progressive involvement

The "campaign of the century" a year later: Super Tuesday

Both campaigns had raised phenomenal amounts of cash.  Sen. Obama had more money available for Super Tuesday, however, partly because the Clinton campaign had spent too much in Iowa, and partly because he was raking in a lot of new money in late January and early February.

We could certainly see it on the ground.  The Obama campaign had four full-time organizers in Colorado as early as November, 2007.  By the time of the caucus in February, we figured we'd been outspent by about 10-1.  Both campaigns had tons of volunteers.

Following the South Carolina debate, the campaigns tamped down the rhetoric some.  What passed for an issue in this phase was whether or not Sen. Obama had "snubbed" Sen. Clinton when they had met in the Senate.  The Los Angeles debate was a virtual love-in, with Obama pulling out Hillary's chair for her, and they whispering sweet nothings to each other as they walked off the stage.  Remark at the time:

They're both backing off the contentious atmosphere of the South Carolina debate, and doing so because they both perceive that it is in their political interest to do so.  (If they thought it was to their advantage to mix it up, they'd do that.)

These two people have an interesting relationship.  Not to quote myself, but, as I said at the time of the South Carolina debate, "This is weird, but Obama and Hillary seem to energize each other."  In Los Angeles, they walked off the stage together, chatting and smiling cheek-to-cheek.  (One blogger wrote, "Hillary, Obama, get a room.") 

By this time, the pattern of the electoral support for both candidates was becoming clear.  Hillary did well with women, people earning less than $50K per year, people over the age of 50, traditional Democrats, and Latinos.  Obama did well with higher income people, African-Americans, young people, independents--and led among Kennedys, 5-3!  (Interesting:  The older Kennedys prefered Obama, the younger ones, Hillary.)  It was uncanny how these demographics held even down to the precinct level.

The "campaign of the century" a year later: Nevada and South Carolina

New Hampshire meant that the race would go on.  Each candidate had a dramatic victory under their belt--Iowa for Obama, New Hampshire for Clinton.  The irresistible force having met the immovable object, both sides prepared to hunker down into the campaign equivalent of trench warfare.  It was time to break out the heavy artillery.

It was about this time that the so-called "race issue" emerged.  The media narrative was that the Clintons were "playing the race card," a ludicrous accusation for the simple reason that this was a Democratic Party nominating process.  Anybody who knows the Democratic Party knows that you don't get Democratic votes by "playing the race card."  You get Democratic votes by accusing the other side of playing the race card, which is what the Obama campaign did, and which they did with great deftness and an assist from the media.

The "campaign of the century" a year later: Iowa and New Hampshire

The race for the Democratic nomination was, as we all know, one of the closest and one of the most thrilling in the nation's history, one which I referred to in March, 2008, as "the campaign of the century."  It turned out not to be quite so thrilling in the end.  The GOP wound up nominating the only person who might have had a chance, but he ran a poor campaign and the financial crisis cinched it for Sen. Barack Obama in the middle of September.  The "campaign of the century" ended "not with a bang, but a whimper."  

Early in 2008, things were different.  Most of the nation became clued in to the campaign in January with the build-up to the Iowa caucuses.  There was some difference of opinion in the Clinton camp as to whether or not Hillary should have even entered this primary.  It was in Obama's back yard, for one thing, and Bill Clinton himself had said the state was not right for her.

Having lived in Iowa at one time myself, I can see how Sen. Obama would have appeal there.  The rank-and-file Democratic voters in Iowa are good-hearted centrist liberals.  They are labor, farmers, academics, working people--and very nice people.  They would resonate to "hope" and "post-partisanship."  Yes, let's all get along.

John Edwards was still in the mix and had a strong Iowa organization, probably his strongest in any state.  He had come within a few days, and 4%, of upending John Kerry here in 2004.  His strength was said to be in rural areas.  Sen. Obama was coming on strong here as well, particularly after his rock star entrance and boffo performance at the key Jefferson-Jackson Day Dinner the previous November.

Sen. Obama was able to capture 38% of the vote in Iowa, a solid victory.  He did particularly well along Iowa's eastern border with Illinois.  Edwards and Clinton seemed to split the rural vote.  Iowa was Edwards' main hope of success and his star dimmed rapidly even though, by any objective measure, he did well in barely edging Hillary for second.  (If the story of Edwards' ridiculous affair had broken before the Iowa caucuses, one could well argue that the result might have been significantly different.)

Sen. Obama's victory in the Iowa caucuses unleashed a bandwagon effect, one not among voters so much, but rather a bandwagon in the press and in the increasingly influential--and overwhelmingly male--liberal blogs.  Within 24 hours, an inchoate media narrative had solidified:  the hope of the future vs. a return to the past,  the grass-roots vs. the establishment, anti-war vs. intervention.  As I said at the time:

This year, the "more progressive than thou" crowd has mostly rallied behind Sen. Obama, even though Sen. Obama's actual policy proposals--if you can find them--are to the right of both Hillary and John Edwards.  No matter.  It's his "transformational awesomeness" that has their hearts all a-flutter. 

After Iowa, the Obama campaign was set to run the table, or so said the blogosphere.  The New Hampshire primary followed a week later and the surging Obama had already taken the lead there from Hillary Clinton.  As it turned out, Hillary pulled a stunning upset.  Me, then: