After the Edwards campaign released its list of “senior Iowa staff” the other day, I thought it might be prudent to discuss how each campaign’s staff is shaping up. Their differing approaches are interesting, at least, and they could make a difference by the time the caucuses come around next January.
First up, the Obama campaign has been doing quite a bit of hiring over the last month. All of their key positions (regional field director, state field director, state director, and deputy state director) are filled, and they are hiring on new field organizers every week. Some have compared Obama’s staff to Howard Dean’s from four years ago, because it seems to include an unusual number of ideologically motivated young people, many of whom have never worked a caucus before. Their typical field organizer offer, which is the lowest of the candidates reviewed here, is $2,000 per month. Because Senator Obama is so magnetic, they are having no trouble filling positions, but the low salary may not be enough to entice experienced operatives.
Next, the Edwards campaign has staffed all or most of its key positions as well, and has begun hiring field organizers. In contrast to Obama’s staff, most of Edwards’s staff so far have Iowa political experience, and many have also worked with state director Jennifer O’Malley or state field director Jackie Lee before. General impressions from folks seem to be that the Edwards staff has things together, that their hiring process is quicker and perhaps more organized than Obama’s, and that they already have a more specific plan in place. Their typical field organizer offer seems to be $2,500 per month.
And finally, Hillary Clinton’s campaign has been a bit slower to announce their hiring decisions here, but those whom they have hired have impressive resumes. Staffers who may not have significant Iowa experience but who have significant experience elsewhere are taking positions on the Clinton campaign that are well below where the staffers might be in most campaign hierarchies. Clinton is paying field organizers about $2,750 per month — the most of any candidate — although from what we know here, many positions have not been filled.
Beyond these “big three” campaigns, none of the others have hired (or begun to hire) a full staff here. Dodd, Richardson, and Biden all have a few folks on the ground here, but not enough to get a general impression yet.
How the staffing differences will affect the caucuses, nobody knows, but past caucuses have proven that staff strength can be a major factor in the final delegate counts. Without a sound field strategy in place, a campaign cannot win Iowa, and that takes a good staff.
I know, I live in Iowa, so a defense of the caucuses that comes from me is just going to seem like I’m greedy. I should say that before I moved to Iowa for college four years ago, I shared the opinion that the importance of the caucuses is unjustifiable, and that a national primary would be more democratic. Then I experienced the caucuses (in 2004), and I changed my mind.
Over on MyDD, desmoinesdem published the second part of her diary series, “How the Iowa caucuses work.” She echoes concerns that we brought up here about inequalities in the caucus system based on delegate assignment, demonstrating that it takes more caucus-goers to elect a delegate in precincts with higher concentrations of activist Democrats who have free evenings than in precincts with lower concentrations of said activists. (E.g., it took about 70 caucus-goers to elect one delegate in the Poweshiek County, where I caucused in 2004, while in less-Democratic and less-populous Fremont County, it only took 22 caucus-goers to elect one delegate.)
The conclusion of all of this? The caucus system (according to our own Geraldine) “favors the old over the young, the rural over the urban, Western Iowa over Eastern Iowa.”
Why is this wrong? Well, while the caucus system seems to create inequalities on the surface, it can compensate for deeper inequalities. Many have complained, here and elsewhere, that the Iowa Caucuses are unfair to families with young children, workers who have evening shifts, handicapped persons, and, generally, people with busy schedules, because it requires them to take several hours out of a weekday night to argue with their neighbors about politics. Not everyone can do that, and it’s understandable.
That is why precincts are assigned delegates before caucus night: if a disproportionate number of Democrats in X precinct have to work the night shift or have young children (or even if there’s a blizzard), the system currently in place ensures that their precinct will still be important. And precincts are the smallest geographic unit our election officials recognize for general elections, so it is assumed that others in your precinct likely represent similar interests to yours. Think of it as a much more geographically specific version of the electoral college. (Maybe you have your problems with that system, too, but at least this caucus math has a constitutional precedent.)
Aside from that, though, here’s a question nobody has asked: what is the harm in giving Iowa’s downtrodden rural hamlets and agricultural areas a little attention from the rest of the country every four years? It isn’t like John Edwards is going to spend the last week before the caucuses camped out in Keokuk and Grundy Counties just because each caucus-goer is worth more there. At the end of the day, Keokuk and Grundy still represent a tiny fraction of the total delegates needed to win, and putting on events and doing GOTV work is easier and far more efficient in urban areas like Des Moines and Cedar Rapids.
While disparities in caucus-goer to delegate ratios from county to county may seem a little alarming, the truth is that urban areas are still immensely important, and that a candidate can win the caucuses without putting practically any resources into the less populous half of Iowa’s 99 counties. A campaign will hire more than 10 full-time field organizers for Polk County before they will hire a single full-time organizer for Grundy County. And most importantly, I don’t know a single Iowa Democrat who will argue that Polk County (Des Moines area) Democrats don’t have enough influence on state politics, the state party, or the caucuses.
I hope this will be the start of a series of posts written here as a defense of the Iowa Caucuses. Toward that end, I’m looking for more arguments to respond to. So, dear readers, please participate: What arguments against the Iowa Caucuses do you find most compelling?
John Edwards recently sent out the first mailing of the 2008 primary season to 70,000 Iowans. The mailing includes a detailed description of his health care plan and a DVD (found here) that describes the plan. The video is quite effective though it’s unclear how many of the 70,000 people who received it will actually watch it. However, it is a clear sign of how serious Edwards takes Iowa and also of the emphasis that he is placing on health care. It also gives away his campaign strategy.
Edwards’ focus on health care makes Iraq a secondary issue for him. Although he voted for the Iraq War in 2002, he has since made a very public mea culpa and has been forgiven by anti-war left (as Ed Fallon’s endorsement of Edwards shows). This enables him to dodge the debate over Iraq, which will be the most divisive part of the campaign. From this, one can surmise the Edwards’ road map to the nomination. The second tier candidates (Biden, Dodd and Richardson) are running on experience, specifically that they have the experience to help avoid further American embarrassment in the Middle East and one of Barack Obama’s major selling points was that he was against the Iraq War from the beginning. And we all know how Hillary Clinton voted on Iraq. They will all tear each other apart while Edwards can avoid the entire mess. Edwards then sails through the early primary states as the field narrows. Once it becomes a two-man race, he takes on the wounded survivor of the Hillary-Barack fight over Iraq on February 5th. He defeats his badly bruised opponent and becomes the nominee.
With l’affaire Geffen and Artur Davis’s comments in Selma, Clinton and Obama seem to be doing all they can make this scenario possible. However, with Edwards tipping his hand, both Clinton and Obama still have time to change gears before Edwards successfully takes advantage of the media obsession with them so that he can become the nominee.
It’s highly doubtful that Hillary Clinton will attack Obama for his links with the man responsible Meet The Fockers (although that film was more appalling than any comment David Geffen has made or ever could make). But the basic point is who cares? It is one thing for Hillary Clinton to attack Obama on his position on Iraq, his lack of anything remotely resembling a healthcare plan or on any other substantive issue. Those attacks produce real debate that actually matters. But attacking Obama because someone who wrote him a check said something nasty to Maureen Dowd is meaningless. It doesn’t change anyone’s mind, it doesn’t effect the life of a single person and it doesn’t produce any meaningful debate.
Presidential primaries, like any other election, are fundamentally about negativity. Presidential primaries specifically arose to keep political bosses from sweeping party conflicts under the carpet to broker political deals. They are about replacing compromise with conflict. Primaries are about candidates competing to see whose vision of their party is the most compelling and about testing each candidate to see who can best hold up under the enormous strain and pressure of a general election. However, not all negative attacks are created equal. They can point out clear flaws in candidate’s programs like when George H.W. Bush described Ronald Reagan’s plan for tax cuts for the rich as “voodoo economics” and lead to important debate. But when they’re just pointless attacks for the sake of scoring some easy points in the press like Hillary Clinton’s on David Geffen, it contributes nothing to the public arena and degrades the entire political process.
Last month, when Hillary Clinton came to Des Moines and had an audience of 1500-3000 people for her campaign kickoff, she attracted tons of media attention, including a softball interview with David Yepsen. When Obama attracted a crowd of nearly 5,000 in Ames, twice as many as Hillary, he got less attention from the national media (although it was day two of his campaign). In addition, Yepsen wrote a curious piece on Obama. The headline “Can a candidate be too candid?” made it seem like Obama was the second coming of Bulworth. So what sacred cows was Barack Obama slaying? David Yepsen was shocked because Obama didn’t want to immediately cut military spending when we have 200,000 troops overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan. Then again, if Obama was in favor of cutting military spending, Yepsen would probably label him as almost as unelectable as Dennis Kucinich.
So what’s happening? Part of it is that Obama has increased expectations for drawing crowds. When you can draw 17,000 people to attend a speech on a Saturday morning when it’s nine degrees outside, the bar has been raised. Especially when it involves a relatively minor effort to build a crowd (compared to Hillary Clinton’s effort for her Des Moines event two weeks ago.) The rest is just about the day’s news cycle. Unfortunately for him and for America, Barack Obama is in direct competition for attention with Anna Nicole Smith. However, there’s only one explanation for Yepsen’s weird coverage of Obama. It’s a realization that is an important part of the civil and considerate discourse that Drew Miller is famous for.
Last night, we blogged on the Hotline’s report that Dave Loebsack may have endorsed Barack Obama at the Obama rally in Cedar Rapids last night. It seems though that he was just echoing a common practice of Congressman Boswell and appearing as a courtesy at the event, not endorsing. However, Iowa’s Attorney General, Tom Miller, and its State Treasurer, Mike Fitzgerald, did endorse Obama at the Senator’s rally in Ames today. This leaves the Obama campaign about 1,157 Iowans behind Tom Vilsack and closing. Incidentally, Selden Spencer spoke at the Ames event without endorsing Obama. This goes to show that you don’t have to be elected to Congress to speak at a Presidential candidate’s event without an endorsement, you just have to lose by less than 20 points.
Hotline just reported that Dave Loebsack may have endorsed Barack Obama at Obama’s rally in Cedar Rapids today. Although Leonard Boswell frequently appears at the events of caucus candidates, including Hillary Clinton’s event in Des Moines in January, there seems to be genuine uncertainty about whether Loebsack is pulling the same trick as Boswell or is committed to the Obama campaign. Chase recently speculated on who our congressmen would endorse. It seems possible that in the case of Dave Loebsack, the speculation may be over.
As Barack Obama’s announcing his Presidential candidacy today in front of huge crowds. We thought it was worth revisiting some of our past coverage of Senator Obama’s candidacy as well this handy Obama primer from today’s Guardian that does an excellent job of offering a brief introduction to the man and the phenomenon that he has spawned.
The other noteworthy political news today is that Mitt Romney has adopted a new campaign strategy that should prove very successful. It is to feed Republican activists free steak. Even if Romney’s supporters aren’t the most fervent of any candidate, they will certainly be the best fed.
Although we will soon be deluged with articles analyzing Barack Obama’s candidacy in racial terms, it seems worth mentioning one article out of the cresting wave, Peter Beinart’s analysis of how Obama is perceived. Beinart posits that Obama, like Colin Powell, is perceived as a “good Black” by whites because he doesn’t follow the classic stereotype of an African American politician (unlike, Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton). However, Obama is able to continue to be perceived as authentic to fellow African-Americans because his “African American wife, his connection to the black church, and his work as a community organizer give him racial credibility.”
As unique as this article might sound, it’s been written before in the same publication. Two years ago, Noam Scheiber wrote a much better version of the same article in the same magazine. In it, he gives the same analysis of how Obama is perceived as being a “good black” and somehow different from typical African Americans. This accounted for much of his political success, in the article a consultant for one of Obama’s opponents in the primary “notes that the only time suburban and exurban white voters ever responded negatively to Obama was when he was associated with more conventional black politicians. ‘We [showed voters a sound] bite from Jesse Jackson Junior,’ says Dunn, referring to a video clip of the Chicago congressman praising Obama. ‘[blue collar] voters didn’t like that.’”
However, this analysis isn’t all that original either. It all stems from a New Yorker article written by Malcolm Gladwell over ten years ago about the differences in how African-Americans and West Indian immigrants to the U.S. are perceived. Gladwell states that minorities who are perceived as somehow foreign or different, like West Indians in Brooklyn, are not only able to avoid negative stereotypes but are associated with positive stereotypes It’s far to say that the concepts expressed in this article, written before Barack Obama was even a State Senator, will drive much of the debate over Obama’s racial identity over the next year or two. Gladwell’s article, amplified by the stories in the New Republic, will be read by the journalists covering the Presidential campaign. It already seems well on its way from meme to conventional wisdom. The ideas of Gladwell, knowingly or unknowingly, will most probably inform the language and vocabulary used by David Yepsen, the New York Times, other bloggers and just about everyone else writing about Barack Obama. Whether or not Gladwell’s concepts are actually applicable to Obama is irrelevent. What matters is that it is increasingly clear that they will provide much of the framework around which Obama will be perceived by the media.
While Hillary Clinton has been drawing a lot of positive press coverage from her speech in Des Moines today, Barack Obama’s early life has been receiving quite a bit of scrutiny from the foreign press. The London Evening Standard describes Obama’s father as a drunk and a bigot (and a bigamist to boot). However, the Sunday Times has uncovered something far more unsettling. Apparently, Barack Obama wasn’t always called Barack. He was once called Barry. It’s a good thing he went back to his given name. Barry Obama just doesn’t have the same ring to it. However, his reversion to his given name stands in firm contrast to another Presidential candidate with polygamist roots. The former Governor of Massachusetts learned long ago that just about any first name is an improvement over Willard Romney.
