from winning primaries. But he's never been in the crossfires of the GOP. Maybe that's why he can pretend that he can move beyond partisanship. Because he's never had to run a partisan race.
So tomorrow night, Iowa and its small sample Democratic caucuses kick things off - certainly not the beginning of the end, but the end of the very beginning. The long process finally begins.
