Daniel Hannaher's Blog

Winning By The Rules

Dan Hannaher — Fri, 30 May 2008 09:00:21 EDT

These are the kind of stories I love to read, taking an inside snapshot of the effectiveness of the Obama campaign, punctuated by the great skills of the candidate. Read:

Obama campaign used party rules to foil Clinton

By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER

WASHINGTON (AP) - Unlike Hillary Rodham Clinton, rival Barack Obama planned for the long haul. Clinton hinged her whole campaign on an early knockout blow on Super Tuesday, while Obama's staff researched congressional districts in states with primaries that were months away. What they found were opportunities to win delegates, even in states they would eventually lose.

Obama's campaign mastered some of the most arcane rules in politics, and then used them to foil a front-runner who seemed to have every advantage - money, fame and a husband who had essentially run the Democratic Party for eight years as president.

"Without a doubt, their understanding of the nominating process was one of the keys to their success," said Tad Devine, a Democratic strategist not aligned with either candidate. "They understood the nuances of it and approached it at a strategic level that the Clinton campaign did not."

Careful planning is one reason why Obama is emerging as the nominee as the Democratic Party prepares for its final three primaries, Puerto Rico on Sunday and Montana and South Dakota on Tuesday. Attributing his success only to soaring speeches and prodigious fundraising ignores a critical part of contest.

Obama used the Democrats' system of awarding delegates to limit his losses in states won by Clinton while maximizing gains in states he carried. Clinton, meanwhile, conserved her resources by essentially conceding states that favored Obama, including many states that held caucuses instead of primaries.

In a stark example, Obama's victory in Kansas wiped out the gains made by Clinton for winning New Jersey, even though New Jersey had three times as many delegates at stake. Obama did it by winning big in Kansas while keeping the vote relatively close in New Jersey.

The research effort was headed by Jeffrey Berman, Obama's press-shy national director of delegate operations. Berman, who also tracked delegates in former Rep. Dick Gephardt's presidential bids, spent the better part of 2007 analyzing delegate opportunities for Obama.

Obama won a majority of the 23 Super Tuesday contests on Feb. 5 and then spent the following two weeks racking up 11 straight victories, building an insurmountable lead among delegates won in primaries and caucuses.

What made it especially hard for Clinton to catch up was that Obama understood and took advantage of a nominating system that emerged from the 1970s and '80s, when the party struggled to find a balance between party insiders and its rank-and-file voters.

Until the 1970s, the nominating process was controlled by party leaders, with ordinary citizens having little say. There were primaries and caucuses, but the delegates were often chosen behind closed doors, sometimes a full year before the national convention. That culminated in a 1968 national convention that didn't reflect the diversity of the party - racially or ideologically.

The fiasco of the 1968 convention in Chicago, where police battled anti-war protesters in the streets, led to calls for a more inclusive process.

One big change was awarding delegates proportionally, meaning you can finish second or third in a primary and still win delegates to the party's national convention. As long candidates get at least 15 percent of the vote, they are eligible for delegates.

The system enables strong second-place candidates to stay competitive and extend the race - as long as they don't run out of campaign money.

"For people who want a campaign to end quickly, proportional allocation is a bad system," Devine said. "For people who want a system that is fair and reflective of the voters, it's a much better system."

Another big change was the introduction of superdelegates, the party and elected officials who automatically attend the convention and can vote for whomever they choose regardless of what happens in the primaries and caucuses.

Much has been made of the superdelegates this year because neither Obama nor Clinton can reach the number of delegates needed to secure the nomination without their support.

A more subtle change was the distribution of delegates within each state. As part of the proportional system, Democrats award delegates based on statewide vote totals as well as results in individual congressional districts. The delegates, however, are not distributed evenly within a state, like they are in the Republican system.

Under Democratic rules, congressional districts with a history of strong support for Democratic candidates are rewarded with more delegates than districts that are more Republican. Some districts packed with Democratic voters can have as many as eight or nine delegates up for grabs, while more Republican districts in the same state have three or four.

The system is designed to benefit candidates who do well among loyal Democratic constituencies, and none is more loyal than black voters. Obama, who would be the first black candidate nominated by a major political party, has been winning 80 percent to 90 percent of the black vote in most primaries, according to exit polls.

"Black districts always have a large number of delegates because they are the highest performers for the Democratic Party," said Elaine Kamarck, a Harvard University professor who is writing a book about the Democratic nominating process.

"Once you had a black candidate you knew that he would be winning large numbers of delegates because of this phenomenon," said Kamarck, who is also a superdelegate supporting Clinton.

In states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, Clinton won the statewide vote but Obama won enough delegates to limit her gains. In states Obama carried, like Georgia and Virginia, he maximized the number of delegates he won.

"The Obama campaign was very good at targeting districts in areas where they could do well," said former DNC Chairman Don Fowler, a Clinton superdelegate from South Carolina. "They were very conscious and aware of these nuances."

But, Fowler noted, the best strategy in the world would have been useless without the right candidate.

"If that same strategy and that same effort had been used with a different candidate, a less charismatic candidate, a less attractive candidate, it wouldn't have worked," Fowler said. "The reason they look so good is because Obama was so good."

Mark Your Calendars For May 10th - Vote For Change

Dan Hannaher — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 11:39:32 EDT

Mark your calendars and prepare to participate in one of the Obama campaign's most vigorous outreach efforts. This May 10th, a Saturday, the campaign will undertake a Vote For Change event across the country, including here in North Dakota. Elsewhere the efforts will be centered around a voter registration drive, but since we don't have registration in North Dakota we will be undertaking an effort to recruit volunteers for the fall campaign for Democrats in North Dakota. Look for details soon.

Rural White Guys Support Obama

Dan Hannaher — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 11:34:37 EDT

In case you missed Robert Creamer's blog post at Huffingtonpost today, he writes about voters oh so similar to many here in North Dakota....and why they support Barack Obama:

Can Obama Appeal to White Rural Men?

Posted April 29, 2008 | 08:22 AM (EST)

In a number of recent primary contests, white rural men have tended to support Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama. And the renewed focus on the views of Obama's Pastor, Rev. Wright, certainly doesn't help. But the notion that Obama "can't appeal" to white rural men sells short both Barack Obama and white men who live in rural America. It also flies in the face of the facts.

There are five important factors that are critical to understanding the role these voters will have in this year's presidential election.

1). Contrary to popular belief, Clinton's advantage with this demographic has been far from universal. Remember that the entire primary season opened with Obama's surprise victory in Iowa -- not exactly Manhattan, unless of course you mean Manhattan, Kansas. (Obama also carried the Kansas caucus by 74% to 25%.)

And let's remember he also swept other states with major white rural populations. Examples include Nebraska (67% to 32%); Maine (59% to 40%); Alaska (75% to 24%); Wyoming (61% to 37%); Wisconsin (58% to 40%) and Minnesota (66% to 32%).

In Wisconsin, exit polls showed Obama carrying white men by 63% to 34% and rural voters 56% to 43%. In Virginia he carried white men 58% to 40% and rural voters 79% to 20%. In Georgia white men preferred Obama 48% to 46%, and rural voters preferred him 60% to 35%.

2). Clinton's own super-high negatives among independent voters -- including those in rural areas -- present her with a more difficult task than Obama in many rural states in the fall. Take Iowa, where the RealClearPolitics.com average of polls shows Obama up on McCain by 9.3% and McCain leading Clinton by 10%.

3). My mother used to say that you know that a romantic relationship has promise if the better you know the other person, the better you like them. The same is true in politics. When Barack Obama first ran for the US Senate from Illinois, many pundits laughed that an African American guy with a name like Obama had no chance at all in downstate Illinois. Wrong.

As people in downstate small cities and rural areas got to know Obama they warmed up fast. In the end Obama won almost 53% of the primary vote statewide against three other very strong candidates. When the original Republican candidate was forced to leave the race because of a sex scandal, Obama was so strong that the state GOP was forced to ship in Alan Keyes from Maryland to be their candidate. Obama crushed him in the general election.

I had dinner recently with the chair of the Scott County (IL) Democratic party. She described Barack's first meeting with her mainly rural, white male precinct committee people. It was safe to say that he didn't have them at "hello." They were pretty skeptical at first. But by the end of the meeting, most were sold on Obama's authenticity -- and on his understanding of people like themselves.

So it's not surprising that in the Illinois primary for president, Obama beat Hillary almost two-to-one in Illinois. Most of Illinois' 103 counties are rural or home to small cities and towns. Obama carried all but 14.

Does Obama play in Peoria? He carried Peoria County with 69.3%.

Obama won Adams County -- home of Quincy, on the Mississippi River -- by 60%.

He carried rural Henry County in northwest Illinois by 62%.

The fifteen counties in the far southern end of the state are physically -- and culturally -- closer to Jackson, Mississippi than to Chicago. People hunt, have guns, are predominantly white, and are committed to their churches. Obama carried far southern Illinois against Clinton.

Exit polls from the Illinois presidential primary show white men went for Obama 59% to 37%. Those men and women who earn less than $50,000/year voted 64% for Obama. People who live in small cities and rural areas supported Obama 53% to 43%.

Well, of course, you say: these people are from his home state. But that's the point. The more that rural voters and white men generally know about Obama, the more they support him.

4). Even where white rural men express their preference for Clinton in a Democratic primary, it doesn't mean they would vote for McCain in the general election if Obama is the nominee. Democratic primary voters almost always vote for the general election candidate of their party, and for good reason. They are Democrats because they understand that McCain's economic and foreign policies don't represent their best interests.

The real question is not primary voters -- it is how independent voters (people who don't vote in primaries) of all sorts would vote in the fall. Obama has shown that he is much more attractive to that all-important category of voter than Hillary Clinton.

5). There is one more fatal flaw in the narrative that Obama can't attract white rural men. You can say what you want to attack a political candidate, but if, in the end, it doesn't ring true, the argument generally won't prevail. Barack Obama is the furthest thing from the "elitist" that the Republicans and the Clinton campaign have tried to portray. In fact, at his core, he's the guy who went to work organizing unemployed steelworkers for a coalition of churches -- not a Washington insider like John McCain whose family is worth $100 million and owns nine homes.

The renewed media attention to the views of Obama's Pastor Rev. Wright may briefly distract attention from the real Obama. Of course the silver lining of Rev. Wright's three day PR tour is that it was conducted with such utter disregard for the interests of Obama's campaign that it serves to emphasize the great gulf between Obama and Wright - both in substance and in style.

And as voters come to know Obama, they realize that he has a huge quantity of the one quality that is just the opposite of elitism: empathy.

In her Pulitzer Prize-winning biography of Abraham Lincoln, A Team of Rivals, Doris Kearns Goodwin contends that Lincoln's ability to empathize -- "the gift or curse of putting himself in the place of another, to experience what they were feeling, to understand their motives and desires" -- was one of the major ingredients in his success as a politician and as a person.

In my own book, Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win, I make the argument that empathy is the key that allows progressives to win -- and is the keystone of progressive values.

Barack Obama is blessed with an enormous abundance of empathy. That empathy is the quality that will enable him not only to reach out to white men, but to bring people of different backgrounds and cultural histories together to create a common American future.

Robert Creamer is a long time political organizer and strategist and author of the recent book, "Stand Up Straight. How Progressives Can Win," available on amazon.com

Lincoln And Seward Revisited

Dan Hannaher — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 14:30:17 EDT

As one who greatly appreciated Doris Kearns Goodwin's "Team of Rivals" I've frequently reflected on President Lincoln and his association with various rivals, particulalry William Seward the Governor of New York when thinking about the Obama campaign. Formidable rivals; Dodd, Biden, Richardson and Clinton all have tested Obama's strengths. None more so than Clinton. I hope that once elected President Obama can depend on his rivals for support and counsel, just as Lincoln did. Comparisons of Senator Clinton with Governor Seward are easy to come by. And the rivalry for the highest office between Lincoln and Seward seems to be recreated in this century with Obama and Clinton possessing so many comparable attributes to the earlier contest. A post in the Huffingtonpost today make similar points. Read:

Is Obama Lincoln to Hillary's Seward?

Posted April 28, 2008 | 11:23 AM (EST)

Political pundits have likened Obama's oratory, its style and content, to that of Abraham Lincoln. Most recently, Gary Wills has compared Barack Obama's speech on race in America, "A More Perfect Union," with Abraham Lincoln's 1860 Cooper Union address. In fact, like most of Lincoln's great speeches, Obama's speech evokes history and broader political principles to address contemporary racial divisions. Its title too, which calls on ordinary American citizens to perfect their Union, is reminiscent of Lincoln's Civil War speeches. Like Lincoln, who was dismissed for being a "Black Republican" for opposing racial slavery, Obama ironically stands accused of playing the race card by Sean Wilentz, the Clintons' historian in residence, because he opposes the divisive politics of race.

More interestingly, the Democratic presidential nomination contest between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton bears some startling similarities to the 1860 Republican presidential race between Abraham Lincoln of Illinois and William Henry Seward of New York. In a series of strange historical coincidences, not only do the leading Democratic contenders for the presidency hail from the same states as their Republican predecessors but their political resumes are analogous too. Like Lincoln, who was a one term Congressman and who opposed the Mexican War of 1846-1848 as a land grab for slavery, Obama is a one term Senator and is known for his early opposition to the Iraq war. Like Lincoln, Obama is known for his soaring oratory and vision of change at a moment of crisis. Like Lincoln, voters view Obama as an unknown quantity but are inspired by him. Physically too, the tall and lanky Obama might well be an African American version of the man whose legacy he explicitly invoked when announcing his candidacy in Springfield, Illinois.

Clinton, on the other hand, looks a lot like Seward did in 1860. If anything, he was even more tested by national politics than she. Seward had been Governor of New York, the man behind the short-lived presidency of Zachary Taylor (1848-1850), and the Senator from New York in the 1850s. He was a leading voice of antislavery in Congress and reviled by southern Democrats on a regular basis. Compared to Lincoln, a small town lawyer, Seward, like Clinton, had been close to the White House, Congressional politics and was the more experienced and allegedly able candidate.

In 1860, however, the Republican nominating convention dumped Seward for the dark horse candidate, Abraham Lincoln. Seward commanded the loyalty of the party faithful but his lieutenants in the convention were completely out maneuvered by Lincoln's supporters from Illinois. The unexpected success of Barack Obama's presidential campaign strongly resembles the ultimate triumph of the Lincoln forces. Lincoln came from behind to defeat the front runner whose candidacy, like Clinton's, had an aura of inevitability about it until the very eve of the Republican convention.

A majority of Republicans in the convention viewed Seward, a veteran of many battles over slavery expansion in Congress, as too polarizing a figure. One of the biggest arguments against Hillary Clinton is precisely that she is too polarizing a figure. Over the years, Seward, like the Clintons, had made many political enemies, some within his own party. Some Republicans voted for Lincoln simply because they would rather not vote for Seward. Most Republicans went for Lincoln in 1860 because they wanted to broaden their party base and appeal to the less antislavery lower north. The solidly antislavery upper north was already in their column. That is same the argument that the Obama campaign is making now. No matter who is the Democratic presidential nominee, the reliably blue states will vote Democratic. But Obama might bring some red states and less partisan voters into the Democratic column. Here is the potential to create a new progressive majority that can shift the terms of political debate and transcend the politics of race. Just as Lincoln's election brought decades of slaveholder dominance of the federal government to an end, Obama can turn the tide on conservative dominance of political discourse in this country. Indeed, the Democratic party today is a counterpart to the mid-nineteenth century liberal Republican party, the party of Lincoln, and the Republican party today is a lot like its historical predecessor, the conservative Democratic party with its political base in the solid south.

During the Civil War, the tried and true Seward recommended negotiations with southern secessionists. It was the political novice, Lincoln, rather than Seward who comprehended the momentous nature of the war and moved toward emancipation, the arming of former slaves, and black citizenship. In the end, Seward and his pro-slavery southern Democratic detractors shared a common political world that Lincoln rejected. While John McCain and Hillary Clinton can vouch for each other's jingoistic patriotism, political experience and military toughness, Obama appeals in Lincoln's words, which Senator Edward Kennedy repeated in his endorsement of him, to the "better angels of our nature." Given the historical record, that might just be the quality that makes a great president.

Elizabeth Drew's Insightful Look At The "Supers."

Dan Hannaher — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 12:18:32 EDT

Writing today in Politico, Elizabeth Drew, one of the great political writers of the last number of decades weighs in on the resiliency of the undecided superdelegates, and their likely support of Senator Obama. It's worth reading:

Dems' suspense may be unnecessary
By: Elizabeth Drew
April 25, 2008 11:35 AM EST

The torrent of speculation about the end game of the Democratic nomination contest is creating a false sense of suspense – and wasting a lot of time of the multitudes who are anxious to know how this contest is going to turn out.

Notwithstanding the plentiful commentary to the effect that the Pennsylvania primary must have shaken superdelegates planning to support Barack Obama, causing them to rethink their position, key Democrats on Capitol Hill are unbudged.

“I don’t think anyone’s shaken,” a leading House Democrat told me. The critical mass of Democratic congressmen that has been prepared to endorse Obama when the timing seemed right remains prepared to do so. Their reasons, ones they have held for months, have not changed – and by their very nature are unlikely to.

Essentially, they are three:

(a) Hillary Rodham Clinton is such a polarizing figure that everyone who ever considered voting Republican in November, and even many who never did, will go to the polls to vote against her, thus jeopardizing Democrats down the ticket – i.e., themselves, or, for party leaders, the sizeable majorities they hope to gain in the House and the Senate in November.

(b) To take the nomination away from Obama when he is leading in the elected delegate count would deeply alienate the black base of the Democratic Party, and, in the words of one leading Democrat, “The superdelegates are not going to switch their votes and jeopardize the future of the Democratic Party for generations.” Such a move, he said, would also disillusion the new, mostly young, voters who have entered into politics for the first time because of Obama, and lose the votes of independents who could make the critical difference in November.

(c) Because the black vote can make the decisive difference in numerous congressional districts, discarding Obama could cost the Democrats numerous seats.

One Democratic leader told me, “If we overrule the elected delegates there would be mayhem.” Hillary Rodham Clinton’s claim that she has, or will have, won the popular vote does not impress them – both because of her dubious math and because, as another key Democrat says firmly, “The rules are that it’s the delegates, period.” (These views are closely aligned with Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s statement earlier this year that the superdelegates should not overrule the votes of the elected delegates.)

Furthermore, the congressional Democratic leaders don’t draw the same conclusion from Pennsylvania and also earlier contests that many observers think they do: that Obama’s candidacy is fatally flawed because he has as yet been largely unable to win the votes of working class whites. They point out something that has been largely overlooked in all the talk – the Ohio and Pennsylvania primaries were closed primaries, and, one key congressional Democrat says, “Yes, he doesn’t do really well with a big part of the Democratic base, but she doesn’t do well with independents, who will be critical to success in November.”

So, the fact that Mrs. Clinton has shown herself to be a remarkably resilient, tough campaigner, an attribute that the Clintons hope will carry much importance, this Democrat says, “is irrelevant.” This person added: “Many of the superdelegates are not going to be naïve enough to not realize the handwriting on the wall that this thing is going to Obama” – barring, he added, some major event like the Wright matter that he can’t seem to manage. They consider this unlikely. (There’s almost always a “something-might-happen” factor in elections.) As for the Wright matter, a key Democrat on Capitol Hill says, “Though it makes [his Democratic colleagues] a little nervous, it’s not enough to change their minds.” Moreover, the Wright matter may be old news come the general election.

At first, a large number of superdelegates planned to announce their support for Obama following Super Tuesday, but he didn’t do well enough to warrant that; then it was to be after Ohio and Texas; then after Pennsylvania; and some Democrats suggest that if Obama wins both Indiana and North Carolina a number of superdelegates will announce for him then. But the prevailing thinking is to allow the race to play out, avoiding a confrontation with Clinton and her backers, but also letting the pressure grow on her to justify continuing to fight a bloody but lost cause. This is, the thinking goes, the best and perhaps only way to get the thing wrapped up, as they so desperately want to do.

“We may have to go to June, and whoever ends up with the most delegates wins,” a key Democrat says. “Meanwhile, the attention will be on the battle she can’t win, so why is she doing this – from here on out she’s only bleeding the party. The right way to put it is, ‘This is a war of attrition and it’s obvious that the numbers aren’t going to add up, so what’s the point?’” He added, “The hope is that at some point the superdelegates will get frustrated and join the Obama bandwagon.”

This pressure may not be enough to get the tenacious Hillary Rodham Clinton to quit the race, but, says a leading Democrat, “Sometime in June we will make it clear to her that this thing isn’t going to the convention.”

Elizabeth Drew writes for The New York Review of Books. She is the author of numerous books, most recently "Richard M. Nixon" (Times Books, 2007)

And Now For Some Analytical Optimism

Dan Hannaher — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 14:25:26 EDT

An interesting analysis inside the various polling numbers from dkos:

Analyzing the PA polls: why 16 points different? by ttujoe Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:13:13 AM PDT

(Promoted from the diaries by kos. I don't buy the final prediction, but this is a good look at why the numbers vary from poll to poll. I was about to write up a similar post, but now I don't have to. )

In the last couple of days, a slew of PA polls have come out, with ranges from a 13 point Clinton lead to a 3 point Obama lead. Follow me below the jump for some interesting things that come out of the crosstabs.

For this diary, I'm focusing on the five polls for which some level of crosstabs are available (I have the Rasmussen subscription to see their crosstabs):

PPP Obama 49, Clinton 46
Mason-Dixon Clinton 48, Obama 43
Rasmussen Clinton 49, Obama 44
Quinnipiac Clinton 51, Obama 44
Suffolk Clinton 52, Obama 42

I was waiting to get the SurveyUSA crosstabs before publishing the diary, but I'm impatient- I did use some data from the WCAU news story on that poll.

I couldn't care less about anything Zogby or ARG say.

Here are some things that strike out at me:

The Suffolk regional demographics

Obviously, the Suffolk poll is the most favorable to Clinton out of this group. There is one big thing that stands out in this poll:

Pittsburgh/Southwest PA: 38% of all polled for Dem primary
Philadelphia/Southeast PA: 38% of all polled for Dem primary
Rest of state (the "T" area): 24% of all polled for Dem primary

Suffolk is the only polling firm approximating that SW PA (including the Allegheny area) is an equal voting bloc to Philly & SE PA. Other firms have the numbers at:

45% Philly/SE, 27% Pittsburgh/SW (Mason-Dixon)
45% Philly/SE, 26% Pittsburgh/SW (PPP)
46% Philly/SE, 23% Pittsburgh/SW (SurveyUSA April 15)

Obviously, with Philly/SE being Obama's strongest area, these regional demographics are a big deal. Suffolk has him up 57-40 in the SE region (higher than any other polling firm other than PPP- we'll get there next), but a huge disadvantage in Pittsburgh/SW (63-29 Clinton- also higher than any other pollster) means a large disadvantage in the state.

Let me put this on record, using both other polling data and historical/demographic data- there is no way Obama loses Pittsburgh+SW PA by 34 points (Quinnipiac has Pittsburgh proper at Clinton 50-44 and the rest of Southwest PA at Clinton 68-26; I think that means about a 20-25 point loss in Pitts+SW PA. Let me also add: there is no way that SW PA is equal to SE PA in total number of votes. Philly/SE has far more registered voters and every other pollster has that region as just under half of total voters. This makes sense to me.

In conclusion, Suffolk is way off- maybe not on the final number, but definitely on the way they got there.

The PPP "Outlier"

PPP, while a reputable pollster this primary cycle, seems way off on their poll this time showing Obama up 3. I've heard talk that the poll is an outlier; not exactly correct since an outlier is that 1/20 polls that is just way off, and PPP has been consistently showing Obama stronger than others. Regardless, there is not another pollster within 8 points of this projection.

Strangely though, their data on most of the state is roughly similar to that of other pollsters. The big difference: Philly/SE PA.

In Philly/SE PA, the pollsters show:

Suffolk: Obama 57, Clinton 40
Mason-Dixon: Obama 49, Clinton 44
SurveyUSA: Obama up 14 (not sure on the specs until we get crosstabs)
Quinnipiac: Obama 54-41 in Philly, 50-46 in the rest of SE PA- lets call that Obama 52-43
PPP: Obama 58, Clinton 32

There's your difference. And it sets up a baseline for what would have to happen for Obama to win PA- he would need a 20+ point gap in Southeast PA and Philly, or a 15-20 point gap with a massive turnout to make that area over 50 % of the total vote. Probably not going to happen.

One interesting thing about the PPP poll- it does show undecideds breaking 60-40 Clinton, which is about what I and others expected.

Rasmussen & the A-A vote

One oddity about the Rasmussen poll- it shows Clinton with 21% of the African-American vote. If that happens, I'll never post an analysis again- just not going to happen. Every other pollster has it at 81-84 percent Obama, 10-12 percent Clinton, with about 7 percent undecided. I think it'll end up like 86-14 Obama.

There are some other oddities here and there. Clinton's lead among women varies from 8 points (Rasmussen) to 23 points (SUSA). Obama leads or is tied among men in every poll but Suffolk (I think the regional analysis shows why he's down with men in Suffolk), though it ranges from a tie (Rasmussen) to 21 points up (PPP). White voters are fairly static in the polls (ranging from a 14-21 point Clinton lead). The non-Pittsburgh/Philly parts of the state seem fairly close as well- about a 15 point Clinton lead.

My gutcheck prediction

If Philly/SE comes in at about a 12 point Obama lead (far below PPP, in between M&D, SUSA and Suffolk, and the rest of the state (including Pittsburgh) comes in at about a 15 point Clinton lead (pretty close to what everyone other than Suffolk says), all of which I believe:

Clinton 51, Obama 49

That's my pick, and I'm sticking to it until misled by exit polls tomorrow.

Update by kos: Sorry to intrude into this post, but SUSA has released its crosstabs, and their regional breakdown is:

43% Philly/SE -- 41C, 55O
24% Pittsburgh/SW -- 58C, 36O
4% Northwest -- 61C, 36O
7% West Center -- 59C, 21O
10% South Center -- 49C, 43O
11% Northeast -- 60C, 37O

Optimism Reigns

Dan Hannaher — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 11:45:30 EDT

An interesting piece today from "The American Prospect". Go read:

Why Obama Will Win Pennsylvania Barack Obama has shown himself capable under attack, and managed to rally support beyond Philadelphia. It may be enough to stop Hillary Clinton. Terence Samuel | April 21, 2008 |

That creaking noise you hear is the sound of me going way out on limb to predict that Barack Obama will win the Pennsylvania primary on Tuesday, finally ending Hillary Clinton's presidential ambitions.

After all sound and fury, the race in Pennsylvania will come down to the strength of get- out-the-vote (GOTV) operations, and I think Obama's campaign's organizational advantages will be enough to push him past Clinton by almost two percentage points. He's got money, he's got energy and enthusiasm (despite his debate performance on Tuesday), and he's got Philadelphia and its suburbs

Broadly speaking, presidential elections are almost always decided by what and who Americans think best suits the moment. After all the wins and losses, after all the gaffes, the deceptions, and the rare moments of inspiration, Obama, is simply closer to the mood of the country than either Clinton or McCain.

Obama is selling change. Both of his opponents are selling the virtues of experience, but voters, fed up with the way things have been going, view experience as more of a problem than a solution.

Still, it's an election and Obama can blow it (he erred in, among other things, not anticipating the controversy over Rev. Wright ), but he has shown himself capable under attack and in Pennsylvania he has some underreported advantages.

At first glance, Pennsylvania, one of the whitest, oldest, and most working class states in the country, should be Clinton's to lose. The demographic numbers are indisputable, but the beating heart of Democratic politics in the Keystone state is Philadelphia -- and now, its suburbs -- and the whole region is indisputably in the Obama column.

Since Election Day 2007, 306,686 people have registered as Democrats in Pennsylvania -- more than 45 percent of them (139,000) in Philadelphia and the Philly 'burbs. And two college counties, Centre, 19.6 percent (Penn State), and Union, 17.3 percent (Bucknell University) are in the top three counties in terms of the percentage increase of new Democratic voters. Again, it's fair to most new registrants are Obama voters. He will not win Northeast Philadelphia or some precincts in South and Southwest Philly, but he will still win by a large margin in the Philadelphia region.

The path to an Obama win is relatively straight forward: run up the numbers in and around Philadelphia, fight for and maybe even win the Lehigh Valley cities Bethlehem and Allentown, and minimize his losses in the west. This is a strategy that tracks with Democratic victories in Pennsylvania in recent years.

Here, finally, is why I think he wins:

Clinton hasn't succeeded in making any of her criticisms of Obama stick. He has managed to weather scandals that would sink politician of lesser skill.
Clinton has been most effective when she is seen as the victim and underdog, but, given her aggressive response to Obama's "bitter" comments and her established strength in Pennsylvania neither of these circumstances apply. If can resist the urge to complain about his treatment in the debate he may be the one seen as a victim.
Bob Casey, Jr.

The importance of the Casey's endorsement of Obama is hard to overstate. In part that's because Pennsylvania's junior senator is as daring as a piece of Lackawanna anthracite coal and is seen as unwilling or unable to play cynical political games. What's more, he is an able counterbalance to Clinton's two biggest supporters -- the affably pugnacious Gov. Ed. Rendell, and Philadelphia's African American Mayor Michael Nutter.

Casey is also exactly kind of conservative, Catholic, blue-collar Democrat that Obama is supposed to have the most trouble attracting. He needs Casey's help all the more now that some of these voters think that he sees them as clinging to guns and religion out of a sense of economic frustration. In a new ad for Obama, Casey makes the election clearly about the economy, declaring on camera that "in towns like yours and mine, families are struggling with bills they can't afford and jobs moving away. It has to change -- but it won't until we change Washington."

But Casey's endorsement does something less obvious for Obama -- it rescues him from being the 'Philadelphia candidate' and all the taint of racialized politics, corruption, and urban decay that such a label would put on him. This is especially true when Casey's support is contrasted with Rendell's and Nutter's, since both are current or former mayors of Philadelphia.

So my call is Obama by a point and a half. Creak ...

From "Indian Country Today":

Dan Hannaher — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 09:35:18 EDT

In Obama, an exciting opportunity

Posted: April 11, 2008This presidential election season has generated considerable excitement around the nation. And there is a reason for it. It may well be the most important election of our lifetime. America faces grave challenges - a war, climate change, the economy, the lack of access to health care, to name a few - that cry out for solution. And, we also have a unique opportunity to change the direction of the country in a fundamental and transformative way.

Those of us in Indian country have a stake in the outcome of this presidential election at this critical time in the nation's politics. We have been following the campaign of Illinois Sen. Barack Obama for the past year with special interest and have been impressed that Native Americans have always figured prominently in his campaign of inclusion.

In his major speech on race, Sen. Obama included Native Americans once again in his call for unity to address the challenges of the new century. He said, ''This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can't learn; that those kids who don't look like us are somebody else's problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time.''

Indian country certainly has a right to be skeptical about national politicians. We know from personal experience that all too often promises made on the campaign trail fade in the act of governance.

But we have come to believe that Sen. Obama offers a different kind of leadership and presents an opportunity for Native peoples that we have not seen before. He has shown that he appreciates the unique history and challenges of our communities. And he understands that we can only realize our common dreams if we are equal partners in the national dialogue.

Sen. Obama began his career as a community organizer on the streets of Chicago. He has said that this experience showed him that change comes from empowering communities and reinforced his respect for tribal sovereignty. He dismisses what he calls one-size-fits-all solutions from Washington and says that empowering tribal communities to address their own problems will be an important goal of his presidency. That message resonates with Native peoples because Indian country is confident that we have the answer to our challenges but need an administration that will be a partner with us.

Sen. Obama throughout this campaign has demonstrated his desire to listen to and work with Native communities by meeting with Native American tribal leaders all across the country and by assembling an impressive group of Native American advisers. His commitment to addressing our priorities is evident in the agenda he laid out for Indian country, ''Principles for Stronger Tribal Communities,'' which emphasizes his support for tribal sovereignty and his commitment to improve the government-to-government relationship between the tribes and the federal government. His plan also calls for greater federal resources to help tribes address shortfalls in health care, education, law enforcement and energy assistance, and to support regulated Indian gaming as a tribal resource.

But what is most far-reaching, innovative and exciting about Sen. Obama's well-crafted agenda is that he has pledged to take unprecedented steps as president to bring Native Americans into the conversation and into partnership in defining and prioritizing a policy agenda for tribal communities. He will communicate directly with Native American leaders and include them in important policy decisions that impact Indian country. His plan includes a promise to appoint an American Indian policy adviser on his senior White House staff so that Indian country has a clear voice at the highest levels of the Obama administration. He also pledges to call an annual meeting with Native American leaders to develop and implement a national Indian policy agenda. These are the type of ideas and this is the kind of leadership that will bring the fundamental change we so desperately need.

Sen. Obama understands our unique challenges and will work to solve them. But he also believes that ''we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together - unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction - towards a better future for our children and our grandchildren.''

At the dawn of the 21st century, when the United States overall has greater income disparity than we've seen since the first year of the Great Depression, when some CEOs are making more in a day than the average worker makes in a year, when wages are flat, jobs are moving overseas and the cost of health care, energy and college are rising, and when one in eight Americans now lives in abject poverty, Obama is issuing a call for unity so that we can make real change for all Americans that will restore balance in our economy and put us all on a path to prosperity. As he said in last week's speech, to do that ''requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams,'' and that ''the children of America are not these kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy.''

Nowhere do these words reverberate and find a home more than in Indian country. A 2003 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights report found that American Indians suffer from a ''quiet crisis'' of poverty, unemployment and discrimination. As Native Americans, we know what that means in the daily lives of our people.

In endorsing Sen. Obama for president, The Native American Times wrote: ''Perhaps more than anything, Obama inspires us to want and dream of more. Indian country has been waiting for someone like Barack for a long time. Now is the time for positive change and now is the time to vote Barack Obama.'' Day by day, as the 2008 campaign unfolds it becomes more and more clear that Sen. Obama is the right choice for Native Americans and all Americans.

John Yellowbird Steele, president, Oglala Sioux Tribe; William ''Shorty'' Brewer, vice president, Oglala Sioux Tribe; Michael Jandreau, chairman, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe; Rodney Bordeaux, president, Rosebud Sioux Tribe; Robert Moore, councilman, Rosebud Sioux Tribe; and Joseph Brings Plenty, chairman, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, are members of Sen. Barack Obama's Tribal Leaders Steering Committee.

Andrew Sullivan Deserves To Be Read Today

Dan Hannaher — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 13:18:33 EDT

And so here it is:

The Far Right and Obama

11 Apr 2008 12:55 pm

They are now using his staggeringly honest autobiography against him, using out-of-context quotes to make him seem like a racist. Yes, the repellent Coulter - still treated as a legitimate voice on the far right - has called Obama's book a dime-store "Mein Kampf." Sometimes I wonder if some white Republicans actually believe that black people in this country have no reason to feel any anger or alienation at times. I'm not talking about letting it consume you - just feeling it, dealing with it, managing it.

I guess I might feel the same way as these sheltered folk if I weren't gay. But anger is a totally legitimate thing to feel when you grow up and realize you will never be allowed to celebrate a marriage or build a family like your parents or siblings. It is totally legitimate when your emotional core is constantly ridiculed, demeaned and even treated as a sickness or a sin. It became a necessity when hundreds of thousands died while others looked on, or persecuted the sick with segregation or disdain, or blamed them for their disease. It is totally understandable when even now, after living in this country for 24 years, with a family and a home, I have to seek a waiver from the government every year to allow me to stay in this country because I have HIV, and only people married to a member of the opposite sex are treated like human beings if immigrants. The government denies you family, dignity and even a secure home - and you are never supposed to feel anger?

My "conservative" position in gay politics has never been that anger is wrong. It is that it cannot provide the full answer. It's a trap that can destroy you if you allow it to. We have to get beyond anger to explain, engage, persuade, reason, integrate ... in order to make anger less relevant to the next generation. With gays, each generation springs afresh from new heterosexual homes and families, and so healing can be relatively fast, even if it is never easy. But with African-Americans, these disadvantages and resentments and feelings are more easily passed from generation to generation, and skin color can act as a constant, unpassable feature of your life that can drive you crazy if you do not master it. Economics entrenches this. You have to be blind not to see the pathos of so many trapped in this. Conservatives should be able to see this pain, and help alleviate it in ways that make sense (not socialism or big government dependency), not dismiss it as a form of hatred.

The great spiritual gift of Obama is that he has mastered this - not by suppressing it or denying it. But by confronting it, looking at it, expressing it, and channeling it to better ends. That some on the far right would now use this process of honesty as a way to describe Obama as a racist is a sign of their cramped hearts, frightened souls and utter inability to empathize. One day, they will feel ashamed. Right now, they simply have to be overcome.

(Photo: Tim Sloan/AFP/Getty.)

Get Your Tickets Now

Dan Hannaher — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 21:38:49 EDT

If you are not a delegate, alternate or credentialed guest to the ND Dem-NPL convention you can get tickets to see Barack Obama Friday 4/4 at the Grand Forks Alerus Center by visiting:
www.democrats.org/ndconvention

Future Vs. The Past

Dan Hannaher — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 11:28:49 EDT

Gary Hart has been thinking, writing, speaking and acting upon his beliefs related to the Democratic Party being the progressive party of reform in America for decades. Today, again, he addresses the false right vs. left dichotomy, and describes why Barack Obama is the true leader of the party for the future. Read:

"Obama's Test" or Ours?

Posted March 25, 2008 | 10:39 AM (EST)
One of the more enduring myths in Washington is that Americans live their lives on a left-right ideological spectrum. We are all little liberals or little conservatives. Thus, the New York Times ponders how the "liberal" Barack Obama can fashion a governing coalition when conventional wisdom continues to convince us that the political center of gravity in America is right of center and only Clintonian "centrism" offers the Democrats a shot at governing. And, if you spend your adult life in Washington (which some of us choose not to do), you fall into the static mindset.

But what if most Americans, unlike perpetual Washington insiders, are neither liberal nor conservative? What if, instead, we live our lives on a future-past continuum? Students of Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., and others know that those who deal only in ideology can still make this work: the Democratic party (at its best) is the progressive party, the party of the future, and the Republican party is the party that wishes to hold onto the past. When the Democratic party is truly the party of the future, for change, for experimentation, for adaptation, we win. When we "triangulate," we may create enough confusion to get ourselves elected, but we have no mandate to govern and we sacrifice our identity.

The best Democratic leaders, those who succeed as national leaders, are those who define the future and show us how to get there. It shouldn't surprise anyone that those rare leaders, like Barack Obama, also have a "liberal" voting record, especially when, as Senator Obama accurately points out, right-wing ideologues make sure the voting deck is stacked to reflect the old divisive agenda they've perfected. But, as he also points out, "as president, I would be setting the agenda."

Contrary to the New York Times story, this election is not a left-right election. This is a future-past election and that is why I, a veteran of such politics, strongly believe the candidate of the future, who understands the dramatic changes now at work in the world and who is bold enough to propose innovative ways of dealing with them in the nation's interest, is Barack Obama. Besides, when he is elected, perhaps we will have journalism that understands the difference.

HE'S COMING!

Dan Hannaher — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 17:06:45 EDT

Obama to be Dem-NPL Keynote Speaker

Grand Forks – Senator Barack Obama will bring his message of hope and optimism to North Dakota as the keynote speaker during the Democratic-NPL nominating convention this April in Grand Forks. Senator Obama will help open the convention with a speech on Friday, April 4.

North Dakota Democrats delivered an overwhelming victory for Senator Obama in their Feb. 5th caucuses; Obama won 62 percent in the Super Tuesday voting. Senator Obama has since held the lead in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination. Senator Obama said, "Record numbers of North Dakotans turned out to caucus for change on February 5th, and I am proud that so many new people became a part of this process. I thank Senators Conrad and Dorgan and Congressman Pomeroy for inviting me back to the state and look forward to continue working with the North Dakota Democratic-NPL Party to strengthen our party and achieve victory in November.” Senator Obama was invited to the Dem-NPL convention by Senator Kent Conrad, who had endorsed Obama in December, prior to Obama’s surprising victory in the Iowa caucuses. Obama has since won the endorsement of Senator Byron Dorgan, Rep. Earl Pomeroy, and three other North Dakota super-delegates.“Senator Obama is a person of rare quality, and his message of can-do optimism and hope is one that I believe resonates in North Dakota. He shares our Midwestern values, and he can unite this country,” said Senator Conrad. “Senator Obama has shown that he has what it takes to win in states like North Dakota, Minnesota and Wyoming. He’s drawn more people to the democratic process, and that can only be good for the country.”Senator Dorgan said: “Senator Obama has an extraordinary ability to inspire and motivate people throughout the country, and it is wonderful that he is planning to attend North Dakota’s state Democratic Convention. Like many other states, North Dakota has responded to Senator Obama’s message of hope and optimism by giving him an impressive 62 percent of the vote in our caucus this year. His presence shows that he intends to compete nation-wide for the Presidency, which is good for the country, democracy, and North Dakota.”

“North Dakota Democrats showed their strong support for Senator Obama on February 5th, and I’m thrilled to have the potential Democratic presidential nominee as the keynote speaker at our convention,” Congressman Pomeroy said. “Senator Obama has a powerful message of hope and change that resonates across party lines and across the country. I look forward to hearing him deliver that message to North Dakota Democrats at our convention in April.”

A Speech For The Ages.

Dan Hannaher — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 15:03:43 EDT

Barack's speech today, March 18th 2008, may someday have a title different from "A More Perfect Union" but that's what it is being called today. And it was remarkable. Here are a few of the pundits weighing in now on one of the great speeches of our time:

On Obama's Speech

Sen. Barack Obama's speech on race this morning showed off exactly why he's become the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination. He's absolutely willing to challenge the conventional way of how politicians approach controversy. In my opinion, it was the best speech so far in this campaign.

The video of the speech is now available.

Andrew Sullivan: "I have never felt more convinced that this man's candidacy - not this man, his candidacy - and what he can bring us to achieve - is an historic opportunity. This was a testing; and he did not merely pass it by uttering safe bromides. He addressed the intimate, painful love he has for an imperfect and sometimes embittered man. And how that love enables him to see that man's faults and pain as well as his promise. This is what my faith is about. It is what the Gospels are about. This is a candidate who does not merely speak as a Christian. He acts like a Christian."

Charles Murray: "Has any other major American politician ever made a speech on race that comes even close to this one? As far as I'm concerned, it is just plain flat out brilliant -- rhetorically, but also in capturing a lot of nuance about race in America. It is so far above the standard we're used to from our pols."

Ben Smith: "A smart colleague notes that this speech is the polar opposite of this year's other big speech on faith, in which Mitt Romney went to Texas to talk about Mormonism, but made just one reference to his Mormon faith. Obama mentions Wright by name 14 times."

First Read: "His tone throughout was quiet and thoughtful. The same speech could have been delivered in a fiery tone. But Obama chose one that was quiet and thoughtful. It did little to lessen the impact and may have added to the weight of his words."

Marc Ambinder: "How it plays will determine how it plays. If the media focuses more on the Wright defense-by-renouncements and then juxtaposes them with clips of Wright's comments, then I think the trouble remains. The seeds of doubt about who this guy really is may be nourished. I know that Obama believes that a discussion about race plays to his benefit, no matter what people think about white working class voters and their latent feelings. Perhaps this is the beginning of his opportunity to lift the veil and get everyone -- not just himself and the media -- to talk openly."

The Forum Comments On Obama's ND Potential

Dan Hannaher — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 09:04:33 EDT

Today's Forum editorial is intrigued by the SurveyUSA Poll suggesting Barack might win North Dakota:

Forum editorial: Could N.D. go blue for Obama?
Published Thursday, March 13, 2008Today’s issue:

Poll finds Obama would beat McCain in North Dakota.

Our position:

One poll is not a trend, but the results are fascinating.

Here’s one for the history books: A new poll from SurveyUSA found that if the presidential election were held now, Barack Obama would best John McCain in North Dakota. The sampling of 574 likely voters in the state said 46 percent would go for Obama, 42 percent for McCain. In the same poll, Sen. Hillary Clinton would lose to McCain, 54 percent to 35 percent among North Dakotans.

Of course, a single poll is nothing more than a snapshot in time. It’s not a definitive measure of voter preference unless it’s supplemented by a series of polls and other analyses that identify trends and settled voter sentiment. Nonetheless, even the suggestion that a Democrat – any Democrat – can win the presidential vote in historically red-state North Dakota in 2008 is an eyebrow-raiser.

North Dakota has rarely been blue on the election map. Since statehood, North Dakotans have favored the Democratic presidential candidate only five times: Woodrow Wilson in 1912 and 1916, Franklin Roosevelt in 1932 and 1936; Lyndon Johnson in 1964. Some historians argue that those departures from the state’s reliable Republican tilt were due to unique circumstances: Wilson’s pledge (violated) to keep the United States out of World War I; Roosevelt’s New Deal promises to raise the nation out of the Great Depression; Johnson, carrying on the agenda of assassinated John Kennedy and lucky enough to run against deeply unpopular Barry Goldwater.

The North Dakota SurveyUSA poll (done in late February) is broken down by age and gender. Obama easily won the 18-34 group (57 percent to 33 percent for McCain, 9 percent undecided), lost by a little the 35-54 group (41 percent to

47 percent, 12 percent undecided) and won elderly voters (44 percent to McCain’s 42 percent, 14 percent undecided).

By gender, Obama was within the poll’s margin of sampling error with

45 percent of male voters to 44 percent for McCain. Female voters broke

48 percent for Obama, 39 percent

for McCain.

When broken down by political ideology, 58 percent of North Dakota voters identifying themselves as “moderate” went to Obama. That’s the group any candidate has to win in order to win the presidency. Ten percent of self-identified conservatives said they would vote for Obama over McCain, possibly an indication that a self-destructive strain of conservative anger with McCain has not softened.

Again, one poll is not a predictor of Election Day results. Indeed, North Dakota’s presidential preference history would seem to suggest an Obama win (should he be the nominee) is – to understate it – a long shot. Still, the poll’s finding that Obama has significant support in a traditionally Republican (for presidents) state, ought not to be dismissed.

Forum editorials represent the opinion of Forum management and the newspaper’s Editorial Board.

Obama Would Defeat McCain In North Dakota

Dan Hannaher — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 08:06:05 EST

SurveyUSA has done a first round of electoral math, which indicates Obama would defeat McCain in the General Election. But of specific interest is the fact that their polling (600 Likely Voters) shows Barack WINNING THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA! Now that's transformational. Go look:

http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/03/06/electoral-math-as-of-030608-obama-280-mccain-258/

Andrew Sullivan Once Again At His Best

Dan Hannaher — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 17:10:07 EST

"A New Politics?"

04 Mar 2008 12:57 pm

David Brooks describes the stakes in this election as between old and new politics. I take his point, but I do want to insist that this new politics of which we Obama-fans are talking is not some kind of millennialist, utopian fantasy. I don't think Obama has - or anyone ever will - abolish the human nature of political life: its combat, its competing interests, its partisanship, its necessary compromises. If I thought one man could do that, I should be given a Valium and told to take some time off.

No: the reason to back Obama is because this country is in a terrible hole. The economy is headed into the shitter, the dollar is plunging, soaring government debt and individual fiscal recklessness (now rewarded by the Fed's rate-cutting) have created the chance of a serious recession, the US is mired in a permanent occupation of a deeply divided failed state in the Muslim Arab world, and key American values - that we do not torture, that we rescue our allies - have been abandoned by a callow, incompetent president.

In the midst of this, we have a domestic politics that has become poisonously polarized by the cumulative impact of two decades of Dick Morris, Karl Rove-style politics and have lurched from one president whose every sentence was a carefully parsed legalism to one often in total denial about the reality he grapples with. We desperately need not some kind of new politics, but a return to reasoned politics, to leaders who, even when they disagree, can rationally explain how and why. Americans know we have deeply serious problems and are tired of deeply unserious posturing. Republicans have grasped this. That's why they actually rejected the most polarizing (Giuliani) and cynical (Romney) and facile (Huckabee) candidates, in favor of a serious man, who is at least open to opposing arguments and engaged in more than partisan hucksterism and nasty minority-baiting.

The Democrats, so far, have as well. Obama is simply more capable, more trustworthy, more reasonable and less partisan than Clinton. That's all. He is not a messiah, for Pete's sake, and I'm tired of being told that those of us who support him are somehow irrational or emotional. Above all, he will not breathe new life into the very pathologies with which we have all been consumed for too long. She will. Some of this is her fault; some of it isn't. I see my own attempt to move forward constructively impeded by the emotions she and her husband have the power to evoke. But her partisanship and divisiveness are not in my mind alone. She knows what she's doing - and, in my view, we cannot afford her any more.

If that is a new politics, fine. But only if "new" means an older, calmer discourse for newer, more perilous times. That's what Obama represents. And we have to keep focused on that, unless the easy and familar habits of easy, tired politics prevents us from seizing a moment that history doesn't offer very often.

State Party Invites Obama To Speak

Dan Hannaher — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 09:24:01 EST

The Forum has an interesting blurb on the North Dakota Democratic-NPL Party confirmation that they have invited Barack to speak at the State Convention in Grand Forks, April 4-6. Be sure to plan on attending in case the next President is able to appear. If you are not already a delegate to the convention find out who your District chair is and inquire if there are any empty delegate slots available. Most districts leave it to the discretion of the chair to fill out the delegation slots. You can find out more by contacting the state party at www.demnpl.com or call them, 701-255-0460.

Here's the Forum article:

Dems want Obama for state conventionThe Forum
Published Tuesday, March 04, 2008

BISMARCK – North Dakota Democrats are hoping to snag presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama as their state convention’s keynote speaker, a party official confirmed Monday.

“Efforts have been made to get him to be our keynote speaker,” said party communications director Rick Gion, but there’s no answer yet.

Party Executive Director Jamie Selzler said the party has also asked Sen. Hillary Clinton to consider speaking at the convention.

He said the party should know early next week if one might be their speaker.

The Democratic-NPL state convention is April 4-6 at the Alerus Center in Grand Forks.

Gary Hart On Barack's Transformational Possibility

Dan Hannaher — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 08:13:16 EST

Gary Hart has another prescient column on the potential of the Obama presidency. Go read:

Politics as Transcendence

Posted February 13, 2008 | 02:35 PM (EST)

Only once in a very long time does politics become more than politics, that is something more than partisan struggle, vote bartering, or arena of ambition. In ordinary times, ordinary political leaders suffice, more or less.

But on rare occasion, old arrangements and conventional wisdom come unstuck. This happens in periods of rapid if not revolutionary change. We find ourselves now in one of those periods. The forces of globalization, information, eroding sovereignties, and transformation of war ensure that traditional leaders and conventional politics can only muddle through at best and fail badly at worst.

But periods of upheaval also offer opportunities, opportunities to change our methods, our ideas, and our leaders. The rare leader capable of transforming threat to opportunity is one who welcomes transformation and sees it as a chance to abandon tradition and convention, to transcend that which is stale, unprofitable, and ineffective.

Periods of transformation require experimentation, innovation, and daring. America is a nation much more conservative than it thinks itself to be. Thus, its default position is to resist a forward leap even while applauding itself for its creativity. Al Capone said it best: "We don't want no trouble." But transformation is trouble in the best sense of the word, trouble that causes us to adapt to new conditions and circumstances and create new ways of governing.

Through some miracle of timing, luck, and good fortune Barack Obama has seized the moment. His mantra of "change" has been largely co-opted by lesser figures. He is in fact an agent of transformation. He is not operating on the same plane as ordinary politicians, and this makes him seem elusive to the conventional press and the traditional politicians. His instinct for the moment and the times is orders of magnitude more powerful than the experience claimed by others. Experience in the old ways is irrelevant experience.

In an age of great transformation, experience of the past is worthless because it is a barrier to the breakthrough gesture, the instant response in crisis, the instinctive bold decision in the face of totally new circumstances.

Some see Barack Obama as the long awaited champion finally come to slay the awful dragon of race. And they are right. Some see him as a new start for the Democratic Party and national politics. And they are right. Some see him as the walking embodiment of internationalism, ready to restore an honorable and respected place for America in the world. And they are right.

I see Barack Obama as a leader for this transcendent moment, the agent of transformation in an age of revolution, as a figure uniquely qualified to open the door to the 21st century and to convert threat to great new opportunity.

Superdelegates May Not Be A Problem

Dan Hannaher — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 09:39:35 EST

I'm beginning to sense that the vaunted Superdelegates may not prove to be a problem for the Obama campaign, but more likely a benefit in securing the nomination.

If these so called party elders were truly handcuffed to the Clinton era they likely would have endorsed early, and vociferously. Indeed, some have but most have not. If the possibility of Barack winning the day with the "Supers" was outside the realm, then why haven't they already aligned with Hillary? I sense they are doing their due diligence and will be more than happy to declare for Obama as momentum dictates. Especially House and Senate members. If they've not gone to HRC yet, than they are ripe for the pickings.

We might begin to see these declarations later this week, once the results of Virginia, Maryland and DC come into focus. With a string of eight consecutive victories the strength of the Obama campaign will provide a fair number of Congressional members with the substance they need to declare themselves.

Added impetus could of course come from endorsements by Gore, Edwards, Pelosi and Reid. They may not all make declarations, but I wouldn't be surprised if some would.

I have little fear of an avalanche of Superdelegates surging towards Clinton. Quite the contrary, such an avalanche should bolster Mount Barack.

Thank You North Dakota!

Dan Hannaher — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 10:42:47 EST

Obama's ND victory recipe: Volunteers, organization and money

By DALE WETZEL
Associated Press Writer

BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) -- Democrat Barack Obama's North Dakota presidential campaign was easily the most prominent of any candidate, with frequent mailings, legions of volunteers, work from 10 paid staffers and television ads featuring Sen. Kent Conrad's endorsement.

It paid off Tuesday in a decisive victory over Hillary Clinton, in which Obama won 65 of 82 reporting locations, held a big edge in North Dakota's four largest cities, and rolled up 3-to-1 margins at the University of North Dakota and North Dakota State University.

"Barack had a fantastic organization here in North Dakota, as I think he has had throughout the country," said Dan Hannaher, an Obama adviser and a former North Dakota state Democratic chairman.

With all 47 of North Dakota's precincts reporting late Tuesday, Obama had 11,625 votes, or 61 percent, to Clinton's 6,948, or 37 percent. The remaining votes went to John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel and a handful of write-ins.

In the tiny community of Amidon in the state's southwestern corner, all seven voters favored Obama. The NDSU caucus location went for Obama, 1,139 to 310. At UND, the result was similar, 1,153 to 349.

"He's got so many young people behind him. They're looking for change," said state Sen. David O'Connell, D-Lansford, the Democratic Senate floor leader. O'Connell initially supported Edwards, but switched to Obama after the former North Carolina senator dropped out of the race.

"I know change is a buzz word, but Obama just excites people," O'Connell said. "He excites me."

Jamie Selzler, director of the state Democratic Party, said 19,012 North Dakotans took part in the caucus.

"I think it shows that Democrats and independents in this state are eager for change," Selzler said. "Today was their first day where they could actually go out and put that change into action."

Democrats had been hoping for a turnout of between 12,000 and 15,000 people. During North Dakota's Democratic presidential caucuses four years ago, 10,508 people voted.

Democratic voting locations opened across the state at 2 p.m., and closed at 8 p.m. Central time. Selzler said some locations had to print more ballots because of the crush of voters.

Caucus participants filled out forms supplying their names, addresses and other information. North Dakota has no voter registration, and the caucuses are helping both Democrats and Republicans identify sympathetic voters.

"We now have a list of 19,000 people who are eager enough about change that they showed up and voted on a cold day in February," Selzler said.

Obama and Clinton got most of the votes from North Dakota Democrats, although five people were on the ballot used by caucus-goers. Edwards, Kucinich and Gravel were also listed, along with a line for write-ins.

Edwards, who got 283 votes in final returns, and Kucinich, who got 72 votes, recently dropped out of the race. Gravel, a former Alaska senator who has gotten scant backing for his campaign, got 31 votes. Fifty-three people wrote in their own favorites.

A minimum of 15 percent voter support was required for a candidate to qualify for a North Dakota delegate. The caucus results will be used to allocate 13 of North Dakota's 21 delegates to the Democratic National Convention, which is being held Aug. 25-28 in Denver.

North Dakota and Minnesota were among 24 states that held some type of voting contest for president on Tuesday.

During his campaign, Obama opened campaign offices in Fargo, Grand Forks, Minot and Bismarck and moved 10 staffers into the state. Clinton relied on volunteers.

Conrad and Rep. Earl Pomeroy, D-N.D., endorsed Obama, and Pomeroy led a last-minute tour to tout Obama's prospects. More than 20 Democratic state legislators who had backed Edwards, including O'Connell, switched to Obama when Edwards dropped out.

Former North Dakota Gov. George Sinner and his wife, Jane, were Clinton's most high-profile North Dakota representatives.

The Obama campaign "committed the resources necessary to deliver his message," Hannaher said. "I've never been more impressed by a presidential campaign ... than I have been with the commitment that this campaign brought to North Dakota."

Hart on a President Obama

Dan Hannaher — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 08:01:29 EST

Gary Hart speaks of a President, a President Obama:

Gary Hart

Iraq as Metaphor

Posted February 3, 2008 | 02:31 PM (EST)

All issues are equal, but some issues are more equal than others. Those more equal give an insight into decision making, leadership style, and even character. Anyone who has served in office is familiar with the question, "Why did he/she do that?," meaning why did that politician do what they did? It is a question impossible to answer, that is without having some divine access to the inner recesses of an individual's mind or even soul.

Great decisions, however, can reveal how future great decisions might be made. No decision since the so-called Gulf of Tonkin resolution in Vietnam is more important than the vote on the 2002 war resolution on Iraq. Unlike health care, economic stimulus, immigration, and a host of other concerns, on that question there is clear difference between the Democratic finalists.

For those in the process of deciding between them for super Tuesday and beyond, they should be urged to consider this question very seriously. Those who decided to grant George W. Bush virtually unilateral authority to invade Iraq now must accept responsibility for its consequences. Votes have consequences. The consequences in Iraq are well over 30,000 American casualties [casualty: killed and wounded], possibly one million Iraqi deaths, and at least a trillion American tax dollars spent on restructuring (much wasteful and corrupted) and not spent on U.S. schools, hospitals, and infrastructure.

On issues such as this, it is not enough to say, We all make mistakes. One of the remaining candidates cannot even bring herself to say that. Why not, at least, say, The president misled me? Given how tragically wrong that vote was, such an admission would be at the very least a signal of humility, responsibility, wisdom, and character.

Consider these two questions when deciding how to vote on Tuesday and beyond: Why did Senator Clinton give George W. Bush the authority to invade Iraq; and why can she not bring herself to admit she was wrong? Regarding the first, she now says that she was only authorizing war as a last resort. Others who voted as she did and now admit error, including Senators Biden, Dodd, and Edwards, do not make that argument. They admit they were wrong. As to the second question, the plausible excuses are few: she still thinks it was right; she thinks the operation was mismanaged; she clings to the hope that this vote and continued support for it will serve her well with conservatives in a general election; she believes it is a symbol of "strength."

Sorting through a great deal of obfuscation, Senator Clinton still seems to cling to the argument that Bush mismanaged the whole project, that it was worth doing but it was done badly. Thus, she seems to accept unilateral invasion as a first resort, even when intelligence, as it was in this case, is less than clear. She seems to be willing to follow policy makers, in this case neocons, who had a publicly announced imperial agenda in the Middle East. And she permits the impression to grow that "triangulation," in matters of war, requires placing protection of political career over protection of the national interest.

Throughout my life I have tried consistently to avoid being judgmental regarding the motives of others. But, like Senator Obama, even on the sidelines, even without access to classified briefings, even under the war drum beat of the right, and even with a compliant mainstream media, I knew both in my mind and deep in my soul that invasion of Iraq was wrong, that it would lead to semi-permanent occupation, that the war would only just begin when Baghdad fell, and that we were pouring blood and treasure into the sand.

"Triangulation" and "centrism" may have led to eight years of a Democratic presidency in the 1990s.. But it also blurred the principles of the Democratic party. It led young politicians to believe that the safest course was in some vague middle ground. And, tragically, it led too many Democrats to believe they had to prove their national security credentials by voting for any military misadventure right wing hawks could think up.

This nation needs a president who will question the conventional wisdom, who will exercise skepticism concerning foreign entanglements, who will have the courage to resist pressure from the narrow-minded bellicose right, who will admit to error when major mistakes are made, and who can look farther over the horizon than most of us. Most of all, we need a president who can restore America's honor, respect, and moral authority in the world.

That president is not Senator Clinton. That president is Barack Obama.

Edwards Out

Dan Hannaher — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 09:09:59 EST

Chuck Todd at MSNBC is reporting that John Edwards will drop out of the race today in New orleans.

Elko - Fargo Comparison

Dan Hannaher — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 09:10:23 EST

Interesting that the NBC embedded reporter would make the reference to "Fargo" in writing about the Obama efforts in rural Nevada:

From NBC/NJ's Aswini Anburajan
The debate on who can expand the party between the candidates, especially Edwards and Obama is best seen through the lens of Nevada. When Obama mentioned the tiny town of Elko, which he won by a huge margin, he was both accurate and his comment reflected a huge organizing effort on the part of his campaign to reach out to rural voters, independents and Republicans. The campaign started organizing in places like Elko in the fall, which is smack down in the center of the northern part of the state and it feels like you're stepping onto the set of "Fargo" when you go there. Investing resources there may seem like a lark, after all as one resident put it before the Obama office arrived there wasn't a political office there for "as long as anyone can remember." But Elko had two organizers, and the investment paid off because Obama was able to win in those rural areas which ultimately helped him gain the delegate advantage in Nevada.

Building In North Dakota

Dan Hannaher — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 07:52:33 EST

Obama campaign expanding in North Dakota By DAVE KOLPACK Associated Press Writer
The Associated Press - Tuesday, January 08, 2008FARGO, N.D.

Supporters for Barack Obama say the Democratic contender for president is expanding his North Dakota campaign staff and gaining delegates.

Obama is the only Democratic candidate in North Dakota with a paid stuff, and plans to have offices open in three cities by the end of the week, said Dan Hannaher, one of 26 members of a state leadership committee.

Obama has received commitments from three of the state's seven representatives to the national convention, including Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D. Superdelegates Jim Maxson of Minot and Mary Wakefield of Grand Forks also are backing Obama.

"I certainly don't take credit for what's happening here in North Dakota," Hannaher said. "But I think my voice and the voice of a lot of other people like Sen. Conrad brought this campaign to North Dakota because they know that they can win here."

Hannaher said he's hopeful that Obama will visit North Dakota.

"It is their intention to have Barack come here after the New Hampshire primary," Hannaher said. "But I think you all know how hour by hour how these campaigns operate, never quite knowing what's going to happen next."

Obama has five paid staff members in Fargo and plans to have offices open in Grand Forks and Bismarck by the end of the week, Hannaher said.

State legislators on the Obama committee include Sen. Joel Heitkamp and Reps. Elliot Glassheim, Chris Griffin, Pam Gulleson, Scot Kelsh, Louis Pinkerton and Lisa Wolf. Hannaher and Tom Dickson are former state Democratic chairmen on the group.

"I love the fact that Sen. Obama has energized the young people in this country," Heitkamp said. "The true story of Iowa was not that Sen. Obama came in and swept Iowa the way he did. The true story was how many people turned out to work for him."

Ekstrom said Obama is the first candidate who can inspire people as much as Bobby Kennedy, whom she supported by knocking on doors in 1967-68.

"I think it's evident in the vote that came out of Iowa that Barack Obama can win in every state," Ekstrom said.

Hannaher, Heitkamp and Ekstrom said they like Obama's stance on affordable health care, rural development, clean energy and ending the war in Iraq.

"He's the best candidate who can rally the American people behind a common purpose," Hannaher said.

Yepsen Is Beginning To See It Too.

Dan Hannaher — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 07:57:58 EST

David Yepsen in today's DMR column begins to see the movement:

Yepsen: Brows wrinkle, yet expect to see a record turnout

BY DAVID YEPSEN • REGISTER COLUMNIST • January 2, 2008

There is much knitting of the brow in the political community that's camped out in Iowa just now. And it's not all due to New Year's Day hangovers.

The latest Iowa Poll published by this newspaper shows Barack Obama with a handsome 7-point lead over Hillary Clinton among likely Democratic caucusgoers. However, other polls show Clinton only a point or two ahead.

The difference is due, in part, to the fact that 40 percent of the likely Democratic caucusgoers in the Iowa Poll say they are independent voters. Five percent say they're Republicans.

That's just too many independents and Republicans for some to visualize at a Democratic caucus. It's causing much harrumphing among the Democratic camps deflated by the numbers.

And who knows. Maybe they are correct. Maybe people are telling pollsters the acceptable thing, that, "Oh, yes, I'll be there," when, in fact, they'll be parked in front of the tube, watching football.

But maybe it isn't wrong. Maybe we're looking at a big Obama turnout in Iowa. Maybe we're looking at the beginning of an Obama sweep to the nomination and the presidency.

From the very beginning, Obamamania has generated huge crowds across the state. They are often full of faces not seen at political rallies.

For example, on Monday night at a New Year's Eve party in Ames, hundreds packed the Great Hall at Iowa State University and waited for more than an hour to hear Obama deliver his well-polished stump speech.

In that speech he does something interesting. He always asks for a show of hands of those who've never been to a caucus. (More than half the hands go up.) He always asks for a show of hands of those who are undecided. (Maybe a third of the hands are in the air.)

Now, I assume here that someone who would devote their New Year's Eve to attending a political speech might just be a little predisposed to go out a few nights later to caucus for the candidate who delivered it. Just a guess.

And maybe Hillary Clinton is bringing out lots of women to support her. Despite her scars and wounds from years in the political wars, her crowds are full of women who say it's about time. Finally, one of our own. If not her, then who and when?

And why shouldn't there be a huge turnout of first-timers? This is Iowa. We are one of the most literate and civic-minded states in the country. (Our school test scores are among the highest. Our voter participation rates are among the highest, and we rank third in the number of libraries per person.)

So we're all well aware that the presidential contest is wide open and that both parties have competitive races for their nominations. Against that backdrop is the fact that the nation is at war and has an economy with the jitters.

On top of that comes the largest political campaign ever waged in the state. For more than a year, Iowans have been carpet-bombed by record numbers of candidate visits, interest groups, commercials, mail, phone calls and people knocking on doors. Millions of dollars have been spent here and hundreds of staffers deployed, using the most advanced political tactics and technologies. Day in and day out, we have been told how important we are and how so much is at stake.

Given all that, should we furrow our brow at the finding that a record number of people are saying: "All right, all right. I'm going."

Powerful Graphics Illustrate Barack's Strengths In Iowa And Beyond.

Dan Hannaher — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:05:34 EST

Obama is ABC News Buzz Maker of the Week

Dan Hannaher — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 10:07:20 EST

An interesting look at why Barack is creating such a buzz around the country:

This campaign has brought the full spectrum of Barack Obama -- everything from Boston Barack (he of the soaring, inspiring rhetoric that made him a star at the 2004 Democratic National Convention) to Boring Barack (he of the dry policy statements and detached manner on the stump).
But as other campaigns have tested new messages and found new ways of pitching themselves, Obama has stuck to one fundamental concept: change. He embodies his message, and it's a comfortable return for him in the final days before the Iowa caucuses.
"The real gamble in this election is playing the same Washington game with the same Washington players and expecting a different result," Obama said Thursday in outlining his campaign's closing argument. "And that's a risk we can't take. Not this year. Not when the stakes are this high."
Back when Obama was smashing fundraising records but stuck far back in national and state-level polls, it was easy to conclude that Obama had missed his moment. His campaign drifted for months, seemingly content to let the Clinton campaign begin to define Obama, as John Edwards motored ahead in Iowa.
Obama campaign aides were nervous -- particularly as it seemed, as summer turned to fall, that Hillary Clinton was on a glide path to the nomination. He drew contrasts with Clinton in fits and starts, clearly more comfortable talking hope than taking (or dishing out) heat.
Yet in recent weeks, Obama has turned the enthusiasm about his candidacy into something very real in Iowa and beyond. He hasn't done it by criticizing Clinton, Edwards, or his other rivals -- though there's been a share of that of that.
He's done it mainly by defining and underlining what it means to be an agent of change -- and with that giving voice and hopes to frustrated Democrats.
Obama remains a cautious operator for a change agent. Clinton has regained her footing, and retains a formidable political team. Iowa is up for grabs, a three-way race that all three top candidates really need to win.
But just a few days before the Iowa caucuses, Obama commands the central position in the race. His tussles with Clinton and Edwards -- very different in tone and content -- are dominating the race.
Obama, this first-term senator with the funny name, stands in striking distance of knocking off the Clinton machine in the first state to cast ballots. That's more audacity than simple hope.
--Rick Klein, ABC News, author of The Note

Halperin - "Best Speech of the Year"

Dan Hannaher — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 12:16:39 EST

Mark Halperin is touting Barack's new stump speech as being the best of the year. Read it here:

http://thepage.time.com/obamas-new-stump-speech/

Halperin - "Best Speech of the Year"

Dan Hannaher — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 12:16:39 EST

Mark Halperin is touting Barack's new stump speech as being the best of the year. Read it here:

http://thepage.time.com/obamas-new-stump-speech/

"A Sign Of Strength"

Dan Hannaher — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 10:32:16 EST

The Politico has a good look at the make up of the Obama campaign and how effective his organization has been. Old Bob Shrum even is quoted as saying these mechanics are, "a sign of strength." I'd encourage you to read the whole article: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7508.html

Alter Rebutts Krugman

Dan Hannaher — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 08:24:43 EST

I've been taken aback by the series of off-kilter criticisms of Barack by Paul Krugman in The Times. Now Jon Alter at Newsweek provides a very telling rebuttal. Read: http://www.newsweek.com/id/80882/page/1

Obama's Personality Power

Dan Hannaher — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:36:10 EST

Fareed Zakaria has an interesting piece in Newsweek comparing some of his own life experiences with those of Barack Obama, and concluding that those experiences are worthy attributes for our next President. Read: http://www.newsweek.com/id/78157/page/1

Cohen Talks With Barack On America In The World

Dan Hannaher — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:11:23 EST

The NY Times Cohen writes of his conversation with Barack about America's role in the world:

Obama’s American Idea

by ROGER COHEN

Published: December 10, 2007

I asked Senator Barack Obama if he’s tough enough for a dangerous world. Sometimes the Democratic candidate treads so carefully, and looks so vulnerable to a gust of wind, that the question of whether his legal mind can get lethal arises.

“Yes, I’m tough enough,” he responded during a half-hour conversation. “What I’ve always found is people who talk about how tough they are aren’t the tough ones. I’m less interested in beating my chest and rattling my saber and more in making decisions that build a safer and more secure world.”

Obama, speaking less than a month before the Iowa caucus on Jan. 3, continued: “We can and should lead the world, but we have to apply wisdom and judgment. Part of our capacity to lead is linked to our capacity to show restraint.”

That was striking: an enduring belief in U.S. leadership coupled with a commitment to, as he also put it, acting “with a sense of humility.” Skepticism about the American idea and American global stewardship has grown fast during the Bush years.

There are many reasons: the failures in Iraq; the abyss between U.S. principle and practice (Abu Ghraib); the rise of other nations (China); startling displays of American incoherence (Iran); economic vulnerability (the dollar as declining store of value); and general resentments stirred by any near hegemonic power.

All this has led some to conclude that the world would be better off if America slunk home. As Joyce Carol Oates wrote in The Atlantic: “How heartily sick the world has grown, in the first seven years of the 21st century, of the American idea!” It has become a “cruel joke.”

If a global survey were taken, that might prove to be a minority opinion, but I doubt it.

Still, Obama stands by the universality of the American proposition: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness under a constitutional government of limited powers. “I believe in American exceptionalism,” he told me, but not one based on “our military prowess or our economic dominance.”

Rather, he insisted, “our exceptionalism must be based on our Constitution, our principles, our values and our ideals. We are at our best when we are speaking in a voice that captures the aspirations of people across the globe.”

It is dangerous, of course, to speak of being exceptional; people tend to resent it. If the United States said its ambition was to be normal, few would object. But Obama is right to retain a belief in America’s capacity to inspire; it remains unique. And I still see no credible stabilizing alternative to the far-flung American garrisons that act as the offsetting power to old rivalries in Asia and Europe.

Pax Americana, being neither perfect nor peaceful, is not popular. Only its absence would convince its detractors of its worth.

Obama’s main Democratic rivals, Senator Hillary Clinton and former Senator John Edwards, have joined him in calling for a shift from fear, militarism and unilateralism toward interaction, including with enemies. But Obama’s global engagement seems visceral in unusual ways.

“If, as president, I travel to a poor country to talk to leaders there, they will know I have a grandmother in a small village in Africa without running water, devastated by malaria and AIDS,” he said. “What that allows me to do is talk honestly not only about our need to help them, but about poor countries’ obligation to help themselves. There are cousins of mine in Kenya who can’t get a job without paying an exorbitant bribe to some midlevel functionary. I can talk about that.”

Referring to the time he spent in Indonesia, Obama said: “I have lived in the most populous Muslim country in the world, had relatives who practiced Islam. I am a Christian, but I can say I understand your worldview, although I may not agree with how Islam has evolved. I can speak forcefully about the need for Muslim countries to reconcile themselves to modernity in ways they have failed to do.”

Al Qaeda attacked the West in Kenya, Bali and New York. Obama’s father was Kenyan. The senator was schooled partly in Indonesia. He attended college in New York. The parallels are strange. They can also be a source of the toughness married to intuition for which he still seeks complete expression.

Nowhere in American history has the gulf between ideals and sordid practice been greater than on questions of race. It is precisely the gulf between high principle — not least habeas corpus — and unprincipled actions that has done the most damage to America’s image in recent years. Once again, Obama appears to bridge and reconcile.

“We can’t entirely remake the world,” he told me. “What we can do is lead by example.”

Television Coverage of "Got Hope?" Meeting in Bismarck

Dan Hannaher — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 11:19:07 EST

From KFYR Television:

Obama `08 in ND Brandi Powell12/5/2007 Presidential candidates need a vision to share with America if they hope to win the election. Supporters of Barack Obama are asking the question, "Got Hope?" That`s the name of the North Dakota Obama presidential campaign. The campaign is organizing supporters to encourage turnout for the February 5th caucuses.

Barack Obama supporters say they want him to be President. But before that could happen, he`d have to be chosen as the Democratic candidate. Some North Dakotans say they want to help make that happen, starting at the North Dakota caucus.

Matt Weinstein, North Dakota Caucus Director, says just because North Dakota is a small state doesn`t mean the Obama `08 campaign is skipping over it. In fact, it set up shop in North Dakota in November.

"Our campaign feels strongly that this is a national election, that it`s a national campaign and that we won`t leave states being, particularly states that have been put in this box as sort of a red state," says Weinstein.

Jason Henderson agrees. He says there`s a lot at stake for the U.S., including North Dakota.

"How the elections turn out is going to affect all of us as citizens, as taxpayers," says Henderson of Mandan.

So supporters like Wendy Owen are pointing out why they`re going to vote for Obama.

"Well, because he`s not been in Washington for so long," says Owen.

A young woman named Cassie Kickert says she plans to vote for Obama.

"I was just looking for another candidate and then I read his book," says Kickert.

Supporters say the candidate`s message is one of hope.

"He`s willing to look at new ideas, new ways to approach problems," says Deb Pascua of Bismarck.

A plus to those like Erik Van Walden who say Obama speaks to them intuitively.

"I think he has the courage to take this country in a new, positive direction," says Van Walden.

Many of them say through volunteering for the Obama campaign, they plan to make that dream a reality. Thursday, a kickoff meeting and caucus training will take place in Fargo at The Red Raven at 6:00 p.m. Weinstein says they`re looking for volunteers across the state. For more information, call Matt at 701-297-5167, or email mweinstein@barackobama.com.

Not Just Promising, But Delivering A New Kind Of Politics

Dan Hannaher — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 16:38:22 EST

The New York Observer today:

Obama Offers Way Out of Dean, Hart and Kennedy Trap

by Niall Stanage | December 4, 2007

This article was published in the December 10, 2007, edition of The New York Observer.

Getty Images

Barack Obama.

Barack Obama is on the cusp of pulling off what no one in his party has achieved for years.

If recent polls, together with the crowds at his events, are anything to go by, he is simultaneously appealing to strident Democratic activists and seducing floating voters and independents. The combination, if it proves durable, is electoral gold dust.

The recent history of the Democratic Party is littered with compelling insurgent candidates—Howard Dean, Gary Hart and Ted Kennedy, for example—who rode a wave of grass-roots fervor before crashing to earth.

Mr. Obama seems to offer a way out of the trap.

On the one hand, he employs the lofty rhetoric that thrills the foot soldiers of his party, and he seems to share their basic values.

On the other, he runs on a Democratic centrist policy platform and projects a persona that, being both charismatic and optimistic, draws in the uncommitted rather than scaring them away, as a Dean or a Kennedy might.

This, as much as his now-famous life story, is part of what makes Mr. Obama special.

As he proves often on the stump, he can take an argument comprised of elements that should, on their face, be discordant and meld them into something coherent.

At a low-cost fund-raiser in Boston on Sunday night, for example, Mr. Obama excoriated unnamed Democrats for being in thrall to the idea that they could only appear tough on national security by “acting like George Bush Republicans”.

He also took to task those who, he claimed, carefully calibrate their positions out of fear about “what Mitt or Rudy might say about us.”

And Mr. Obama seemed to implicate Bill as well as Hillary Clinton in this critique. He bemoaned the tendency toward “triangulation”—a word virtually synonymous with the Clinton presidency—and went on to deride “poll-driven politics” and those who opt to lead by “calculation” rather than “convictions.”

But Mr. Obama also presented himself as a man capable of easing the enmity that has festered between Republicans and Democrats for at least a decade. Mrs. Clinton has no such capacity, he implied.

“I don’t want to spend the next four years rearguing the same partisan arguments that we had all through the 1990’s,” he said. “I don’t want to pit red America against blue America.”

Invoking long-ago Democratic icons like J.F.K. and F.D.R., he added, “This party has been at its best when we have summoned the entire nation—not just half the nation, not just a portion of a demographic, the entire nation—around a higher goal, a common purpose.”

Seventy-four-year-old Jim Foley of Danvers, Mass., was among the crowd at Mr. Obama’s Boston speech. Asked why he liked the Illinois senator, Mr. Foley replied, “He’s not an ideologue. He’ll take Republican ideas, Democratic ideas, it doesn’t matter to him. He is not interested in advancing a particular agenda.”

As Frank Rich noted in Sunday’s New York Times, Mr. Obama has even been attracting nonironic plaudits from conservatives like Peggy Noonan and former Bush adviser Mark McKinnon.

And in a Des Moines Register poll published on Dec. 2, 27 percent of likely Democratic caucus-goers said Mr. Obama was the “best able to bring Republicans and Democrats together,” compared with 18 percent for Mrs. Clinton.

In the same poll, 25 percent also said Mr. Obama was the “most principled” Democrat in the field, compared with just 16 percent for Mrs. Clinton, who was pushed into third place in that category by John Edwards.

Mr. Obama’s stump speech customarily ends with him beseeching his audience to “reach for what’s possible” rather than accepting “what the cynics would have you settle for.”

There is no proof at all that Mr. Obama could govern in such a high-minded fashion if given the chance, of course. But for now, it is easy to see why many of his supporters believe they have found a man capable of performing political alchemy.

Maybe Mrs. Clinton and her surrogates will succeed in taking the gloss off Mr. Obama’s candidacy between now and the Iowa caucuses on Jan. 3. Maybe they can turn him into just another ambitious politician saying whatever it takes to get votes.

So far, though, Mr. Obama is holding up. He is tantalizingly close to becoming that rarest of things in American politics—a candidate who doesn’t just promise a new kind of politics, but delivers it

Another Iowa Poll - ARG Obama Leads By 2

Dan Hannaher — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 09:25:37 EST

Barack has picked up six points and Clinton has dropped two in the latest American Research Group poll in Iowa.

American Research Group, Inc.

Iowa

Presidential Caucus Preference:

IowaLikely Democratic Caucus GoersNov 10-14Nov 26-29 Biden5%8%Clinton27%25%Dodd3%3%Edwards20%23%Gravel--Kucinich2%2%Obama21%27%Richardson12%4%Undecided10%8%

33% of likely caucus participants are undecided (8%) or say that they could switch candidates between now and January 3 (25%).
80% of those saying they support Clinton say their support is definite.
57% of those saying they support Edwards say their support is definite.
75% of those saying they support Obama say their support is definite.
Among men, Clinton is at 22%, Edwards 22%, and Obama 30%.
Among women, Clinton is at 28%, Edwards 24%, and Obama 25%.

"The Closer"

Dan Hannaher — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 16:39:43 EST

Another lengthy look at Barack, this time by The New Republic. Read "The Closer."

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=b4160e00-e6f2-4eda-b776-4427c03c3858

"The Taste" - TIME Magazine Article

Dan Hannaher — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 07:47:34 EST

TIME this week features an article on Barack with an interesting linkage to Lincoln's presidential ambitions in 1860 where he said "the taste is in my mouth."

Obama Finds His Moment

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1688931-1,00.html

"The Fix" On Fargo

Dan Hannaher — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 08:51:58 EST

Chris writes up the Obama campaign's strategy for February 5th including opening outposts in far flung locales such as Fargo:

Obama Invests in Feb. 5 Strategy

When 2008 morphed into the fast-track campaign, it was broadly assumed that the slew of big states holding primaries on Feb. 5 would play into the hands of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.). Her name recognition alone, this theory held, would give her a huge advantage over her lesser-known rivals for the nomination.

Barack Obama has three offices in Alabama. Three!?!? (AP Photo)

But as Feb. 5 creeps ever closer, it is clear that Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) is willing to challenge the conventional wisdom, a fight he's pursuing by building the broadest organizational network in the Feb. 5 states.

To date, Obama has 19 offices in 13 states where Feb. 5 primaries are scheduled, including the campaign's newest satellite office in Fargo, North Dakota. In addition to obvious places like Los Angeles, Phoenix and New York City, Obama has opened offices in three Alabama cities (Montgomery, Tuscaloosa and Birmingham), as well as in St. Paul, Minn., Lawrence, Kansas, and Salt Lake City. An Alaska office is also in the offing, according to the campaign.

Clinton, by contrast, has five total offices currently open in Feb. 5 states -- two in California, and one each in New Jersey, New York and Arkansas. The campaign soon plans to open offices in Colorado, Missouri, Georgia, Minnesota and Arizona, according to deputy communications director Phil Singer, and has held organizing meetings in 46 states.

The breadth of Obama's organizing speaks to the belief among his campaign's senior staff that there is a real chance that the nomination fight will extend until at least the Feb. 5 Tsunami Tuesday balloting.

"We fully expect that Barack will be in this through and beyond Feb. 5," said Steve Hildebrand, a senior Obama strategist overseeing much of the organizing in early states. "With at least 25 states competitive over a 33-day period starting with Iowa and ending with February 5, it is vitally important for any serious candidate to organize to the extent that they can in every one of those states."

The reality is that Obama is still a very new commodity on the national stage. Polls taken in Feb. 5 states show Clinton with wide leads. In California, Clinton leads Obama 45 percent to 20 percent, according to the latest Field Poll; a Rutgers-Eagleton poll put Clinton's lead over Obama in New Jersey at 52 percent to 21 percent.

Assuming the nomination battle extends into February, it will likely be because no candidate managed to secure knock-out blows in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada or South Carolina. In this scenario, neither Obama nor Clinton would have significant momentum heading into Feb. 5, thus it would put the burden on Obama to make up ground in the large states where he trails Clinton badly at the moment.

Hence the Obama camp's office-opening drive. Having a visible presence in the Feb. 5 states allows Obama to begin to rally people to his flag and make clear to undecided voters that there is (and will continue to be) an alternative to Clinton.

It's important not to equate opening offices with winning a primaries in mega-states like California, New Jersey or Illinois. If Obama can't muster an early win in Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire or South Carolina, having offices around the country won't matter one whit.

What then to make of Obama's willingness and ability to finance operations in such far flung locales as Alabama and North Dakota?

First, it's a testament to his massive fundraising operation, a cash-collecting machine that has allowed him to do something that was thought unimaginable just 12 months ago -- match (and even exceed) Clinton organizationally across the country.

Second, it shows that Obama is preparing for the long haul in the nomination fight and has no plans to go away if Clinton scores several victories early on. That calculus may well change if Obama comes under considerable pressure from the establishment to step aside for the good of the party, but it's clear at least right now that the Illinois Senator is digging in for a protracted fight.

By Chris Cillizza | November 28, 2007; 6:00 AM ET

Movement In Iowa - Movement Called Obama

Dan Hannaher — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 09:33:24 EST

For once at least, ABC's "The Note" seems to get the situation correct. Movement is afoot in Iowa and that Movement is Obama's. Please read:

By RICK KLEIN with MIKE CHESNEY
Nov. 20, 2007 About that inevitability thing . . . just kidding. Barely 50 days before Iowa, it matters about as much as Dick Cheney's approval ratings, or Barry Bonds' contract situation, or Robert Novak's newest secret source.

Ladies and gentleman, we have ourselves a race. Toss out the 30-point lead in the national polls, the fundraising edge, the long list of endorsements, the bold predictions of Terry McAuliffe, Mark Penn, even Bill Clinton himself.

The new ABC News/Washington Post poll has Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., up on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., in Iowa -- really in a statistical tie in the state where they could be playing for all the marbles. It's Obama 30, Clinton 26, and former senator John Edwards, D-N.C., 22 -- setting up a three-way scramble for the top spot in a state that's notoriously difficult to call in advance.

The worrisome signs for Clinton aren't so much in Obama's movement (and her lack thereof) as they are inside the numbers. "A growing focus on fresh ideas coupled with lingering doubts about Hillary Clinton's honesty and forthrightness are keeping the Democratic presidential contest close in Iowa," ABC polling director Gary Langer reports.

"Most Democratic likely voters in Iowa, 55 percent, say they're more interested in a 'new direction and new ideas' than in strength and experience, compared with 49 percent in July -- a help to Obama, who holds a substantial lead among 'new direction' voters," Langer continues. The comparable number favoring "strength and experience" is 33 percent.

If Iowa isn't quite a must-win for all of the Democrats, it is a must-not-let-Hillary win for all who would presume to interrupt the Bush-Clinton-Bush chain. "Iowa Democrats are tilting toward change, and Obama appears to be benefiting from it," the Post's Anne Kornblut and Jon Cohen write.

"While about three-quarters credited both Obama and Edwards with speaking their mind on issues, only 50 percent said Clinton is willing enough to say what she really thinks," they write. And this sentence that matters to anyone who's been in a real-life caucus room: "In another positive shift for Obama, 55 percent now see him as their first or second choice, an important trend in a state where a person's second choice can matter and voters often switch their support at the last minute."

Obama and America In The Eyes Of The World

Dan Hannaher — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 08:04:52 EST

Cohen in today's NY Times focuses on the transformational nature of a Barack Obama presidency:

Op-Ed Columnist

Obama in Orbit

By ROGER COHENPublished: November 15, 2007

NEW YORK

Little that is certain can be said about the U.S. election a year from now, but one certainty is this: about 6.3 billion people will not be voting even if they will be affected by the outcome.

That’s the approximate world population outside the United States. If nothing else, President Bush has reminded them that it’s hard to get out of the way of U.S. power. The wielding of it, as in Iraq, has whirlwind effects. The withholding of it, as on the environment, has a huge impact.

No wonder the view is increasingly heard that everyone merits a ballot on Nov. 4, 2008.

That won’t happen, of course. Even the most open-armed multilateralist is not ready for hanging chads in Chad. But the broader point of the give-us-a-vote itch must be taken: the global community is ever more linked. American exceptionalism, as practiced by Bush, has created a longing for new American engagement.

Renewal is about policy; it’s also about symbolism. Which brings us to Barack Hussein Obama, the Democratic candidate with a Kenyan father, a Kansan mother, an Indonesian stepfather, a childhood in Hawaii and Indonesia and impressionable experience of the Muslim world.

If the globe can’t vote next November, it can find itself in Obama. Troubled by the violent chasm between the West and the Islamic world? Obama seems to bridge it. Disturbed by the gulf between rich and poor that globalization spurs? Obama, the African-American, gets it: the South Side of Chicago is the South Side of the world.

Michael Ignatieff, the deputy leader of Canada’s opposition Liberal Party, said: “Outsiders know it’s your choice. Still, they are following this election with passionate interest. And it’s clear Barack Obama would be the first globalized American leader, the first leader in whom internationalism would not be a credo, it would be in his veins.”

To the south, in Mexico, resentment of the Bush administration has less to do with American unilateralism and more with stalled immigration policy and the building of a border fence. But the thirst for change is the same.

“Mexicans want evidence that things are shifting, which means the Democrats, and of course a woman like Hillary Clinton, or a black like Obama, would signal a huge cultural change,” said Jorge Castañeda, a former foreign minister.

“My sense is the symbolism in Mexico of a dark-skinned American president would be enormous. We’ve got female leaders now in Latin America — in Chile, in Argentina. But the idea of a U.S. leader who looks the way the world looks as seen from Mexico is revolutionary.”

Of course, Mexicans aren’t electing the president. Nor are Canadians, even if Michael Moore thinks they should. The America of the global imagination is not that of red-state reality, a disconnect that has spawned a million misunderstandings.

Still, the transformational symbolism of an Obama presidency is compelling, especially as the actual content of the foreign policy proposals of leading Democratic candidates looks similar. Among Republicans, only John McCain — admired in Europe — seems to offer real bridge-building capacity.

Clinton, Obama and John Edwards all favor closing Guantánamo Bay. They all want to end the Iraq war, although they differ on how fast and on what residual force to leave in the country or area. They all favor undoing unilateralism. They all back engagement with Iran, although Clinton supported the designation of the Revolutionary Guard Corps as terrorists.

Most of this would please an expectant world. But Obama, while saying he might attack “high value terrorist targets” in Pakistan, has been most forthright in sketching a globalized community — “the security of the American people is inextricably linked to the security of all people” — and pushing hope over fear.

I see nobody else who would represent such a Kennedy-like restorative charge at a time when America often seems out of sync with the world.

Sir Jeremy Greenstock, the former British ambassador to the United Nations, told me that the United States remained the most important nation, but “the American label feels tied to something anachronistic. America has not been working out where the world is going, nor creating the appropriate relationships for that world.”

Obama, in many ways, is where the world is going. He embodies interconnectedness where the Bush administration has projected separateness.

Andrew Sullivan, in a fine piece in The Atlantic, imagines a Pakistani Muslim seeing on television a man “who attended a majority-Muslim school” and is “now the alleged enemy.”

He notes: “If you wanted the crudest but most effective weapon against the demonization of America that fuels Islamist ideology, Obama’s face gets close.”

The world isn’t voting. America is. But the candidate who most mirrors the 21st-century world seems clear enough.

The Iowa Youth Vote

Dan Hannaher — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 13:58:36 EST

Too many so called pundits are trying to compare Barack's efforts to engage young voters in his campaign to the efforts of the Dean campaign in 2004, which was almost totally dependent on the youth segment and marginally organized to use them caucus night. The Obama effort to engage, train and motivate all sectors is far different this year and the effectiveness of these efforts can be traced back to Barack's many years as a community organizer. His skills are made for success in a caucus environment. Today www.RealClearpolitics.com considers the subject. Go read:

November 14, 2007

Youth Vote May Bring Iowa Surprise

By Reid Wilson

DES MOINES -- When Sen. Barack Obama's campaign manager seemed to suggest, in a recent memo, that his candidate will benefit from a surge of "hidden" support not registered in polls, alarm bells rang for many political pundits. If Obama relies too much on the youth vote, many suspected, his strong support in early states like Iowa and New Hampshire would fail to materialize much as Howard Dean's had four years earlier.

On the other hand, with youth interest seemingly on the rise, this cycle's Iowa caucuses could be the first nominating contest in which younger voters play a definitive role in swinging delegates from one candidate to another. "All of these state and national surveys have and will continue to under-represent Barack's core support - in effect, his hidden vote," campaign manager David Plouffe wrote. The campaign hopes the youth vote will provide them the boost they need to surpass front-runner Hillary Clinton in Iowa.

Indeed, at this weekend's Iowa Democratic Party's Jefferson Jackson Dinner, the Obama camp claimed to have brought in 3,000 supporters, many college-aged and all clad in identical red Obama t-shirts. The campaign has offices open in cities with major college campuses, and some organizers are focused solely on college-age voters.

But the Obama campaign quickly clarified that they are not putting all their chips on turning out younger voters. "While student outreach is a piece of the puzzle, it's not the keystone," said Obama spokeswoman Jen Psaki. The campaign won't fall into the same trap candidates like Dean did, by depending on voters who don't traditionally show up. "We've learned from the successes and mistakes of the past," she said.

The hidden youth vote is oft-cited by politicians who believe they have more support than scientific polls show. Young voters, Plouffe pointed out in the memo, are less likely to have voted regularly in primaries; they are less likely to be home when pollsters call in early evening hours; and they are less likely to use a land-line, preferring cell phones. Those factors mean pollsters are more likely to undersample and overlook younger voters.

"It seems like every cycle there is a candidate who says, 'This is the year we get out the youth vote,'" said former Iowa Democratic Party chairman Gordon Fischer, who is backing Obama. "In the past, there have been attempts to organize the youth vote. I don't think there has been as large an attempt as there is now."

George Mason University Professor Michael McDonald, an expert on voter turnout, thinks Plouffe and Fischer may be right when he says more young people will vote than pollsters believe. McDonald points out that 18-29 year olds have begun turning out in higher numbers. In the general election in 2004, 49% of the demographic turned out to vote, up nine points from 2000 when national turnout rose about 4%, according to the Current Population Survey conducted by the Census Bureau (the survey, also used to determine the U.S. unemployment rate, is considered the most accurate survey of turnout trends). "There's some indications that youth interest is up in this election cycle," he said.

Younger voters turn out when moved to do so, said turnout specialist Curtis Gans, who directs the Center for the Study of the American Electorate at American University. In 2004, college students and younger voters turned out in high numbers to vote against President Bush. This year, Obama and other candidates are trying to move voters to turn out in favor of their candidacies. For Obama, that pull looks especially strong. "If [younger voters] feel that this is a cause, there may be some resonance," Gans said.

If that interest generates votes for any Democrat, Obama is the most likely beneficiary. The freshman senator is hugely popular among college students - one unofficial group on the popular campus social networking site Facebook has attracted about 381,000 members; his official Facebook profile boasts 162,000 supporters. Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton, by contrast, has about 51,000 supporters.

Still, "this is not a demographic that [Obama] can count on as a majority," said McDonald. "This can be an important swing group [in a primary], but I wouldn't put all my eggs in that basket." Even with record caucus attendance in 2004, when more than 124,000 Democrats showed up to participate in the crowded and contentious Democratic nominating contest, people between the ages of 18-34 made up just 10% of the crowd, according to Iowa Democratic Party statistics. By contrast, 32% were over 65.

Turnout, too, is key to success in Iowa. The 124,000 who showed up on caucus night 2004 was just over 6% of the eligible electorate. This year, asked whether more young voters will turn out to caucus, Fischer said Democrats are simply looking at "more of everything." The race is "as competitive in Iowa as it's ever been," he said, predicting a new attendance record this year. Because so few Iowa youth vote, campaigns may decide to focus their turnout strategies to older people who more reliably show up.

Actually getting younger participants to caucuses is a task susceptible to several hurdles. The circumstances surrounding caucus night are major barriers: Iowans who have long caucused themselves will invariably point out, when asked about the experience, that the weather is likely to be miserably cold, and that attendees must spend hours in a room with people they barely know and proudly voice their opinions on politics. "That's not normal college student behavior," University of Iowa political scientist Bruce Gronbeck said with a laugh.

No matter how cold it is, younger and first-time voters still need to learn how to operate in a caucus, and the process itself is another barrier, one that requires a time-intensive investment to overcome. Trading votes, compromising and convincing neighbors are all skills required to win delegates for one's chosen candidate. "Half the battle is getting [young voters] to show up," independent pollster Ann Selzer said. "And another quarter of the battle is teaching them what to do."

"You need a well-organized, well-disciplined campaign. It takes a lot more hand-holding" than a primary, she said. Experienced caucus-goers, many of whom have participated in the process for decades, can operate more effectively than a passionate younger voter with little knowledge of the process.

Ironically, Iowa's push to maintain its first-in-the-nation nominating contest could push down, or at least seriously dilute, the youth vote. The state will hold its caucuses on January 3rd, a date which falls in the middle of winter vacation, when most students are still home with their families.

Students who live out of state are not able to participate at the caucuses. That's up to 37% of the more than 30,000 students at the University of Iowa alone, according to the school's registrar. The remaining 63% will face fellow caucus-goers in their home precincts, instead of fellow college students at a caucus near campus. If a few younger voters show up to a caucus dominated by older, more experienced attendees, their influence will be greatly diminished.

If youth are to have an effect anywhere, Iowa looks to be the most likely place it would be felt. Campuses are popular destinations for candidates. "Candidates enjoy going [to colleges and universities]," said Selzer, who conducts surveys for the Des Moines Register. "It gives them a real sense of momentum and enthusiasm." A student attending one of the state's major schools, including the University of Iowa, the University of Northern Iowa, Simpson College, Iowa State University or Drake University will have more than one opportunity to run across any Democratic candidate, and most Republican candidates, all within steps of their dorm rooms.

Campaigns are also putting a stronger emphasis on Iowa, now that the race enters its final hundred days. Many, both inside various Democratic campaigns and those who observe from the outside, believe that if Clinton wins in here, the snowball effect her campaign will feel would be unstoppable. With polls showing a tight three-way race, it is up to her opponents to halt her march toward the nomination in the Hawkeye State.

To that end, several candidates have poured millions of dollars into Iowa already, and the flow of money and infrastructure will only continue. Former Sen. John Edwards has virtually made the state his second home, since his surprise second-place finish in 2004 catapulted him to a one-on-one face off with John Kerry. Obama boasts 31 satellite campaign offices in the state, more than any other candidate. He's spent more than $4 million on television ads, while New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and Clinton have each spent more than $2.2 million. Several second-tier candidates have packed up an moved all but a few staffers - and even family members -- to Iowa for the critical final stretch.

If the race is as close as polls suggest - Clinton, Obama and Edwards all hover in the low to mid-20% range - strong youth turnout could be key to anyone's hopes of winning. Pollster Selzer says it is no longer implausible to bank on new faces showing up on caucus night. In 2004, 45% of attendees were first-time caucus-goers.

But Obama, she said, shouldn't bank on younger voters showing up, and she doubts his strategists will make the same mistakes others made. "He's got a smart campaign, and I think they are probably well aware of what it will take to have those voters materialize."

Fischer said the campaign is pleased with its support from younger voters, but that traditional campaigning comes first. "We're looking at young voters as icing on the cake," he said, "but we're still baking the cake."

Youth Vote May Bring Iowa Surprise

Rerunning the Heart Versus Brain Race

McCain Plays Foreign Policy Experience Card

Edwards Shines, But Clinton Still Leads

GOP Faces More Bad News In Virginia

"Obama Makes Hay At J-J" - Yepsen

Dan Hannaher — Sun, 11 Nov 2007 08:50:28 EST

David Yepsen praises Barack's performance last night in Des Moines: Obama Makes Hay at JJ.

The leading Democratic presidential candidates showed up for the Iowa Democratic Party's big Jefferson Jackson Dinner Saturday night.

Five of them gave really good speeches.

Barack Obama's was excellent.

It was one of the best of his campaign. The passion he showed should help him close the gap on Hillary Clinton by tipping some undecided caucus-goers his way. His oratory was moving and he successfully contrasted himself with the others - especially Clinton - without being snide or nasty about it.

Historically, the iowa party's "JJ" dinner is a landmark event in Democratic presidential caucus campaigns. All the key party activists, donors and players from the state are present. This year, about 9,000 of them showed up, most were from Iowa though there was some grumbling that Obama packed the place with people from Illinois. The charge was denied by the Obama people, who were clearly pleased they beat the other candidates in the noise war inside Veterans Memorial Auditorium.

A candidate who does well at a JJ is quickly in the political buzz around Iowa. A candidate who does poorly can be quickly written off by some important players in the party. Candidates also know the event provides them with an opportunity to sound new themes, launch new attacks or mount a defense of their weaknesses. Local and national observers show up to chronicle the changes.

Obama was particularly impressive Saturday night. Should he win the Iowa caucuses, Saturday's dinner will be remembered as one of the turning points in his campaign in here, a point where he laid down the marker and began closing on Clinton, the national frontrunner. For example:

He said the Iraq war "should have never been authorized and should have never been waged," a shot at the votes Clinton and most of the others cast in favor of it.
He said the nation has a "moment of great opportunity" and "we have a chance to bring the country together to tackle problems that George Bush made far worse and that festered long before George Bush took office." Translation: Clinton is divisive and there were problems the Clinton era didn't solve.
He said "the same old Washington textbook campaigns just won't do it in this election." Translation: Democrats can't win running a Bill Clinton campaign again.
He said "Not answering questions because we're afraid our answers just won't be popular just won't do it." Translation: Clinton doesn't take questions at some of her events. Now she's bogged down in a flap over staffers planting questions for her when she does and this was neat way to remind Democrats of it without tweaking Clinton directly."
He said "telling Americans what they think they want to hear instead of telling the American people what they need to hear just won't do it." Translation: Obama is often inclined to say things party interest groups don't want to hear - like the need for school reform, merit pay, more efficient cars or money to rebuild the military. She panders or is mushy.
He said "triangulating and poll-driven positions because we're worried what Mitt or Rudy might say about us just won't do it." He said he offers "change that is not just a slogan" and "change we can believe in." Polls were a hallmark of the Clinton era.
He said he wanted to "stop talking about the outrage of 47 million Americans without health care and start actually doing something about it." That was a smooth way to remind the audience how Clinton's effort at national health care failed.
There were also references to not taking money from lobbyists. And he said "I am running for president because I am sick and tired of Democrats thinking the only way to look tough on national security it talking and acting and voting like George Bush Republicans." Ouch.

His coup de grace came with this: "When I am the nominee of this party, the Republican nominee will not be able to say I voted for the war in Iraq, or that I gave George Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iran, or that I support Bush-Cheney policies of not talking to leaders that we don't like."
"I don't want to spend the next year or the next four years refighting the same fights that we had in the 1990s," a reference to the polarization of the Clinton years. "I don't want to pit red America against blue America."
The speech was also noteworthy because of the hour it was given. He was the last one to speak and didn't start until after 11 p.m. That's because the Iowa party loaded up the program with a bunch of Iowa politicians, who, well, just aren't in the same league with their presidential candidates but whose egos just couldn't keep them off the big stage.
It was a little like listening to a long Beethoven symphony while having some kid play a Tonette between movements.
And Obama can sometimes be flat or tired when speaks late at night. He can meander or sound wonkish and hesitant. Not Saturday night. (He came fired up and ready to go, to borrow a phrase.) At one point, he invoked Martin Luther King and his cadence even included the uplifting touches and quavering voice of a traditional black preacher's sermon.
While the Democratic candidates all had a good night, Obama clearly had the best. Now we'll have to see if he's got anything left for Tim Russert this morning. Obama faces one of the toughest questioners in the business on NBCs Meet the Press at 8 a.m. Iowa time after only a few hours of sleep.

And So It Begins.

Dan Hannaher — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 15:26:43 EST

From www.politicalwire.com:

A new poll from New Hampshire that shows Sen. Hillary Clinton's lead cut dramatically, essentially making it a three way race with John Edwards and Sen. Barack Obama.

Stay tuned this weekend for more details.

From Marc Ambinder http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/:

Two new reputable polls of New Hampshire Democratic Primary voters will show statistically significant drops in support for frontrtunner Hillary Clinton, Democrats who have seen those polls said today.

The polls will be released this weekend and are embargoed; though I'm not privy to the embargo agreement, I'll be a little vague out of respect for the polling organizations.

One of the polls shows that the gap between Clinton and Barack Obama narrowed by more than 10 points. Her biggest decline was seen among older voters.

The other shows Clinton's lead over Obama reduced by approximately 9 points.

John Edwards remains at about 15 percent in both.

Now This Is An Event To Watch - "Iowa's J-J Dinner"

Dan Hannaher — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 10:42:52 EST

I was active in the John Kerry campaign in 2003-2004, even during his low ebb of November and December '03. The most explicit evidence of the Kerry resurgence came at the Iowa Jefferson-Jackson Day Dinner. That night JK performed well, wowed the crowd of influential Iowans and began his rocket ride to the nomination.

Tomorrow night once again Iowans gather for the J-J Dinner and ten minute speeches by the major candidates. Look for this to be a break-out opportunity for Obama. He bats clean-up, speaking last to a crowd eager to hear his message. Then Sunday morning he'll spend time with Tim Russert (oh, by the way Tim's the Washington Bureau Chief for NBC News and moderator of Meet the Press...just in case you weren't aware of that). I'm looking for a good weekend for Barack and the movement to change this country.

First Read blog has a similar analysis:

As the Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder has smartly noted, John Kerry’s speech at the Iowa Democratic Party’s Jefferson-Jackson dinner -- which took place almost four years ago to this day -- marked the beginning of his comeback. (In fact, Saturday happens to be the four-year anniversary of when he overhauled his campaign team.) In his J-J speech, Kerry said that what Iowans needed was a president (i.e., Kerry), not a message (i.e., Howard Dean). "We need to offer answers, not just anger,” Kerry said. “So Iowa, don't just send them a message next January; send them a president." That speech and another one in New Hampshire were “the two critical message points for us,” says Stephanie Cutter, who served as Kerry’s communications director. Laura Capps, who was the campaign’s Iowa spokeswoman, adds that while Dean had more supporters attend the dinner, the pro-Kerry troops were out in full force. “We definitely felt like we won,” she tells First Read. “J-J solidified it was possible” that Kerry could pull off a win in Iowa, which he did on his way to the Democratic nomination.

*** … And now: At the time, NBC’s Huma Zaidi reminds us, Kerry was tied for fourth place nationally in the NBC/WSJ poll. Of course, we’re not suggesting that the history from 2003-2004 will repeat itself. But as this cycle’s Democratic presidential candidates attend the Iowa Democratic Party’s Jefferson Jackson dinner on Saturday -- with the latest NBC/WSJ poll showing the Dem horserace to be stagnant nationally, with Clinton way out in front -- Kerry’s speech four years ago shows that things can start to change when we least expect it. The dinner begins at 8:00 pm ET, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaks first. Then Edwards, Richardson, Biden, Dodd, Clinton, and Obama (in that order) address an audience of 9,000, which the Iowa Democratic Party says is it’s largest ever. So Obama closes the night and wakes up bright and early for an hour-long sit-down with NBC’s Tim Russert as part of the "Meet the Press" 2008 candidate series.

Comparing The Crowds In Iowa

Dan Hannaher — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 10:13:10 EST

John Dickerson at Slate writes about the amazing connection that Barack makes with the crowds in Iowa, and discusses the newcomers to the caucus process. If all these folks do what I think they're committed to doing, WE WIN!

Innocence vs. ExperienceThe difference between watching Obama and Clinton in Iowa.

By John Dickerson
Posted Wednesday, Nov. 7, 2007, at 12:19 PM ET

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama

CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa—I've seen Barack Obama's show. I've seen the crowds. I've seen the audacity. I've seen the hope. I knew what to expect Tuesday night at his event at Kirkwood Community College in Cedar Rapids, and yet after it was over I was still impressed. He was funny and passionate, and he connected with his big audience. When he left the stage, the room was on its feet and chanting with him. Nothing like that happened during the two days I followed Hillary Clinton. Her performances were solid and her audiences were enthusiastic, but they didn't interrupt her with applause the way they did with Obama.

A talented candidate works with the rhythm of an audience, taking it through a range of emotions—humor, passion, and anger. If the candidate does it right, the room feels more committed at the end of the event than during the opening jokes. That's what it was like when Obama spoke.

"Why isn't he killing her?" asked a colleague after Obama's hour-long visit. It's the persistent question for his campaign. He wows the crowds but lags in the polls everywhere but Iowa. One answer may lie in a question an Obama supporter asked the crowd before the senator arrived. Warming up the room, Linda Langston, a local politician, asked how many of the people there had never attended a caucus. It seemed like nearly half the room raised their hands. At the Clinton events, where the average age is at least 10 years older, every person I interviewed afterward offered a list of the candidates they'd supported in the caucuses during previous elections. This is the big question for the Obama campaign, which needs to do well in Iowa to survive: Can he lock in voters after they leave his rallies?

Since the start of the campaign, Obama strategists have insisted they would not make the mistake Howard Dean did in 2004, when he was unable to get the enthusiastic crowds to commit to Iowa's complicated caucus process, which requires an evening's commitment, not just the flipping of a switch. So, Obama asks voters to fill out fliers to signify their support and encourages people to volunteer as precinct captains. A sophomore at the college who is planning to attend her first caucus introduced the process to the audience as if to say, See, you can do it, too. Langston tried to make the whole process fun, but it sounded more like getting a flu shot. "It's really not that difficult," she insisted.

Hillary Clinton's pitch to voters, by contrast, is more low-key. It almost comes as a surprise at the end of her speeches when she asks her audiences if they will consider caucusing for her on Jan. 3. Clinton is so formidable in her pantsuit uniform, with her Secret Service agents and swarm of aides, that when she moves into plea mode, it sounds discordant. Here you are, the inevitable candidate, ignoring your primary opponents—but you still have to ask for votes, which reminds us the outcome two months from now is still totally up in the air.

And yet Clinton is hustling. Her voice was shot after her four-day tour. As she answered a question in the historic prairie town of Amana, Iowa, Tuesday afternoon, what started as a croak turned into a cough. "I need some health care," she joked. It wasn't just her many public stops across the state that had worn her out. Between her appearances, she has been holding smaller meetings to convince undecided voters, inspire precinct captains, and make personal appeals. She's doing what's necessary to put in place the ground organization that is crucial to getting those who say they'll support you to actually do so when the evening comes.

After Obama spoke Wednesday morning in Bettendorf on the eastern edge of Iowa, Pam Schroder nodded with approval. A longtime secretary at the education agency where he delivered a policy speech on helping the middle class, she liked what she heard. She hasn't decided whom to vote for yet, but she's narrowed it down to Clinton and Obama. "I'm leaning toward Barack," she said, explaining that she wanted to hear Clinton in person, too, before finally making up her mind. She's taking the process very seriously. Though she's voted in several elections, she's never participated in a caucus. If Obama wins in Iowa, it will be because he was able to capture people just like Schroder.

Obama Supports Ethanol.

Dan Hannaher — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 17:01:10 EST

This has been a topic among Obama supporters in North Dakota. Some imagine a simple clear print advertisement of Barack standing in a cornfield and/or in front of an ethanol plant with the message; "Obama Supports Ethanol."

Today in a Des Moines Register article Barack contrasts his position with that of Sen. Clinton. Read:

Obama attacks Clinton's ethanol shift JASON CLAYWORTH
REGISTER STAFF WRITER

November 6, 2007

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said today that rival Hillary Clinton’s past record shows she’s anti-ethanol.

“It’s hard to believe that she is a strong ethanol supporter given her track record and this is something that represents a major reversal and what we need is consistency on these issues,” Obama said in an interview. “If she’s willing to shift this quickly on this issue, we don’t know whether she will shift back when it gets hard.”

Obama's new attack on Clinton comes as the New York senator's closest rivals have ramped up their criticism of her. Clinton has continued to lead the Democratic field in national polls and has led recently in a close Iowa race.

Clinton, on Monday in Cedar Rapids, outlined a 10-year, $150 billion proposal that includes specific goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent and raise automobile fuel efficiency standards to 55 miles per gallon by 2050.

Obama's campaign staff responded Monday that Clinton’s energy policy amounted to little more than campaign rhetoric. The Illinois senator's campaign released information that points out that Clinton voted more than a dozen times between 2000 and 2005 “against ethanol.”

The U.S. senator from New York has explained most of those votes. She has said at the time legislation was being considered and the way various legislative proposals were written, she feared it would amount to spikes in energy costs.

In March, for example, she defended past opposition to tax incentives and mandates for corn-based ethanol.

“If you look at the transportation costs, the mandate, we thought, we directly impact the price of gas on the costs,” Clinton said. “I never was against using ethanol. I never was against the idea that we had to try these alternatives.”

Obama, during today’s interview, said Clinton had opportunities to fix the legislation that she opposed.

“These are a lot of votes and over a lengthy period of time,” Obama said. “If she were committed to alternative energy, there certainly would have been opportunities for her to amend the legislation or alter it in ways that would address any concerns that she had.”

Obama, like most other Democratic presidential candidates, also has an energy plan. His plan would invest the same amount as proposed by Clinton. It would also create a “cap-and-trade” program in which businesses who pollute below certain levels could sell their remaining greenhouse gas emission outputs to other polluters.

Listen Up North Dakota - This Can Be Barack Country!

Dan Hannaher — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 16:19:40 EST

Time magazine this week has an interesting look at Obama's appeal to Republicans and his potential in "Red" states. Read:

Obama's Red State AppealFriday, Nov. 02, 2007

By JAY NEWTON-SMALL/OMAHA

Sen. Barack Obama speaks during the Democratic Presidential Debate held at South Carolina State University in Orangeburg, SC.

Dave Filipi, a 48-year-old family doctor, made his way to the back room of McKenna's Blues Bar near the University of Nebraska's Omaha campus. Nervously smoothing his suit, he lingered in the doorway. "To be honest, I'm a Republican," Filipi sheepishly said as two dozen curious faces swung around toward him.

"Trust me, you're not the only one here," Solomon Kleinsmith, the head of the group Nebraskans for Obama and himself a lifelong Republican, replied with a chuckle. "Come, sit down."

Political organizing for Democrats in red states like Nebraska can often feel a bit like leading AA meetings. But that hasn't deterred more than 300 Nebraskans from forming a dozen groups for Senator Barack Obama's presidential campaign, and they aren't the only ones. On Monday, the Obama campaign announced that over 300 Iowa and New Hampshire Republicans had decided to cross party lines to support Obama. At Obama events in Oklahoma, Kentucky, Virginia and Georgia, a good 20% of audiences routinely raise their hands when emcees ask for Republicans in the crowd. A "Republicans for Obama" website has 11 state chapters with 146 members. An August University of Iowa even found Obama running third in the state among Republican candidates, behind Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani but ahead of both Fred Thompson and John McCain. And a national Gallup poll this month also found that nearly as many Republicans like Obama — 39% — than the 43% that dislike him, compared with the 78% of Republicans who held an unfavorable opinion of Hillary Clinton.

It seems a lot of Republicans took to heart Obama's statement in his rousing speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention that "there is not a liberal America and a conservative America — there is the United States of America." And with polls showing Obama still trailing Clinton and supporters urging him to become more aggressive in attacking the front-runner, his non-partisan appeal could be a useful rallying cry as Iowa and New Hampshire fast approach. Already, the campaign uses his electability as a defense when things don't go their way. Last Wednesday, when the former First Lady won the endorsement of the powerful Association of Federal, State and Municipal Employees Union — which has more than 30,000 members in Iowa — Obama campaign manager David Plouffe responded with this: "It is a bit surprising that the union probably most concerned with state and local election results would support the candidate with the likeliest least appeal in red states. When Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee, he will not only win the presidency but his appeal to Republicans and Independents will lift down-ballot candidates all across the country."

Even some former Bush supporters and advisers are Obama converts. Three former major fund-raisers for the President have given money to Obama. One of them, James Canning, a Chicago financier, is openly supporting Obama after he grew tired of what he calls the G.O.P.'s "Neanderthal positions on things like stem cell research and global warming." Mark McKinnon, Bush's chief media consultant during both of his presidential campaigns, has warned his clients — including Senator John McCain — that if Obama wins the Democratic nomination McKinnon won't work against him in the general election. And Matthew Dowd, Bush's former top political strategist, told the New York Times that the only candidate that appeals to him this cycle in either party is Obama.

"I don't think Oklahoma has seen this kind of enthusiasm for a Democrat since Bobby Kennedy," marveled Lisa Pryor, chairwoman of the Oklahoma Democratic Party, who is not endorsing a candidate, after an Obama rally in Oklahoma City in March that drew more than 1,000 people — each of whom paid $25 to get in, and handed over their contact information. "He could be the first Democrat to win Oklahoma since LBJ."

The demand for Obama in conservative states is a testament to his rock star status, a term he loathes for its implication that he's all style and no substance. But it may be the very fact that many voters don't yet know that much about the specifics of his politics that is sustaining his level of cross-party support. "I'm not seeing any pretty clear matches for me in the Republican crop," said Filipi, a lifelong Republican who founded Nebraskans for Obama on the Internet. "The last few years I've really had to settle on who I've voted for. I haven't been inspired. I'm not sure Obama's that person either but he's the closest I've come to getting inspired in years."

In fact, Obama's voting record is the most liberal of any candidate, according to a National Journal analysis. Obama's score of 84.3% in the Journal's ratings formula tops even that of Representative Dennis Kucinich, who was considered the most liberal Democratic presidential candidate in 2004.

Republicans and Independents are a vital demographic for Obama, who needs to draw in new voters in order to compete with Clinton and Edwards in Iowa, the all-important first test of presidential politics. The three are essentially tied in polls in Iowa, where anyone, regardless of party identification, can show up and caucus provided they sign a (non-binding) letter saying they intend to change their registration. And while 76% of Edwards supporters caucused in 2004, only 55% of Obama's supporters took the time four years ago, according to another University of Iowa poll out this week. "For Obama, getting people who are less likely to caucus out the door in January will be critical," said David Redlawsk, the poll's director and an associate professor of political science.

And just in case Iowa Republicans and Independents aren't yet sold on Obama, Kleinsmith and his group of Nebraskans for Obama are working across the border in Iowa to convince them. "My big fear is: if he doesn't win Iowa that's it for him," Kleinsmith told his group. As well, he would surely argue, as it would be for the Democrats' already slim chances in a state like Nebraska.

NY Times Magazine: "Is (His) Biography (Our) Destiny

Dan Hannaher — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 14:38:52 EST

Another lengthy and well written article about Barack, this time from the New York Times Magazine this past weekend. Read it here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/magazine/04obama-t.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

"Goodbye to All That" by Andrew Sullivan

Dan Hannaher — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 14:58:42 EDT

The long awaited cover essay by The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan is now available to read. It is long, but important - because as Sullivan concludes: "We may in fact have finally found that bridge to the 21st century that Bill Clinton told us about. Its name is Obama."

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200712/obama

"Off The Bus" - On The Campaign For California

Dan Hannaher — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 11:17:48 EDT

A very interesting and detailed look at the Obama campaign's extensive effort to win the holy grail of California from the Huffington Posts wonderful "Off the Bus" Series. M. Fowler writes:

Battle Plan: An Exclusive Look Inside Barack Obama's Push to Win California

Posted November 2, 2007 | 08:27 AM (EST)

Sandy City, California -- Barack Obama might indeed be running a full 20 points behind Hillary Clinton in the latest California polls but the Illinois Senator is hardly ready to concede the Golden State. Quite to the contrary.

With a neat one hundred days left to go before the voter and delegate-rich California contest, the Obama campaign is unfolding a full-blown battle plan, devised by a veteran strategist, with the aim of snatching away the West Coast's golden fleece.

The plan is a mini-campaign in every California congressional district, using a modified form of pyramid campaign marketing. With small core groups established in every congressional district, the Obama strategy relies on the multiplier effect of each-one-reach-one with an ultimate goal of knitting together volunteer campaign staff in every one of the thousands of California voting precincts. Starting immediately, the campaign is also embarked on a strategy of converting campaign donors into campaign workers.

If the plan is implemented, this will be "the deepest organizing strategy ever in a California presidential primary," says Brent Messenger, one of the Obama campaign's six California regional field directors.

The man behind the Obama plan, its veritable architect, is the legendary organizer Marshall Ganz, who originally helped build the farmworkers union before moving into grassroots campaigning. His involvement in the Obama campaign is only the latest chapter in Ganz' decades-long career of engineering progressive ground operations.

According to his plan, every California congressional district will have a seven-member team running its own mini-campaign. Each of the seven will find and teach another seven, according to the campaign blueprint. Then each of those groups doubles again. "You will be forming these teams for the next 30 days," Messenger said to a group of northern California organizers. "For the next few weeks you will be doing intense volunteer recruitment."

I caught up this week with Messenger and his right-hand-man for training, Jeff Coleman, just after Messenger had spent days touring the 11 congressional districts in his purview. Driving up to Monterey Bay from Avila Beach, where the field directors and other top campaign staff had pow-wowed hours before, Messenger and Coleman arrived early for the local organizing meeting -- despite the fog and rain that hampered my progress through the Santa Cruz Mountains down from San Francisco. We met in a bar in an old factory neighborhood near the water, a hip bar that the 30th congressional dustrict's 17 campaign troops, all white, almost all middle-aged, would not frequent if it were not for Obama. Messenger and Coleman, sick of Roundtable Pizza meets, seemed ecstatic.

"Let's clash the cymbals together and get us organized," Messenger said, before launching into Obama campaign signature mode -- personal story-telling. From a conservative family (another frequent characteristic of Obama staffers), Messenger worked for moderate Republican state legislator Brook Firestone ("people know who he is as soon as I say he's the father of 'The Bachelor,'" Messenger quiped) until he saw the machinations of the state Republican Committee in Sacramento. "'I gotta get out of here,' I tell myself, so of course I promptly move to San Francisco and join a rock band." For Messenger, like many a supporter, Obama's 2004 Democratic Convention speech was a turning point. "It broke me down," he said. "I realize there is another way, another way than anger. . . . I would work for this guy if he were running for dog catcher."

"So. This is a major tool. Telling your story. You'll be using that," Messenger said. The tone shifted and Messenger was off and running -- first, with some pep talk to the troops. "We have a 4-state strategy in place. All the top candidates will be coming out of them with a mixed bag. But California has over 30% of the delegates. We can pick the next president of the U.S."

Messenger then rolled out the rest of the California battle plan time line: "November 14th. You'll help with Obama's last appearance here probably before the primary. The 17th. State-wide Service Project Day. Team building winds down after November 18th. No more cold-calling for volunteers. Next is voter identification. You will call and ask, 'do you know the primary is on February 5th? Do you know who you are going to vote for?' You rank all your calls on a scale of 1-5. Then mid-December is our time for the permanent absentee vote. There are 6 million in California. Then it's G.O.T.V. full-on in January. We target the 2's in a huge phone bank. We get every single person identified as a supporter out to vote. Now we're down to the precinct level, and our goal is 120 votes at precinct level. We walk the vote. For the precinct captains, that literally means neighbors."

The Obama Battle Plan ultimately depends on the commitment of the state's 27,000 precinct captains. The three-dozen middle-aged people in the hip Sand City bar are going to be some of the 7-member teams who muster these legions and some of them had a visible What have we got ourselves into? look on their faces. What's called "the intense volunteer recruitment" drive between now and Thanksgiving will target the roughly 100,000 Californians who have given money to Obama. They are about to be drafted into field work.

Briskly, Messenger helped the bar group begin its work. He divided them into teams: Santa Cruz, Monterey, Carmel. He charged them with their roles: chief coordinator, data manager, volunteers, communications, phone banking, canvassing and resources. He told the teams that they can't leave that night until they've settled on three positions: chief coordinator, canvass manager and data manager. The data managers are key, Messenger emphasized. Finally, three people who know how to use Excel spreadsheets raised their hands. "We have a geo-coding data guy," Messenger said, "and we keep him locked away in a dungeon in Oakland." Over the next few days the data managers will talk with the map whiz in Oakland; they will be trained via conference call with the data people at Obama HQ in Chicago. Without precise data collecting and entering, the campaign would be marching forward blind.

Messenger told the teams that they can't leave until they set up their next meetings, sometime in the next few days. Messenger told each new communications volunteer that he or she will be getting a list of Obama donors in the team's section of congressional district 17 the next morning. And that very night, each of the seven on each team will spend several hours phone-banking - quite literally. "You'll start with the low-dollar donors," Messenger said. "With supporters, it's not so hard. Usually right away they say, 'it's about time. What took you so long? I was wondering when you were going to call.'"

Messenger assured the volunteers that they will have all the tools they need: the list of donors by precinct, the state voter file, web-based voter tools, Google groups, new software, and a new field manual. There's skills-based training at northern California HQ in Oakland, as well as Messenger himself, who will constantly be on call for the core 77 campaigners under him.

All the troops, from the 7-member teams down to the 27,000 precinct captains, will be volunteers. As Messenger points out, the Obama California campaign can't afford the Iowa ratio of paid operatives to voter. "That would mean 65,000 people on the payroll in California," he says.

These are the plans. They may or may not match reality. The very day after Messenger's meeting with the leadership of CD17, Chris Matthews of MSNBC says before the Drexel University Democratic Debate, "Obama has fallen down to where Jesse Jackson was this time in the race for president in 1988. He is now an also-ran, a minority candidate in a number of ways; he's not really a contender anymore. He has to get in the ring tonight. If he doesn't, he'll stay where he is right now, dropping in the teens. And that's not serious business. It's a waste of the millions and millions of dollars he's been given by people who hoped he would bring an alternative. . . ."

The Obama campaigners, the core group of staff and volunteers, however, weren't watching the debate. It was Tuesday, and that's "data night" at Oakland headquarters. The leaders of CD8 and CD9 sdre there, learning how to put information into the data base -- one of the tools, they are convinced, that will carry them to victory. --end

Joe Klein on Barack's "Scrupulous Honesty"

Dan Hannaher — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 12:12:57 EDT

I often don't care for Joe Klein's writing. He comes off as a Know-It-All of grand proportions. But in his essay this week in Time he presents a very good analysis of Obama's performance at this week's debate and his "quiet, unsolicited honesty." Read it all:

There are empty seats at some of Barack Obama's meetings now. His media coverage isn't as breathless as it used to be. His poll numbers have been static, with the important exception of Iowa, where he is creeping upward. His performances have been static too, nourishing but unexciting. He has been more herbivore than carnivore in debates. All of which occasioned that most banal of modern journalistic ceremonies in the days leading up to the Oct. 30 Democratic debate: a fevered, unsolicited-advice orgy. None of the advice was substantive, of course. It was all about tactics. He had to attack Hillary Clinton. He had to make his move or lose — which, given the tendency of Iowa and New Hampshire voters to make last-minute decisions, wasn't remotely true. Even his consultants got into the act, requesting an interview with the New York Times, in which Obama announced — pathetically — that he was going to be more specific in his criticisms of the front runner.

And so, there he was onstage next to Clinton the night before Halloween and not exactly dressed as an assassin. He took his shots, judiciously — and more comfortably as the evening wore on. But Obama wasn't nearly as avid or effective as John Edwards, whose soft Southern accent can camouflage an awful lot of aggression. For most of the debate, Clinton was able to deflect the attacks, mostly by professing her fierce and limitless desire to reverse the depredations of the Bush Administration. But just when it was beginning to seem that her evasions were more potent than her opponents' assaults, she stumbled — badly, perhaps — on the question of granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. She made the argument for it, then denied she favored it. "Unless I missed something," Edwards said as he nailed the coffin, "Senator Clinton said two different things in the course of about two minutes."

Clinton's character, her tendency to lawyer questions rather than answer them, is now front and center in this campaign, and that is appropriate. But I'm still stuck on the frenzy to judge Obama's worth by his willingness to attack Clinton. I spent part of the day of the debate watching a parade of talking heads expatiate endlessly on how dire was the need for Obama to go macho. It was "journalism" at its most useless. The ability to eviscerate your opponents is far less important in a President than the ability to defend yourself. In the nine primary campaigns I've covered, the willingness to attack was a) a sign of desperation and b) a leading indicator of failure, especially if it became the defining characteristic of a candidacy. Four years ago, John Kerry wisely decided not to go negative on Howard Dean and won the nomination when Dean and Dick Gephardt slaughtered each other in a negative-ad shoot-out. Now that Edwards has taken the lead against Clinton, Obama might profit by staying aloof and presidential.

But then, Obama's low-key campaign has been confusing to the press, and perhaps to the public, from the start. A few days before the debate, I spent a day with Obama in Iowa, and the most striking thing to me about the Senator's performances was the scrupulous honesty of his answers, his insistence on delivering bad news when necessary. A woman asked if he believed that stay-at-home moms should be eligible for Social Security. There is a way most politicians answer such questions: a moving tribute to the virtues of child-rearing, then on to the next question without ever making the commitment. Obama did the moving tribute — with a joke about his ineptitude as a parent — but then he told the woman no. "We can't extend those benefits without huge financial implications," he said.

The very next question was about global warming. Obama laid out his rigorous cap-and-trade plan for reducing carbon emissions, but then he said, "One of the themes of this campaign is to tell voters what they need to hear, not just what they want to hear ... So I've got to tell you there will be a cost to this — and the utility companies will pass it along to consumers. You can expect a spike in electricity prices," although, he added, the new technology should ultimately bring those prices back down.

I don't know if this sort of quiet, unsolicited honesty can work in our rude, noisy politics, but it certainly is far more presidential than the dodging and fudging that you get from most candidates. It has been argued that Obama's style is too cerebral, too élitist. That may be true. He assumes a maturity in his audiences, and in the press, that simply may not exist. But given the stakes in 2008, perhaps it's time for all of us to grow up and meet the challenge of a difficult moment for our country.

Tim Russert

Dan Hannaher — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 11:11:06 EDT

NBC News Washington Bureau Chief and Moderator of Meet the Press Tim Russert is being blamed by the Clinton campaign for being too aggressive in last night's debate and causing all of her problems. Well, don't they know that Tim Russert is NBC News Washington Bureau Chief and Moderator of Meet the Press? If they knew that Tim Russert was NBC News Washington Bureau Chief and Moderator of Meet the Press they might not be so quick to criticize him. Because after all he is NBC News Washington Bureau Chief and Moderator of Meet the Press. Tim Russert that is.

Grace Under Pressure

Dan Hannaher — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 10:57:32 EDT

I've been fascinated by the focus group work that Frank Luntz has done over at FOX during the various debates this year, and last night's was no different. Once again his scientific analysis, and viewer comments clearly identify Barack Obama as the winner. Watch this summary:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8ocKiHEzvM

Now For A New Hampshire Bump

Dan Hannaher — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 11:10:55 EDT

Chris Bowers at the Open Left blog gets it right in regard to Barack's movement in the Granite State:

New Hampshire Poll Shows Bumps For Kucnich and Obama by: Chris BowersSat Oct 27, 2007 at 16:30:33 PM EDT
A new Rasmussen poll out of New Hampshire shows the campaign getting more interesting:

10/23, 841 LVs, IVR style, 9/16 results in parenthesis
Clinton 38% (40%)
Obama: 22% (17%)
Edwards: 14% (14%)
Kucinich: 7% (at or below 2%)
Richardson: 7% (11%)
No one else above 2%

Anyone who thinks this campaign is over is jumping the gun, to say the least. Obama is up in this poll, and a victory in Iowa for Obama will almost certainly wipe out a sixteen-point deficit in New Hampshire.

"We Can Still Trust Him."

Dan Hannaher — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 10:49:01 EDT

Andrew Sullivan keeps getting it right (I can hardly wait for the next issue of The Atlantic with his cover piece on Obama). Here he points out the defining difference - "We can still trust him."

Obama Or Clinton?

29 Oct 2007 10:05 am

Let's air the arguments on the Dish, shall we? Instead of the horse-race crap in the MSM, let's see if we can actually isolate what is truly at stake in choosing between these two candidates. I ran a pro-Clinton email last Saturday. Here's a pro-Obama one:

There are two ways to win an election -- present voters with simple arguments that they can accept or have a candidate that reassures them. I am worried that my candidate, Obama, is putting too much faith in the American voter and presenting them with the old academic Democratic arguments about the constitution. But my worry is balanced by the fact that he is the most trustworthy candidate and the American voter, especially those in the Midwest, have an excellent sense for honesty and trustworthiness.
Bill and Hillary have an apt understanding of the American voter; they know that the voters will reject these academic arguments about the constitution. Her challenge, though, is that she lacks the "character" that Barack naturally has. That is the difference between Barack and Hillary and why Republicans who tend to emphasize character are attracted to Barack.

One of the fundamental reasons I prefer Obama to Clinton is that he still seems like a human being. I've watched and listened to him as closely as I can these past few months and he still answers questions as if he genuinely wants to figure out the right answer. She reflexively gives the political response - without even pausing. Everything is calculated. Nothing is real - from her laugh to her finely honed policy positions, designed to attract as many micro-votes as her pollsters can detect. He can still actually weigh the balance between opportunism and idealism in politics; she has long since fused the two in her mind, so that anything that can win her power is, in her mind, good for the rest of us.

We cannot trust her. We can still trust him. He hasn't been turned into the machine that national politics has turned her into. In the perilous days ahead, we desperately need a president again whom we can trust. He wins that argument. Which is why it is so vital for America that he win this contest against the increasingly ruthless Clinton machine.

Andrew Sullivan On Obama - Gore

Dan Hannaher — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 15:28:25 EDT

Not as running mates, but in terms of an endorsement, this is an interesting perspective:

Obama-Gore?

25 Oct 2007 12:03 pm

Let the speculation begin. I think Gore realizes that Obama is the only candidate who can break out of the brutal, polarizing, calculating, post-Vietnam syndrome and actually talk to all the country in clear ways about what practically we need to do at home and in the world. Gore would instantly erase the inexperience question over Obama; Obama would instantly erase the stylistic drawbacks of the Gore persona. The three big issues for me in this election are the war, the Constitution, and the environment. A Gore-Obama combo would be extremely hard to beat if those are your concerns.

Gore, moreover, knows what the Clintons would take us back to perhaps better than anyone else. He knows the paranoia of their operation, the Cheney-like secrecy they crave, the pathologies within our political culture they would instantly reignite, the danger that they will breathe new life into a hopefully dying Christianist movement. But the Clinton machine is in full throttle. If Gore wants to help provide an alternative, he needs to intervene before Iowa. He needs to endorse Obama. For the sake of his country.

Permalink :: TrackBacks (0)

North Dakota Survey - Obama Top Favored Democrat

Dan Hannaher — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 11:09:57 EDT

DH Research has released a study indicating Barack Obama is the most favored Democrat in a field of all candidates in the minds of North Dakota voters (Dems, Reps, Inds), second only to John McCain in this usually deep red state. Read:

Iraq War is Top Election Issue

North Dakotans are focused on the war in Iraq as they begin to decide who will receive their vote for president in next year's election. Our most recent research shows that a full 42.5 percent of the poll's respondents said the war is the single most important issue in the next presidential election. Healthcare (14.3 percent) and the economy (9.3 percent) were the next most important issues.

"Clearly, the situation in Iraq is high in the consciousness of North Dakota voters," said Gregory Wald, DH Research general manager. "They are undoubtedly listening very closely to what candidates are saying about the policies they would enact as president."

Respondents were also asked to rate the frontrunners from each party on a scale of 1 to 9, with 1 being very unfavorable and 9 being very favorable. Republican John McCain received the highest favorability rating of the seven candidates included in the poll, with a favorability rating of 5.28. Democrat Barack Obama was next with a 4.93 rating, followed by Republican Rudy Giuliani at 4.86, Democrat John Edwards at 4.80, Republican Fred Thompson at 4.56, Democrat Hillary Clinton at 4.49 and Republican Mitt Romney at 4.13.

Respondents who identified themselves as Independents gave McCain the highest rating at 5.29, followed by Giuliani and Edwards at 4.64, Obama at 4.49, Thompson at 4.37, Clinton at 4.20 and Romney at 3.71.

Respondents who identified themselves as mostly Republican or strong Republican also gave McCain the highest favorability rating at 5.94, followed closely by Giuliani at 5.93, Thompson at 5.53, Romney at 5.0, Obama at 4.38, Edwards at 3.93 and Clinton at 2.73.

Respondents who identified themselves as mostly Democrat or strong Democrat gave Clinton the highest favorability rating at 7.09, followed by Obama at 6.18, Edwards at 6.05, McCain at 4.41, Giuliani at 3.76, Thompson at 3.65 and Romney at 3.59.

Almost one-third (31.5 percent) of respondents are currently undecided about which presidential candidate will receive their vote in the 2008 election. Of those who did name a candidate, 36.5 percent identified a Democrat, while 29.8 percent named a Republican. Hillary Clinton received the most support of any individual with 19.75 percent, followed by Rudy Giuliani at 11.25 percent, Barack Obama at 10.50 percent, John McCain at 9.0 percent, Fred Thompson at 8.0 percent, John Edwards at 6.25 percent and Mitt Romney at 1.5 percent.

"It's clearly very early in the race and many North Dakotans have not made up their minds yet," said Wald. "Name recognition means a lot right now."

The study also measured North Dakotans' approval of their national leaders. President Bush earned a 42 percent job approval rating, up from the 37.25 percent he earned in a similar poll in April of this year. Meanwhile, 35.75 percent of respondents approved of the job the U.S. Congress is doing, down from the 38 percent approval Congress earned in the April poll.

When asked whether they feel the country is generally going in the right direction or the wrong direction, 34.75 percent responded it is going in the right direction. This compares to 31.5 percent in the April poll who believed the nation was headed in the right direction.

The telephone survey of 400 likely North Dakota voters was conducted October 1-8, 2007, and was sponsored solely by DH Research. The margin of error for the survey is plus or minus 4.9 percent. Women accounted for 50.5 percent of those surveyed, while men accounted for 49.5 percent. More respondents were from the eastern half of the state (56.25 percent) than the west (43.75 percent), which is representative of how the population is distributed across the state.

This is the fifth survey in a program from DH Research, in which quarterly studies are conducted on issues of public interest.

Gary Hart On Down-Ballot Pressure

Dan Hannaher — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 10:17:53 EDT

The Hart of the matter: Is Clinton a drag? Tuesday, October 23 at 11:42 PM

Offer Hart-felt interpretations in COMMENTS.

View image Photo by M.E. Sprengelmeyer

While Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton was stumping in Colorado on Tuesday afternoon, a famous Colorado resident was in Des Moines, Iowa, pondering her potential effect on Democrats all the way down the 2008 ballot.

Former Sen. Gary Hart, 70, was in "The Dez" to talk foreign policy for the Center for U.S. Global Engagement. (HERE'S THAT STORY from Wednesday's old-fashioned, paper version of the Rocky Mountain News.)

Hart, known for his presidential bids in 1984 and 1988, has not yet endorsed anyone in the 2008 contest. But in an interview, we asked him to weigh in on a topic we sometimes hear (whispered) from Democrats back in Colorado.

* Because Sen. Clinton is such a polarizing figure, would her name at the top of the ticket make it more difficult for other down-ballot Democrats to win in Colorado in 2008?

Specifically, we asked Hart if he thought a Clinton nomination at the 2008 Democratic National Convention in Denver would hurt the chances of Rep. Mark Udall in a U.S. Senate showdown with former Rep. Bob Schaffer, the likely Republican nominee.

Since Hart was in Iowa to talk about diplomacy, it's probably fitting that he gave us a diplomatic answer that imagined two scenarios.

We encourage folks to interpret his words in the COMMENTS section. Here's what Hart said:

"I think we'll know that by her performance in the early caucuses. I think in the primaries, if she has broad appeal, not only to women but to independents, to disaffected Republicans and so on, I think that concern goes away, including in, I guess purple states like Colorado."

"If, however, her base turns out to be narrower and she doesn't have broader appeal, I think it's a legitimate concern. In 1980 when I ran for re-election (to the U.S. Senate), I had to run 25 or 26 points ahead of (then-President) Jimmy Carter in Colorado to survive. So it's not easy."

View image Photo by M.E. Sprengelmeyer

Now, who wants to offer an interpretation?

Passion And Reason From Obama

Dan Hannaher — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 07:58:32 EDT

Andrew Sullivan gets a message from one of his readers and expounds on it, well:

Why Obama Still Matters

23 Oct 2007 03:30 pm

A reader reminds me of that Petraeus hearing. An Obama supporter writes:

This YouTube must be watched. Watch Obama in what is a (long) but phenomenal delivery. He has the classical combination of pathos and logos. Just get past the initial obligatory lapel-pin intros and he begins relating immeasurable urgency with an almost hurtful touch of frustration, and remains a civil questioner.

We need to channel abiding anger at the awful mismanagement, betrayal of our ideals and blind arrogance that has led us into a nightmare without end in Iraq, and that now seeks, having lost Turkey as a solid ally, to take the war to Iran as well. Yes, we are doing better at tamping down violence in Iraq, thank God and the troops. No one is in any way disputing the heroic job the troops and Petraeus are doing in preventing a full-scale plunge into the abyss of regional warfare. But there is still no strategy for meaningful success or exit, and a huge potential for more, and more dangerous, war in the future, involving Iran and Turkey. And the costs keep escalating. In this awful impasse, we need a president all of us can trust. We need exactly the blend of passion and reason that Obama offers. Yes, he needs to prove himself more as a campaigner. Yes, he's not perfect. But I still think he's the best feasible hope in a rapidly gathering storm.

Permalink :: TrackBacks (0)

Obama In Nevada - Talks About The West And Rural Votes

Dan Hannaher — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 10:02:44 EDT

I love these little gems of interviews that Barack gives the local media while on the campaign trail, letting reporters accompany him for a thirty minute drive now and then. In this article out of Nevada, Obama highlights his organization's strength in this rural western state; and he comments on the effectiveness of holding a Senate Hearing to solve a problem. Go read:

October 21, 2007Barack Obama on serendipity, Hillary Clinton and breaking the GOP stronghold on Nevada

By Jon Ralston, Sun columnist

Published in the Sun on Oct. 21, 2007

When I suggested to Barack Obama that no one would find it credible that he happened to arrive at Culinary headquarters Thursday just as the union was settling with downtown casinos, he had a simple explanation.

“I believe in serendipity,” the Illinois senator and presidential candidate said, with a smile.

If ever a statement encapsulated a campaign, there it was. Obama must actually believe he is the right man at the right time to take the leap of faith from being a state senator three years ago to try for the White House — needing to hurdle Hillary Clinton, latent and overt racism and the Republican nominee to get to Pennsylvania Avenue.

During a 30-minute car ride from the union headquarters to his speech venue at Cheyenne High School, Obama talked with great facility about Nevada and how it fits into his campaign for change. (Much would be written about his speech focusing on Iraq, how he was prescient and how, in mostly oblique references, Clinton was wrong. That I had heard a time or two. So I focused on more parochial issues.)

I asked Obama, admittedly with mischief in my heart, why he was even bothering with Nevada, a state he appeared to disregard earlier in the race, because Clinton (who is scheduled to be here today) seemed to have it locked up with her roster of endorsements, lead in the polls and ability to get an Environment and Public Works hearing convened on Yucca Mountain.

That last item caused the senator, who had been talking calmly and efficiently, to become animated. You could almost discern a shift in body language, in tone, when he says Clinton’s name — or tries, less successfully these days, to avoid saying it.

“If the standard for getting stuff done was holding a hearing, we wouldn’t have too many problems in this country,” he retorted, clearly chafing at the notion that Clinton had a stronger position or knew more about any Nevada issue than he does.

Obama said he believes that here and elsewhere Clinton “is the default candidate. People have fond memories of the Democratic Party of Bill Clinton. It’s a good brand. While they are still settling on making up their mind, it’s not a bad place to park your vote.”

That, of course, discounts the segment of the Democratic electorate that feels tremendous loyalty to Clinton. But Obama, executing a plan similar to what he is doing in Iowa, thinks he can overcome that at the grass roots.

“In a place like Nevada, where there is a premium on organization, I guarantee you we have the best ground game of any campaign in this state,” he averred, citing precinct captains, volunteers and the 400 people who signed up for the caucus at his Reno event last week.

Obama also argued that his message might be ideally suited for Western states, especially Nevada.

“There’s not a lot of patience in the West for ideology,” he said. “I think folks in the West are much more concerned with results, practicality, common sense. That suits my style of politics. I’m not coming from the tradition of spending all my time bashing Republicans.”

I’m not sure whom he could be referring to.

Obama said he has found Nevadans to have “more independence ... You can talk to folks who are Democrats but conservative on some issues. You can talk to some conservatives who are libertarian and upset about the encroachment on the Constitution.”

Obama also insists he is the man to change the almost unbroken, four-decade string of GOP nominees taking Nevada. (Only Bill Clinton, thanks to Ross Perot, has won Nevada since Lyndon Johnson.) Having visited a place such as Elko, Obama believes that some Democrats will make “the chronic mistake” of ignoring rural areas and not realizing they have to turn a 5-to-1 loss into a 2-to-1 margin of defeat. He also argued that, unlike other candidates (yes, we know who), he could get some Republicans there and elsewhere to vote for him.

Perhaps. But as John Kerry in ’04 and Dina Titus in ’06 showed, that strategy may be quixotic.

Obama would first need to upset Clinton and win the nomination. And if Nevada plays a role, so will the Culinary. That endorsement could still prove pivotal in who wins the state come Jan. 19.

And if I were Hillary Clinton, I might wonder if it really was serendipity that found Obama at the union hall last week or whether it was an omen.

Jon Ralston hosts the news discussion program “Face to Face With Jon Ralston” on Las Vegas ONE and publishes the daily e-mail newsletter “RalstonFlash.com.” His column for the Las Vegas Sun appears Sunday, Wednesday and Friday. Ralston can be reached at 870-7997 or at ralston@vegas.com.

Posted at 02:20 AM in Jon Ralston, Sen. Barack Obama | Permalink

John Heilemann on Gore's Pending Endorsement

Dan Hannaher — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:15:04 EDT

John Heilemann has a lengthy article "When They Were Young" in the upcoming New York Magazine on the Law School experiences of Obama and Clinton. It's a very insightful piece and can be found at the website: http://nymag.com/news/features/39321/.

But Heilman also was on Hardball earlier this week commenting on Al Gore:

Mr. HEILEMANN: A guy I spent a lot of time with last year, Al Gore, before his movie came out and right on the cusp of it, just won the Nobel Prize. And there's going to be a lot of people who are going to want to get him into this race. There always have been. It is not going to happen. It is not going to happen. And he is going to endorse Barack Obama.

MATTHEWS: When?

Mr. HEILEMANN: Six weeks.

D. Fowler - "Arcane Iowa Process Benefits Barack"

Dan Hannaher — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 08:44:12 EDT

Donnie Fowler Obama's Iowa Victory Hidden in the Grassroots?

Posted October 16, 2007 | 07:32 PM (EST)

Why Second Choice Might Mean First Place on Caucus Night

Absolutely fascinating news from the Iowa Obama campaign ...

While Obama & Clinton & Edwards are close to tied in Iowa, Obama reportedly has a substantial lead in the "Who's your second choice?" category. In Iowa, where I've worked on the caucuses three times (1988, 2000, 2004), this is very, very important.

This second place lead is actually the most significant political intelligence that has come up in the last few months other than fundraising .

How does someone know this? Ask the Obama field campaign. Then ask the Clinton field campaign. You can ask Edwards' folks, too.

But why does it matter that Obama could have a big lead in this seemingly silly category?

The strange caucus vote-counting rules create this uniquely Iowan situation. A successful caucus night strategy requires knowing who has you as their #2 (more on that below). Also, the fact is that we're still sort of early in the process matters (Early? EARLY? I've been hearing about this damn caucus for a year already!) . There are lots of ups and downs to come.

If Clinton does not win Iowa, the door will be wide open for a real challenge in New Hampshire and South Carolina soon afterward. Only Obama has the cash to really take advantage of a second or third place showing by her. Even better for him, the Illinois senator is also reportedly running a dramatically better ground campaign in S.C. though she has at least as strong an operation in New Hampshire.

Now let's talk how the caucus process -- understood only by a political scientist or activist with too much time -- gives Obama a path from second choice to first place.

First, as other candidates (especially Edwards) weaken before the caucuses, Obama will pick up more voters than Clinton because more folks list him than her as Option B. Because his pond supposedly has more fish to catch than hers, the current tie in the polls might then turn into an Obama lead.

Second, on caucus night the Iowa caucus rules require each candidate to have a minimum number of supporters (15%) at each precinct meeting in order to get any supporters counted in the final statewide tally. So, if one candidate does not have 15% of the caucus goers who show up, they then must decide to throw their support behind a "viable" (15%+) candidate. If Obama is way ahead in the second choice support category, he will come out with extra support that Clinton does not get and that was not reflected in the pre-election polling.

Arcane? Byzantine? Confusing?

Sure!

That's why the Iowa caucuses can be so very exciting. There are lots of obscure twists and turns on the way to the finish line.

Alice Walker - "He knows." (watch)

Dan Hannaher — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 17:20:42 EDT

This is a wonderful youtube video of Alice Walker diving deep into the vital aspects of Barack Obama's life that have made him who he is, our next President:

Watch it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3-9gq_htUo

Off The Bus - Insights Into Obama Canvassing Across The Country

Dan Hannaher — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 11:14:40 EDT

Mayhill Fowler

Reporting The Obama Campaign Coast-to-Coast: Democrats More Undecided Than Polls Suggest

Posted October 15, 2007 | 08:25 AM (EST)

Reported by: Jason Barnett (Uptake.org), Al Cannistraro, Sheila Condit, Beverly Davis, Christine Escobar, Mayhill Fowler, Richard Greenwood, Ethan Hova, Saba Kennedy, Noah Kunin (Uptake.org), Phoebe Love, Daniel Macht, Kim Mack, Laura Martin, Kelly Nuxoll, Deborah Phelan, Deborah Plummer, and Jeremy Thompson. Original reports available on OffTheBus.

As the Barack Obama campaign canvassed door-to-door this past weekend in scores of communities across the country, a snapshot of a campaign fueled by an unique mix of a non-confrontational style, a message of hope and sometimes unwitting amateurishness emerges.

This mid-fall freeze-frame also paints a picture of a Democratic electorate significantly more ambivalent and undecided than recent polls indicated and perhaps less motivated by the war in Iraq and more by domestic issues than previously suggested.

The portrait of the Obama campaign operating at ground level among national Democratic voters is a product of a new type of citizen journalism. In an unprecedented effort of campaign reporting, nearly two dozen Off The Bus correspondents monitored Obama Canvass for Change events in fourteen cities in nine crucial states during the past 48 hours and contributed to this report from venues as disparate as Keene, NH, Des Moines and Dubuque, and Minneapolis; Studio City, Corte Madera, Berkeley, Sacramento, Koreatown - Los Angeles, and Altadena, CA; from Boise, Brooklyn and Ballard; from Manhattan, KS, Memphis and Charlotte, NC. (To see all of our campaign monitor reports click here.)

Despite neighborhood and regional differences, and although the levels of sophistication and competency among the individual campaign events varied, our correspondents found several common themes, the most striking of which is to what degree Democrats still declare themselves undecided.

It's abundantly clear that, less than four months before the onslaught of decisive primaries and caucuses, many Democratic voters have just not made up their minds. "Of those that would speak to us, almost all were undecided," reports correspondent Phoebe Love who followed the Obama canvass through Ballard, Washington. She is echoed by contributor Ethan Hova in Studio City, a middle-class Democratic suburban stronghold in Los Angeles: "The vast majority of voters were very much undecided and expressed reluctance to engage in debate without conducting research on their own." Daniel Macht, following the Obama campaign in Brooklyn, New York noted the same hesitation: "They were all undecided, save one Edwards supporter." Perhaps most importantly, correspondent Beverly Davis reports from Des Moines, "Smith [ an Obama volunteer] knocks on Dan Arply's door and launches into his opening rap but Arply soon interrupts by saying, 'Thanks for stopping by, but I haven't decided on supporting anyone yet.' Arply is a typical Iowan."

It's difficult to draw hard and fast conclusions from such anecdotal material but it might suggest that the slew of recent polls giving Hillary Clinton a commanding lead in the race for the nomination may be of limited utility. Correspondent Hova found widespread indifference toward Clinton as he went door-to-door with the Obama canvassers: "This was a fairly affluent suburb north of Los Angeles and I was really surprised not to find a single Hillary supporter in the neighborhood."

It's possible that numerous Democrats who have declared for Clinton to a pollster are like the shopper who hoists a likely candidate from the pumpkin bin inside the supermarket door. Maybe a keeper, maybe not, for there's the possibility of a better find further along in produce.

Balancing this good news for Obama is the likelihood that the centerpiece of Saturday's Canvass, retelling the story of Obama's opposition to the War in Iraq, was a bust. Kelly Nuxoll reports from the Left Coast of Berkeley, "The war seemed nominally an issue, but social issues, health care . . . also came up a lot." Nominally an issue--in Berkeley? Christine Escobar in Dubuque: "Only viewed one 25 year old woman responding to the war message." Deborah Phelan in Corte Madera in liberal Northern California found similar responses: "People were very much tired of talking about the Iraq war." Ditto for Daniel Macht in Brooklyn: "All said the war wasn't the only issue they cared about."

If the war is less and less a campaign issue for ordinary Americans in California and New York (and who would have predicted this?), then what is the mindset of the less liberal Democratic voter in the heartland? From what I saw of the canvass in Memphis, not a single person cared about Barack Obama's position vis-à-vis anybody else on the Iraq War.

Instead, health care reform seemed to top the priority list for Democratic voters contacted by the Obama canvassers. Correspondent Davis in Des Moines reports: "Arply tells Smith that he likes Obama and that he's concerned about health care." Contributot Saba Kennedy in Charlotte, NC: "...healthcare was a BIG issue." Clinton, Edwards and Obama have all put forward health insurance plans modest enough in scope to seem, at least on first glance, to be possibilities. Therefore, it's not surprising that grassroots Democratic voters are beginning to shift their attention from the war to a more hopeful subject.

This past weekend's national Canvass for Change like all things Obama, carried with it an aura of transformation. As contributor Deborah Plummer found, "Obama has sparked a light in young people." Reporting from Manhattan, KS, she goes on to say, "So, 20 volunteers [at the canvass] for Obama seems a lot to me. I went to KSU for over 20 years and never met over 10 liberals/progressives the entire time and to think there could be a rising tide of 20 potential liberals/progressives who will be spanning out to Manhattan households spreading Obama's philosophy is awesome...." Laura Martin in a very red-tinged Boise found a similar glitter: "Idaho hasn't sent a Democrat to the White House since Lyndon B. Johnson, but I do believe come Super Tuesday 2008, Idaho is going blue for Obama."

Countering some this Obama magic, however, is a growing frustration among his volunteers that he is not moving up in the polls. Ethan Hova from Studio City again: "We encountered several households of fervent Obama supporters and their mood could be summed up as frustrated. They seemed mostly concerned about his perceived lack of traction in the polls...." But the grassroots volunteers slog on. As Deborah Phelan reports from Corte Madera, "Volunteer Sandy Grant laughs about the big Barack Obama supporter she talked to who showed up later to register to vote at the booth. 'Look at us, so excited about one teenager when there are millions of people across America who have to register.' Everybody nods. They're all thinking the same thing. One vote at a time."

(Indeed, Deborah Phalen and I found such contrasting pictures of the Obama campaign in Northern California and Tennessee respectivively that I will detail the differences in an upcoming report).

There were also some moments of unintended humor and general weirdness that punctuated the weekend canvass. One older street vendor in Brooklyn yelled "Take a bath!" at one earnest Obama supporter passing out flyers to passersby. At other events, the organizers sometimes outnumbered the canvassers, reminding some newbie volunteers that effective politics is really about the art of building coalitions. Make sure and read all of our ground level reports assembled in the last 48 hours by clicking here.

Off The Bus campaign monitors (Jason Barnett (Uptake.org), Al Cannistraro, Sheila Condit, Beverly Davis, Christine Escobar, Mayhill Fowler, Richard Greenwood, Ethan Hova, Saba Kennedy, Noah Kunin (Uptake.org), Phoebe Love, Daniel Macht, Kim Mack, Laura Martin, Kelly Nuxoll, Deborah Phelan, Deborah Plummer, and Jeremy Thompson) contributed to this report. If you'd like to work wtih us on future campaign reports, join our OffTheBus Campaign Monitors team. -END

"Best Organization On The Ground"

Dan Hannaher — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 09:24:56 EDT

Here's part of a story from the Des Moines Register about this past weekend's canvas, Barack going door to door, and the strength of the campaign in Iowa:

Obama: Iowa campaign on track JASON CLAYWORTH
REGISTER STAFF WRITER

October 13, 2007
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, campaigning door-to-door in Des Moines today, said his Iowa campaign is “exceeding expectations.”

Although the Illinois senator hasn’t gained significantly in the polls since he announced his presidential candidacy early this year, Obama said his campaign has “the best organization on the ground” of other presidential contenders.

“We’ve really exceeded expectations so far,” Obama said. “We always knew that I’ve got to introduce myself to voters in a way that some of the other candidates don’t have to do.”

Obama remains in third place with 22 percent of the support of likely Iowa caucusgoers, according to the latest poll released this month by The Des Moines Register. New York Sen. Hillary Clinton was first with 29 percent and former North Carolina senator John Edwards had 23 percent.

One major part of winning the election is strong grassroots support, Obama said to a group of about 200 supporters at East High School before the door-to-door event began. He noted that he was well behind in the polls in his race in the U.S. Senate in 2004 until about the last month and credited his win largely to efforts such as the door-to-door events.

“If you don’t have that spark from the grassroots, then change doesn’t happen,” Obama said.

Obama and roughly 100 supporters canvassed Des Moines this morning. They spoke with residents about the gamut of issues but focused most upon the war in Iraq. Obama noted this week is the fifth anniversary of Congress' 2002 resolution authorizing military action in Iraq.

The event was part of a nationwide canvassing effort. Supporters went door-to-door in about 50 communities in Iowa, handing out postcards for people to mail that urge U.S. Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa to vote with Democrats in attempts to end the war.

Obama, for about an hour, campaigned in the 1400 and 1500 block of Hutton Street on Des Moines’ east side. He was accompanied by a busload of reporters and photographers, who marched down the street near him.

Dozens of residents looked out their windows or stepped out into the street, inquiring about the commotion. One woman told reporters about 11 a.m. that she was just about to leave her home to go get a beer when she saw the senator make his way into her neighborhood.

Mostly, however, people were thrilled that Obama would campaign in their area, a working class neighborhood made up of a rich mix of racial, social and economic diversity. The campaign had not informed any of the residents of its intention to campaign along their streets.

“I’m 45 and I’ve never had anybody knock on my door and talk with me,” said Jody DeGard, who spoke with Obama from her porch. The smell of bacon and eggs was at her back. DeGard spoke with Obama on a number of issues, including the war. She said Obama and Clinton were her top choices and that Obama’s visit likely won her vote.

“We saw everybody walking down the street with cameras and I said, ‘Mom, that’s Barack Obama walking down the street,' ” said DeGard’s daughter, Ashley Lambertz, 20.

Walt Williams said he was surprised, too.

“I couldn’t believe it. I thought somebody killed somebody,” Williams said of the crowds swarming his neighborhood.

Williams said he supports Obama but he has doubts that he will win.

“I’m going to vote for him. Most black people are going to vote for him but the problem is they think it’s a wasted vote,” Williams said.

Obama told reporters that his recent criticism of Hillary Clinton’s 2002 vote to support the Iraq war have not swayed into personal attacks.

“We’re not undergoing some fundamental transformation in our approach,” Obama said. "We continue to offer a hopeful and optimistic message about where we want to take the country. Obviously, there are going to be differences among the candidates . . . and the voters are going to need to know where those differences are.”

Leadership Defined - "Telling People What They Have To Hear."

Dan Hannaher — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 10:01:12 EDT

In this Bloomberg story, the leadership Barack Obama will bring to the presidency is shown to include the ability to tell people not what they want to hear, but what they have to hear:

Obama Takes `Sister Souljah' Tack to Gain Ground on Clinton

By Heidi Przybyla and Julianna Goldman

Oct. 12 (Bloomberg) -- One of the few contests so far where Democrat Barack Obama has bested Hillary Clinton is the Sister Souljah primary.

Telling an interest group what it doesn't want to hear became known as a ``Sister Souljah moment'' after presidential candidate Bill Clinton criticized the hip-hop singer before a black audience in 1992. So far this year, Obama, 46, has talked up tougher emissions standards in Detroit, gone to the Nasdaq Stock Market in New York to chastise Wall Street executives over tax loopholes and their ``what's good for me is good enough'' mentality and told black men in South Carolina that they need to ``stop acting like boys'' and face up to parental responsibilities.

In Philadelphia in July, he endorsed merit-based pay before the National Education Association, the nation's largest teachers' group, which opposes it. In New Hampshire, a state with a tradition of environmental activism, the Illinois senator refused on Oct. 9 to rule out new nuclear power plants.

``It may be that's the way he defines leadership,'' said former Senator Gary Hart, a Democratic presidential candidate in 1984 and 1988. ``That's what most people say is what they need in a leader: Someone who won't tell them what they want to hear, but what they have to hear.''

It may be politically necessary too, said Mike Feldman, former Vice President Al Gore's chief of staff during the 2000 campaign. ``What you see with Obama is a strategy to try to cut through and get noticed, and that's consistent with a candidate who is playing catch-up,'' he said.

Clinton's Contrast

By contrast, Clinton rejected tax increases, benefit cuts or raising the retirement age to bolster the Social Security system at a Sept. 20 debate organized by AARP, the nation's biggest senior-citizens' group. At a June 9 appearance in Detroit, she wouldn't say whether she supported a Senate bill requiring U.S. cars to meet stricter emissions standards.

The New York senator, 59, doesn't have to take any risks as she ``continues to methodically lock down the support of the various constituencies that make up the nominating electorate,'' Feldman said. Her reluctance to offend even extends to baseball: At a Sept. 26 debate, she equivocated about whether she roots for the New York Yankees or the Chicago Cubs.

David Axelrod, Obama's senior adviser, said his candidate knows his tough-love strategy carries some risk. ``If you're straight-up with people, you're not always going to please them,'' he said.

Taking a Chance

That's a chance Obama, who is trailing Clinton in national polls, may have to take, said Stephanie Cutter, a Democratic strategist and communications director for John Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign.

``Obama is running as a change candidate, and there's no better way to demonstrate change than to challenge traditional Democratic constituencies like teachers and automakers,'' Cutter said. ``The risk is that you're angering the people that actually show up and vote.''

At Obama's May 7 Detroit speech, he endorsed tougher fuel- efficiency standards, which automakers call costly and ineffective. ``I've got to admit it, it was pretty quiet, nobody clapped,'' he said during an Oct. 10 campaign speech in Largo, Maryland. ``But that's OK, because part of what I want to do as the next president is not just tell folks what they want to hear. We've got to tell the American people what they need to hear.''

Mixed Result

Obama's message has had mixed results so far. He fell behind Clinton in last quarter's fundraising, and she this month picked up the endorsement of the 1.4 million-member American Federation of Teachers.

Clinton brushes aside any suggestion that she is pulling her punches to maintain her advantage in the race.

``I say the same things to every group,'' she said in a telephone interview yesterday. ``I think that's the kind of consistent message that breaks through and gives people confidence that you are not only just talking about change, but have the strength and experience to make change happen.''

Back in 1992, her spouse, then Arkansas governor, delivered his attack on Sister Souljah at a meeting of Reverend Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition. Bill Clinton likened the performer to white supremacist David Duke for asking whether violence in the black community might be reduced if blacks ``have a week and kill white people?''

While Clinton was criticized by Jackson, his comments broadened his appeal to centrist Democrats and independents. In his 2004 autobiography, ``My Life,'' Clinton wrote: ``After challenging white voters all across America to abandon racism, if I kept silent on Sister Souljah I might look weak or phony.''

To contact the reporters on this story: Heidi Przybyla in Washington at hprzybyla@bloomberg.net ; Julianna Goldman in Washington at jgoldman6@bloomberg.net

Michelle Obama In Iowa - 'Real Obamas'

Dan Hannaher — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:39:50 EDT

I met Michelle Obama last June, and just like her husband, I found her to be genuine in nature, remarkably engaged, smart, funny and unpretentious. If you've had a chance to view any of the videos of Mrs. Obama before various audiences or been fortunate enough to witness them in person; I'm sure you'll agree she is without question a powerful advocate not only for Barack, but for this movement. Today's Washington Post website has a great piece highlighting Michelle's work on the campaign:

In Iowa, the Candidate's Wife Introduces the 'Real Obamas'

Michelle Obama speaking to Iowa voters earlier this summer. (AP).

ROCKWELL CITY, Iowa--From Waterloo to Iowa Falls and Fort Dodge to Boone, Michelle Obama picked up her campaign pace this week, telling enthusiastic audiences that her husband can change the nation. She urged a group seated on folding chairs in a library basement here, "Just dream. If you reach into your hearts and act without fear, we can do something special."

Sen. Barack Obama, well behind Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) in national polls, is intensifying his efforts in the early states of Iowa and New Hampshire, where strategists hope to raise the Illinois Democrat's profile and build steam after months when Clinton's position has grown only stronger.

Michelle Obama's role, as she describes it, is to introduce "the real Obamas, not the resumes." In a stump speech that she varies and delivers without notes, she tells of her upbringing in a working class family in Chicago. She goes on to say that, after Princeton University and Harvard Law School, she met this biracial guy from Hawaii with a funny name who overcame her skepticism by being authentic and principled -- and cute.

Mindful of doubts about Barack Obama's experience and toughness, she has added riffs that guide her listeners through his work as a community organizer, public interest lawyer, University of Chicago constitutional law professor and 11 years in elective office. Experience should not be equated with time spent in Washington, she says, arguing that old Washington hands led the nation into war because of their "inability to see the forest for the trees."

"We need someone who understands and respects the Constitution, particularly as we have seen it obliterated," Michelle Obama told more than 100 people at a Fort Dodge art museum Wednesday. Noting that skeptics ask whether he can take the GOP's best shot and still win, she reminded her audience of the political rough and tumble of his adopted town: "Look, we live in Chicago. Need I say more?"

Obama made six stops in two days, canceling two on Tuesday after a motorcyclist slammed into her campaign van south of Hampton. It was her tenth trip to Iowa, but her first campaign overnight without daughters Malia, 9, and Sasha, 6, who remain in school in Chicago. She leaves for a London fundraising excursion on Sunday and expects to be a regular in Iowa and New Hampshire, with additional stops in South Carolina and Nevada, in the two and a half months or so before voting begins.

She says she is undaunted by Clinton's lead, remembering her husband's improbable victory in the 2004 Illinois Senate race against well-known and well-funded Democrats backed by the party establishment. One hope in Obamaville is that that Clinton is overplaying her inevitability theme, and will be upbraided by independent-minded Iowa and New Hampshire voters.

"We're three months out," Michelle Obama, 43, a University of Chicago Hospitals vice president, said in an interview. "This is the beginning of the race. People are just starting to pay attention."

The campaign is sponsoring a "Women for Obama" training session on Saturday in Des Moines. Participants will spend 5 1/2 hours with Obama policy advisors and communications specialists at workshops with names such as "message training," "policy training," "grassroots organizing" and "caucus activity."

Barack Obama, who worked for three years in impoverished South Side neighborhoods after graduating from Columbia University, will make an appearance.

"History will tell you that while the clock is ticking, there's a lot of time," David Axelrod, the campaign's chief strategist said after listening to Obama talk to the Rockwell City crowd. "The real action is not in the last 100 days, it's in the last 30."

The Obama campaign is counting on it.

-- Peter Slevin

Obama Campaign Targets 17-Year-Olds

Dan Hannaher — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 07:55:37 EDT

This Wall Street Journal article is a good reminder that high school students in North Dakota who will be of voting age (18) by the time of the November election are eligible to vote in the February 5th caucus. Time to start a "High School Electoral!"

PAGE ONE

Too Young to Vote,
But Old Enough
To Caucus in IowaObama Campaign Targets
Turnout for 17-Year-Olds;
The 'BarackStar' VibeBy ELIZABETH HOLMES
October 10, 2007; Page A1

INDIANOLA, Iowa -- A noisy crowd of thousands gathered in an open field here one Sunday recently, listening to rapper Kanye West's "Stronger" blaring from speakers, and waiting for six Democratic presidential hopefuls to take the stage.

Lyse Perrigo, a suburban Des Moines high-school senior, had been here before. A few months ago, the 17-year-old stood in the same spot, rocking out to the music of Papa Roach and Saliva, two of her favorite bands.

Elizabeth Holmes Wearing an oversized "Obama '08" T-shirt and grabbing a supporter sign, Elise Walz, a senior at West High School in Iowa City, recently hopped a bus to follow Sen. Barack Obama to the town of Indianola.

This hot September afternoon was different in that Ms. Perrigo had another kind of rock star in her sights: Illinois Democratic Sen. Barack Obama.

Ms. Perrigo, wearing an "Obama '08" T-shirt with matching stickers and a button, is a crucial part of the Obama campaign's plan to win the first-in-the-nation presidential caucus.

Ms. Perrigo, whose birthday is in April, will still be 17 when the January caucus takes place. But because of a quirk in Iowa election law, she'll be able to participate anyway since she will have turned 18 by the November election. She doesn't even need to be registered to vote ahead of time; she simply has to show up with proof that she'll be eligible to cast a ballot come fall.

Residents, divided by party, go to their assigned precinct on the night of the caucus. Republicans treat the caucus like a straw poll, while Democrats gather and physically separate according to their candidate preference.

"Many of you can caucus in Iowa," Mr. Obama told scores of high-school students, via conference call, from around the state last month for the kickoff of the weekly "BarackStar" nights held for teens at the campaign's 31 field offices. "I hope you realize how much power you have, potentially, to change the world."

After a recent foreign-policy speech, the candidate invited some of the attending teens and their friends backstage. Told that 17-year-old Anna Murray was student senate president of Iowa City's West High School, he asked her advice on running for president. Ms. Murray, smiling broadly, was speechless. The next day she rushed up to her old government teacher, who is the student-senate adviser, to recount the tale.

QUESTION OF THE DAY
Should the U.S. voting age be changed from 18? Cast your vote in the Question of the Day.

The Obama campaign is also actively cultivating teachers, along with high-school principals, using them for entree to the youngest voters. Sometimes Obama aides try to hunt the adults down at home, begging for classroom time.

To be sure, teen interest doesn't easily translate into teen votes. Young voters have notoriously low turnout rates, and the complicated Iowa caucuses make participating even more daunting. Seventeen-year-olds are particularly hard to get at because they aren't listed on voter-registration rolls.

So most candidates aren't paying attention to that youngest slice of the youth vote. Iowa high-school teachers and students say they've heard little from the other Democratic leaders, Hillary Clinton or John Edwards.

Mr. Obama is the exception, driven both by necessity, and his particular appeal. He trails far behind Mrs. Clinton nationally but is doing his best to keep up in Iowa -- and polls suggest strength among voters under 30. He has a proverbial seat at the cool kids' lunch table, with his appearance on the cover of Vibe and having met with the likes of rapper Ludacris. At 46, he's the youngest of the presidential candidates, 14 years Mrs. Clinton's junior. She will turn 60 this month. A few hundred extra teen votes in Iowa could make a big difference for Mr. Obama.

So Rachel Haltom-Irwin, the campaign's 25-year-old Iowa Youth Vote director, attends many of Sen. Obama's appearances, building the campaign's email database. At a stop in the tiny town of Guthrie Center, she approached the student band and passed around a sign-up clipboard.

Under the heading of "BarackStars," the field offices hold weekly gatherings tailored toward teens and hand out information packets to be distributed back at school. Ms. Perrigo posted some on her "Waukee Students for Obama '08" Facebook group site.

In Storm Lake, a picturesque town in northwestern Iowa, Sen. Obama's team invited high-school teachers to bring students to a midweek event. The district accepted the invitation and provided a bus to transport 60 students. Craig Lyon, a Storm Lake social-studies teacher, says the field trip did more to interest his students in government than anything else that has happened this semester.

Brent Jorth, a teacher at Van Meter High School outside Des Moines, gave an Obama field organizer 45 minutes to speak to his American-government class. "Their ears prick up a little bit when they hear Obama's name," says Mr. Jorth.

Some of the most active students are at West High School in Iowa City, where they have formed their own support club for Mr. Obama -- the only candidate to have an organized base there. Run by Elise Walz, a senior, and Jenna Broghamer, a junior, the club has 20 members and meets before school for half an hour every other week. They talk about volunteer opportunities with the campaign and events they want to hold (including a battle-of-the-bands-style mock caucus, called a "Maucus").

Ms. Walz and Ms. Broghamer recently hopped one of many campaign-hired school buses to the Harkin Steak Fry in Indianola -- an annual event sponsored by the state's veteran Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin. In presidential campaign season, the event draws the top Democratic contenders.

As the bus approached Indianola, a town of more than 14,000 about 130 miles from Iowa City, the West High students peered out the windows at the rowdy campaign activity. "Iowans for Hillary" signs blanketing the roadside were the first they saw. Ms. Walz frowned. "Gosh, this place is so Hillary," she said. "I wonder if Barack will feel bad with all these signs."

The top six Democratic contenders spoke. In his remarks, Sen. Obama took a shot at President George Bush and his decision to commute the prison sentence of former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. "Even Paris Hilton got some jail time," he quipped.

At the Steak Fry, with a sprawling mix of campaign staffers and volunteers roaming around the open field, the rallying was in full swing. Ms. Walz and Ms. Broghamer readily joined in whenever they heard an Obama staffer start to cheer, but looked unsure when rival campaigns approached. Edwards supporters were handing out newspapers called "The Edwards Extra." The girls stared at the ground and politely declined.

When the event was over, Ms. Walz picked up some discarded "Obama" signs from the campaign litter and dusted them off to take back to school.

On the bus ride home, she asked one of the campaign field organizers to explain the complicated caucus process to her. Dean Fluker, a recent University of Iowa graduate, did his best to do that. Democratic caucus participants need to do a lot more than just go to a private voting booth and cast a ballot. They have to show up in a crowded room and be prepared to defend their choice for the party nomination. Typically, seasoned caucus veterans run the show. But nearly everyone is expected to speak up.

Mr. Fluker told Ms. Walz, who pulled her voter-registration card out of her khaki Coach wallet, that they would have more tutorial opportunities close to the actual caucus date. Later, when asked whether she felt confident enough to take part, Ms. Walz thought for a second and said, "Uh, yeah. I think so."

Such uncertainty remains a hurdle for the Obama teen outreach. On a visit to Carroll, a town in the northwestern part of the state, Sen. Obama packed the local rec-center auditorium. On stage, off to his left, sat Chandra Coull, a 17-year-old senior at Carroll High School, wearing white cut-off shorts and a brown sweater. Ms. Coull sat attentively through the program.

Afterward, she exhaled loudly and announced, "I am definitely voting for him!" She'll turn 18 in April, making her eligible to participate in January. But when asked whether she would take part in the caucus, she said, "What's that?"

Write to Elizabeth Holmes at elizabeth.holmes@wsj.com

The Grist - Obama's Energy Speech Bold & New

Dan Hannaher — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 11:59:26 EDT

Staying with the Monday Is Obama Day theme, here are a few thoughts on Obama's energy plan. (Full plan here; speech introducing the plan here.)

Overall, I'm pleasantly surprised -- even shocked -- at its quality. It's a deft mix of good politics and strong, substantive policy. Here are what I see as the three headlines:

100% auction of cap-and-trade credits. This is a home run, a real act of standard-setting boldness (the kind that Obama always promises but rarely delivers). The green community should immediately use it to push Clinton and Edwards into making the same commitment, insuring that it's the new baseline for any cap-and-trade program.
Smart investment. The revenue from auctions will be considerable, up to $50 billion a year, and Obama's smart about putting it to work, dividing it between energy R&D, protections for low-income workers, and market deployment of existing clean tech.
A focus on efficiency. Clearly Obama gets that efficiency is the easiest route to emission reductions, and he's got a set of thoughtful, detailed initiatives to make it work.

More detailed thoughts below the fold.

Much has been said about Edwards' important role in this campaign: pushing the other candidates toward stronger, more ambitious policy. You can see it at work here -- in several respects Obama's energy proposal echoes Edwards'.

However, with his promise to auction 100% of cap-and-trade credits, Obama has put himself out ahead of all the other frontrunners. He deserves the praise he'll get for it.

As for investing the auction revenue, Obama gets it absolutely right:

Some of the revenue generated by auctioning allowances will be used to support the development and deployment of clean energy, invest in energy efficiency improvements and address transition costs, including helping American workers affected by this economic transition and helping lower-income Americans afford their energy bills by expanding the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, expanding weatherization grants for low-income individuals to make their homes more energy efficient, and establishing a dedicated fund to assist low-income Americans afford higher electricity and energy bills

Note that Obama is neatly transcending the faux-controversy between Shellenberger & Nordhaus and their critics: He's putting regulation and investment on equal footing.

He's smart on investment, too -- some of it is for basic R&D, some of it for green jobs programs, and some for pushing existing technologies to market. I particularly like this:

The Clean Technologies Deployment Venture Capital Fund will be modeled on the highly-successful Central Intelligence Agency In-Q-Tel program. In-Q-Tel is a non-profit, independently-managed venture capital fund led by seasoned venture capital professionals to develop new intelligence technologies for the CIA. The first five years of In-Q-Tel funding led to 22 new technologies being used in 40 government programs.

The CTDVCF (which needs a better acronym) would be specifically designed to get technologies across the "valley of death" that separates the lab and the market. This is a creative way to spur rather than replace market incentives.

Naturally I'm not too excited about the ethanol business, but if you must have ethanol, this is about as good a balance as you could as for. It's frank about the limitations of corn ethanol and promises plenty of research money for cellulosic. Most importantly, it specifically calls out the importance of local ownership of biofuel refineries, and promises some incentives that would encourage it.

Here's the wording on dirty coal plants:

Obama will use whatever policy tools are necessary, including standards that ban new traditional coal facilities, to ensure that we move quickly to commercialize and deploy low carbon coal technology. Obama's stringent cap on carbon will also make it uneconomic to site traditional coal facilities and discourage the use of existing inefficient coal facilities.

Sounds like he's proposing more or less what Edwards is: requiring that new coal plants be IGCC. As I said in this post, that's a big risk, and not anything close to as bold as requiring working CCS. Combined with the price on carbon, though, it certainly sends the right signal to coal companies: old-fashioned dirty coal is on the way out. Greens should push Clinton to go at least this far.

On efficiency, some highlights include making all new buildings carbon neutral by 2030, decoupling in the utility sector, and my personal favorite, investing in the smart grid.

The transportation stuff contains the usual promises to boost CAFE standards and mandate flex-fuel vehicles, but -- praise be -- it also contains several measures to reduce driving. Listen to this sweetness:

Barack Obama believes that we must move beyond our simple fixation of investing so many of our transportation dollars in serving drivers and that we must make more investments that make it easier for us to walk, bicycle and access other transportation alternatives.

There's a limited amount the federal gov't can do on this score, but Obama has been thoughtful about how to use those tools.

Finally, Obama says all the right things about the international effort -- re-engage with the UN process, bring developing countries in, etc. etc.

There are certain areas where the plan is vague, and a few others where I'd disagree on details, but overall I think greens should be happy with its comprehensiveness and boldness. It's just stunning how far the energy policy discussion has come in the last couple of years.

Rasmussen - "Obama: Has a Turnaround Begun?"

Dan Hannaher — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 10:33:15 EDT

2008 Democratic Presidential PrimaryObama: Has a Turnaround Begun?Monday, October 08, 2007

In the first few months of 2007, Barack Obama burst onto the national political scene and quickly took hold of the number two slot in the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination.

For the month of April, just before the first of way too many Presidential debates, Obama’s support averaged 31% in the Rasmussen Reports weekly national polling update and he seemed poised to audition for the role of frontrunner (see summary of weekly poll results).

But, those April numbers represented a peak for Obama. His numbers slipped to 27% in May, 26% in June, 25% in July and 23% in August. He managed to stabilize in September and hold steady at 23%. For the week ending October 7, his numbers have inched back up a few points. It’s too early to tell if this is a turnaround, but it is worth watching.

One possibility is that Obama is gaining ground at the expense of John Edwards. The 2004 Vice Presidential nominee has struggled in both polls and fundraising. He recently announced that his campaign will accept public financing and all the restrictions that entails. Still, Edwards does better than any other Democrat in general election match-ups against GOP hopefuls (see summary of all match-ups and other key stats for Democratic and Republican candidates).

Through it all, Hillary Clinton remains the Democratic frontrunner. As noted a week ago, her nomination is not inevitable. However, she has gained support throughout the year and is showing no signs of letting it slip away. Rather than a sudden surge of support, Clinton’s approach has been slow and steady. She was supported by 33% of Likely Democratic Primary Voters in April. Her support then increased to 35% in May, 36% in June, 39% in July and 41% in August. It slipped a point to 40% in September but is up to 42% in early October.

Noonan on Obama's ability to think.

Dan Hannaher — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 09:38:04 EDT

PEGGY NOONAN

The Trance
Bush . . . Clinton . . . Bush . . . Clinton . . . Getting very sleepy . . .

Friday, October 5, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

Barack Obama has a great thinking look. I mean the look he gets on his face when he's thinking, not the look he presents in debate, where they all control their faces knowing they may be in the reaction shot and fearing they'll look shrewd and clever, as opposed to open and strong. I mean the look he gets in an interview or conversation when he's listening and not conscious of his expression. It's a very present look. He seems more in the moment than handling the moment. I've noticed this the past few months, since he entered the national stage. I wonder if I'm watching him more closely than his fellow Democrats are.

Mr. Obama often seems to be thinking when he speaks, too, and this comes somehow as a relief, in comparison, say, to Hillary Clinton and President Bush, both of whom often seem to be trying to remember the answer they'd agreed upon with staff. What's the phrase we use about education? Hit Search Function. Hit Open. Right-click. "Equity in education is essential, Tim . . ."

You get the impression Mr. Obama trusts himself to think, as if something good might happen if he does. What a concept. Anyway, I've started to lean forward a little when he talks.

But he doesn't stand a chance, right? His main competitor, Mrs. Clinton, is this week's invincible. She broke through 50% for the first time in a big national poll--53% saying they would support her, a full 33 points more than Obama. Her third quarter fund raising beat everyone else's. "It's all over but the voting," said Rep. Tom Petri, who will probably get pummeled a bit by the campaign for premature triumphalism. But he only said what a lot of people are starting to think.

Some Democrats seem proud they already know who their candidate is, unlike those messy Republicans who haven't been able to resolve the issue. But should it be resolved before people vote?

Has the Democratic Party noticed it actually has some impressive candidates? They should not be written off, and when you think about it, it's weird that they're being written off. Joe Biden used to seem mildly giddy, vain but in a small way, not a big and interesting way. (Big is LBJ: Ah will impose mah will. Small: Where's my hair-sculpting gel?) But it has been 35 years since he became a figure in Washington, and in the past few years in particular he has been ahead of his peers on Iraq--ahead with warnings, ahead with tripartite thinking, ahead with a seriousness and sobriety about the fix we're in. He is the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and he's been reading daily threat reports for a long time. He is impressive. Why don't the Democrats notice?

Chris Dodd is the head of the Senate Banking Committee, and nothing if not sophisticated. In the post-9/11 world, sophisticated is not so bad. He's been in the Senate 27 years. In earlier years his thinking on government, his assumptions about what can and should be expected of it, veered from the utopian to the world-weary, and were sometimes both at once. But if you listen to him and watch him in debate, you might legitimately conclude this is a candidate who understands how it all works and what time it is. He's one of the grown-ups.

Anybody notice?

Mr. Obama's experience, as we all know, is as limited as Mrs. Clinton's, which is to say limited indeed. She has held elective office for only 6 1/2 years. Before that she was first lady of Arkansas and then first lady of the United States. He has held national office for only 3 1/2 years, and before that was a state legislator for eight years. But he has impressed people, and not with money, résumé or clout but something rarer, natural gifts. That's not nothing. Big talent is rare, and deserves consideration.

And yet the Democrats remain in their Hillary trance.

Not all, of course. Each candidate has his band of supporters, his little base. Mr. Obama is fortunate to have one with the grace and vigor of Ted Sorensen, John F. Kennedy's great staffer and speechwriter, who told me this week, "I am supporting Obama." He has known and liked the other main candidates, has "no objection to a female commander-in-chief and no ill feelings stemming from the Clinton stains on the escutcheon of the White House." But Mr. Obama is "the one serious potential nominee of the Democratic Party who is most likely to win" and most likely "to end the tragic occupation of Iraq on terms compatible with our country's best interests and traditional values."

When I asked if his support was connected in any way to the idea of breaking away from the Bush-Clinton-Bush rotation, he said, "Above all, I believe this country needs change, and continuing the 20-year hold on the White House of the same two families is not my idea of change."

That to me gets to the heart of the problem and the heart of The Trance. Mrs. Clinton is so far ahead so early on for the same reason Mr. Bush was so far ahead so early on in 2000, and after only six years as governor, with no previous offices behind him.

It is the nature of modern politics. A political family gains allies--retainers, supporters, hangers-on, admirers, associates, in-house Machiavellis. The bigger the government, the more ways allies can be awarded, which binds them more closely. Your destiny is theirs. Members of the court recruit others. Money lines spread person to person, company to company, board to board, mover to mover.

The most important part is the money lines. Power is expensive. The second most important part is the word "winner." The Bushes are winners; the Clintons are winners. We know this, they've won. The Bushes are wired into the Republican money-line system; the Clintons are wired into the Democratic money-line system. For a generation, two generations now, they have had the same dynamics in play, only their friends are on the blue team, not the red, or the red, not the blue.

They are, both groups, up and ready and good to go every election cycle. They are machines. There are good people on each side, idealists, the hopeful, those convinced the triumph of their views will make our country better. And there are those on each side who are not so wonderful, not so well-meaning, not well-meaning at all. And some are idiots, but very comfortable ones.

Is this good for our democracy, this air of inevitability? Is it good in terms of how the world sees us, and how we see ourselves? Or is it something we want to break out of, like a trance?

It would be understandable if they were families of a most extraordinary natural distinction and self-sacrifice. But these are not the Adamses of Massachusetts we're talking about. You've noticed, right?

Ms. Noonan is a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal and author of "John Paul the Great: Remembering a Spiritual Father" (Penguin, 2005), which you can order from the OpinionJournal bookstore. Her column appears Fridays on OpinionJournal.com.

Obama....Understands Iowa.

Dan Hannaher — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 12:18:34 EDT

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1007/6174.html

You know things are going well in Iowa when even Roger Simon writes of Barack's strength there. Read the article.

Can Snapshots Be Out Of Focus? 33 vs. 14

Dan Hannaher — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 08:20:29 EDT

Today's AP poll release illustrates the degree to which all these national polls are merely snapshots in time, and that some of these snapshots are likely out of focus.

Yesterday the earth shook with the news that Mrs. Clinton had opened up a 33 point lead over Barack Obama. Now today the AP suggests the difference is less than half that number with Obama trailing by 14%.

So, while informative to minor degrees in that they can potentially track signs of trouble or otherwise, these polls are highly manipulative.

The Obama campaign has a plan to win this contest, and they (we) are on track to do so. So, let's stop pondering the polls and get back to work. Iowa! Iowa! Iowa!

Intern Opportunities with Obama for America

Dan Hannaher — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 11:17:07 EDT

Just as in North Dakota, the Obama campaign is looking for students interested in interning with the campaign. The contact information for both states is the same. Here's today's release:

The Obama Campaign is seeking full-time Interns in Minnesota.Interns will work with campaign staff and supporters to build campaign programs that will engage voters in the Minnesota Caucus process and turn them out to Caucus on February 5. Interns will execute or assist with the following: campaign events, writing and research, outreach to voters, outreach to elected officials and communi ty organizations, recruiting and training volunteers, and earned media. They will coordinate the activities of activists and work with staff to meet the campaign's goals and timelines.Qualified applicants will have a commitment to progressive politics and grass roots organizing. They will have excellent written and oral communication skills, and strong interpersonal and management skills. They will be highly organized and self-motivated. Ideal candidates will have experience with online organizing and database management. Campaign or Labor organizing experience helpful but not required. The internship schedule is Monday through Friday, 40 ho urs per week. Internships are available in the campaign office or independently statewide.We will work with you to earn credit at your respective school. All internships are unpaid. Hiring Immediately Minneapolis and Statewide

Send resume and cover letter to asova@barackobama.com

www.barackobama.com

Andrew Sullivan - "Obama has come through."

Dan Hannaher — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 17:41:35 EDT

To lead the world, we must lead by example. We must be willing to acknowledge our failings, not just trumpet our victories. And when I'm President, we'll reject torture - without exception or equivocation; we'll close Guantanamo; we'll be the country that credibly tells the dissidents in the prison camps around the world that America is your voice, America is your dream, America is your light of justice.

I've been waiting a long time to hear a politician say these words as starkly and as passionately as he or she should. McCain crumbled; Clinton is too careful. Obama has come through.

To read the entire commentary and the sppech: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/10/obama-lets-it-r.html

Ted Sorensen Campaigns With Obama

Dan Hannaher — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 14:49:51 EDT

I first met Ted Sorensen in 1984 at the San Francisco convention. We were both there as strong supporters of Gary Hart's candidacy. Sorensen was an icon of the Democratic Party then, and he still is with no one outside of the Kennedy family with a stronger connection to the JFK presidency. I connected with Sorensen again last year when I hosted his wife Gillian Sorensen on her visit to Fargo on behalf of the UN Foundation. It was then that I re-read Ted's small but marvelous book, "Why I Am A Democrat" which I highly recommend.

Now Sorensen is back campaigning. Early this year he endorsed Barack Obama as the inheritor of the progressive torch, and today he is crossing Iowa introducing him as the next President.

John Nichols over at The Nation has a good take on this remarkable pairing:

"On Tuesday, as he arrives in what for him is shaping up as the essential state of Iowa, Obama will be joined by Ted Sorensen, the JFK and RFK speechwriter and aide who is one of the last politically active members of President Kennedy's inner circle.

Sorensen, who JFK referred to as his "intellectual blood bank," will introduce Obama in Des Moines and Coralville, Iowa, on a day when the Illinois senator will be highlighting his vocal opposition of five years ago to congressional authorization of an attack on Iraq.

Having Sorensen, who broke with Kennedy's successor, Lyndon Johnson, over the issue of ending the Vietnam War, will portray Obama's opposition to going to war with Iraq as a Kennedy-esque "profile in courage" – even as the candidate's current stance on ending the occupation of Iraq remains disappointingly squishy in the eyes of anti-war activists.

Now almost 80, the man who crafted both words and strategies for President Kennedy, is making the sort of comparisons that no one – save Senator Ted, who has yet to endorse – can conjure with such legitimacy.

"He is more like John F. Kennedy than any other candidate of our time," Sorensen says of Obama, arguing that "the parallels in their candidacies are striking."

"Obama is opposed, as Kennedy was opposed, for being young, for being in his first term in the Senate and, sad to say, for having qualities from his birth on – such as his skin color – which people say will make him tough to support. Well, they said that about Kennedy's religion… That's nonsense," says Sorensen. "The times are too important. We have got to have someone with judgment leading this country."

How much will a Sorensen swing count through Iowa, where new polls suggest that Obama is moving into a position from which he might be able to best both New York Senator Hillary Clinton ☼, the national frontrunner, and former North Carolina Senator John Edwards, until recently the Iowa frontrunner, influence the state's first-in-the-nation Democratic caucuses?

There is no question that, in eastern Iowa, a heavily Catholic, blue-collar region where the Kennedys remain iconic figures, Ted Kennedy's campaigning for Massachusetts Senator John Kerry ☼ before the 2004 Democratic caucuses played a significant role in the renewal of Kerry's candidacy.

Ted Sorensen is no Ted Kennedy. But he is a vibrant and articulate link to the Kennedy legacy. And Sorensen's campaigning on Obama's behalf will suggest a historical connection that money can't buy."

Branstiter to Speak at Macalester Rally

Dan Hannaher — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 10:57:20 EDT

I encourage any of you in the area of the Twin Cities to try and take in tonight's rally on the campus of Macalester College commemorating Barack Obama's original anti-Iraq War message.

FargObama's own Allan Branstiter will be speaking at the event. Allan is an Iraq War veteran and currently a Fargo resident attending Minnesota State University Moorhead. He has shared his message with me, and hopefully he'll allow me to post it after tonight's rally. He delivers a clear and distinct message - that Barack Obama is the candidate who can and will end this war. With a personal message of patriotism and commitment to truth Allan's address makes me proud. Go see him!

Obama 3rd Quarter Numbers - $19 Million+

Dan Hannaher — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 14:35:43 EDT

Obama Announces Another Quarter of Historic Grassroots Support CHICAGO, IL-- Obama for America today announced another quarter of record-breaking grassroots support. In the third quarter, more than 93,000 new donors gave the campaign at least $19 million in primary dollars alone, for a total of at least $20 million including general election funds. "With over 350,000 donors and more than a half a million donations, Americans hungry for change know that Barack Obama is the candidate with the right experience to make that change happen," said Penny Pritzker, Obama for America National Finance Chair. "Thanks to this unprecedented grassroots support, the Obama campaign will have the resources we need to win the nomination and the White House.” “Many in Washington have spent the last weeks declaring the outcome of this race to be pre-ordained, and the primary process a mere formality,” said Obama for America Campaign Manager David Plouffe. “Yet, in this quarter alone, 93,000 more Americans joined our campaign, because they desire real change and believe Barack Obama is the one candidate who can deliver it. This grassroots movement for change will not be deterred by Washington conventional wisdom because in many ways it is built to challenge it.” Third quarter totals:
• Primary dollars raised: at least $19 million
• Overall dollars raised (with general election): at least $20 million
• Number of new donors: over 93,000

Total 2007
• Primary dollars raised: at least $74.9 million
• Total number of donors: 352,000 ### FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 1, 2007
Contact: Obama Press Office, (312) 819-2423

Robert Reich on Obama's Experience

Dan Hannaher — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 13:10:30 EDT

While I can understand Bill Clinton's eagerness to undermine his wife's most significant primary opponent, he is not, I believe, completely ingenuous. I happened to talk with him in 1988 before he decided not to run, and also in 1991 before he decided to run the following year. His calculation at both times was decidedly rational and entirely political, based on whether he could win.

But more to the point, it strikes me as unfair to claim that Obama lacks relevant experience for the presidency. When he ran in 1992, Bill Clinton had been the governor of a small, rural southern state; as such, he had only limited experience with national issues and no foreign policy experience to speak of. Incidentally, at this point in the 2008 presidential election, Hillary Clinton has served as an elected official in the U.S. Senate for not quite eight years, and before that a First Lady in the White House. Obama has so far held elective office for almost twelve years, at both levels of government – first as an Illinois state senator and then as a U.S. Senator. Before that he was a community organizer among Chicago's poor, and then a civil rights lawyer – two experiences that in my view are critically relevant to anyone seeking to become president of all Americans. Obama's international experience comes first hand – his father was a goat-herder in Kenya, and Obama spent a portion of his childhood in Indonesia. And as an African-American, with all the personal experience that implies, Obama seems particularly well qualified to understand the issues that need to be addressed in order to unify America and renew the nation's moral authority around the world.

"Don't Let Anyone Tell You Change Isn't Possible" - Another Andrew Sullivan Blog Piece

Dan Hannaher — Sun, 30 Sep 2007 17:20:03 EDT

Obama at Howard

29 Sep 2007 01:42 pm

A strikingly expansive speech, a reminder of what Obama can deliver when he wants to. My sense is that he is holding back, or rather has been holding back. He is very, very careful not to get too angry as a black candidate. Perhaps too careful for his core message: real change. What he needs to do is find a way to explain how serious he is about change while explaining that he alone can overcome the boomer polarization that has prevented it. And that's true on the race issue as well. Yesterday, the message got sharper. Money quote:

I commend those of you at Howard that have spoken out on Jena Six or traveled to the rally in Louisiana. I commend those of you who have spoken out on the Genarlow Wilson case. I know it can be lonely protesting this kind of injustice. I know there's not a lot of glamour in it. Because when I was a state senator in Illinois we have a death penalty system that had sent 13 innocent people to their death--13 innocent men that we know. I wanted to reform the system, and I was told by almost everyone that it was not possible, that I wouldn't be able to get police officers and civil rights activists to work together, Democrats and Republicans to agree that we should videotape confessions to make sure they weren't coerced. Folks told me that there was too much political risk involved, and it would come to haunt me later, when I ran for higher office. But I believed that it was too risky not to act. And after a while people with opposing views came together and started listening. And we ended up reforming that death penalty system, and we did the same when I passed the law to expose racial profiling.
So don't let anyone tell you that change is not possible. Don't let them tell you that standing out and speaking up about injustice is too risky. What's too risky is keeping quiet. What's too risky is looking the other way. I don't want to be here standing and talking about another Jena four years from now because we didn't have the courage to act today. I don't want this to be another issue that ends up being ignored when the cameras are turned off and the headlines disappear. It's time to seek a new dawn of justice in America.
From the day I take office as President of the United States--has a ring to it, doesn't it? From the day I take office as President America will have a Justice Department that is truly dedicated to justice, the work it began in the days after Little Rock. I will rid the department of idealogues and political cronies, and for the first time in eight years the civil rights division will actually be staffed with civil rights lawyers who prosecute civil rights violations, and employment discrimination and hate crimes.

Obama Leads In Iowa - Newsweek

Dan Hannaher — Sun, 30 Sep 2007 12:12:21 EDT

Barack leads among likely caucus voters in the newly released Newsweek poll for the state of Iowa. Read the article: http://mobile.newsweek.com. / detail.jsp?key=12430&rc=po&p=0&all=1

Andrew Sullivan comments on the Movement.

Dan Hannaher — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 18:23:44 EDT

Andrew Sullivan over at The Atlantic again makes a good observation regarding the crowds the Obama campaign is able to generate, as exhibited last night in New York:

Who Else Does This?

28 Sep 2007 03:28 pm

It's worth reminding ourselves:

Mr. Obama’s aides said more than 20,000 people registered for the event through the campaign’s Web site. While it was impossible to determine even a reliable attendance estimate, view from the vantage point of an elevated lift seemed to reveal the gathering as one of the largest campaign events of the year.

Which other candidate can even begin to get 20,000 people for a rally in September the year before any actual votes are taken? Washington may have already decided Clinton has won; but the country hasn't. You're seeing an enormous demand for real change, for a different kind of politics, for a way out of the polarized boomer world. I don't know if Obama can channel this effectively. I do know it's real, and the most powerful force in these coming elections.

(Photo: Emmanuel Dunand/AFP/Getty.)

North Dakota Interns Wanted

Dan Hannaher — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 11:07:35 EDT

Obama interns wanted

Barack Obama's presidential campaign is looking for a few interns to help them out in North Dakota. The job description includes: writing field plans; recruiting, training and managing volunteers; and tracking opposition and media activity. Interns will plan and execute outreach to grow and manage relationships with allies, organizations and supporters to build a grassroots movement. If interested contact Alexandra Sova at alesova@umich.edu with a cover letter and resume.

Washngton Park Welcomes Barack

Dan Hannaher — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:17:59 EDT

Dartmouth Debate

Dan Hannaher — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 09:24:17 EDT

Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times points out what I believe was the most important point of last night's debate.
Quote:
Here's how Obama bored into Clinton. All the leading Dems have health plans on the table. They are more alike than they are different. Obama said the issue is not who has the plans but "It has to do with who can inspire and mobilize the American people to get it done and open up the process. If it was lonely for Hillary, part of the reason it was lonely, Hillary, was because you closed the door to a lot of potential allies in that process. At that time, 80 percent of Americans already wanted universal health care, but they didn't feel like they were let into the process. "

Winning.

Dan Hannaher — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 14:58:14 EDT

Franklin Roosevelt carried the state of North Dakota. Once. And it’s true, Lyndon Johnson also won in 1964. But clearly it is rare for a Democratic Presidential nominee to carry this mostly rural, conservative, sparsely populated state. But many here believe that might be due to a lack of effort. For when presented with a vigorous campaign North Dakotan’s will often vote for Democrats – good, competent, smart, common sense Democrats. Just like Barack Obama. Our congressional delegation is entirely Democratic showcasing three of America’s best; Kent Conrad, Byron Dorgan and Earl Pomeroy. We have had strong leadership from Governors Bill Guy, Art Link and George Sinner. And in 2006 the legislative gap was significantly narrowed between Democrats and the Republican majority. But modern campaigns focused on sixteen to twenty key states have marginalized states with few electoral votes (3) and with historic trends weighted to one Party, in this case the Republicans. Barack Obama can and will change that. The Democratic Party can and will change that. The 50 State campaign initiative implemented in 2006 combined with the compelling candidacy of Senator Obama will be transformational. A focused and effective campaign aimed directly at the people of North Dakota can win. The fact that Barack comes from the Midwest helps. He understands the issues of agriculture and the opportunities and challenges facing rural America. Energy; in both its renewable and non-renewable forms is changing the state. Our healthcare, education, and social security issues are really no different from anyone else, except that you might have to drive further here to access them. They need to be fixed, and they need to be fixed right. Obama knows that. And Obama knows the difference between preserving our national security and fighting a “dumb war.” Folks here don’t want promises made that can’t be kept. They just want to be listened to, to be engaged in the conversation, and asked to help find solutions to our common problems. Barack Obama is one of those rare politicians who does just that; he listens. He understands the power that listening and engaging people in problem solving can provide. It’s real leadership. The kind of leadership North Dakota can vote for.