another update from the edwards campaign in iowa

By Mark | December 28, 2007

Robert just wrote in with an update from the Edwards campaign headquarters in Iowa. Here it is:

I have traveled around to many more parts of Iowa now, and I have a lot of very positive news to report regarding Edwards’ prospects here.

First off, the Edwards Campaign is really kicking into high gear now, and I am happy to report that I see no serious “cracks” in the organization or in our base of support here. Where I was a little worried a while back about the level of experience among the Edwards staff, I can report now that the situation with that is improving by the minute, as much more seasoned folks are arriving from DC and Chapel Hill.

The situation “outside” is good too. I feel very confident that Edwards is going to win in the rural areas of the west and north by significant margins. You can definitely get that sense pretty soon after spending a little time out there. A number of prominent politicians in those areas have expressed this off the record a well.

I think our biggest challenges are going to be in the areas around Ames and Iowa City, where candidate preferences seem to be almost random, and Edwards just doesn’t seem to be “out-there” enough for many potential caucusers (Ron Paul is going to do well in these areas on the Republican side). Obama is strong in these areas, and Hillary seems to have a very solid base of support in those communities too. Fortunately for us, the manipulations of the caucus/primary order have placed the Iowa Caucus on a day when these big university towns are semi-ghost towns, and their impact on the statewide results will be significantly reduced as a result.

Another great thing I can report is that Edwards seems to be enjoying very low negatives compared to the other candidates. Hillary’s negatives seem to be the highest and many people cite her as the reason they are voting for someone else. Of course most of this is really unfounded and unfair to her, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is a very real problem for her. Obama’s negatives aren’t quite so high, but they are definitely a factor for him as well. Edwards’ negatives are so low that he is managing to maintain a considerable lead in terms of caucusers second choice. This could be a determining factor in a significant number of precincts, as to who grabs those loose delegates.

The most positive thing I’ve been seeing and hearing over the period of the last few days is the apparent growing awareness among the likely caucus goers that a southerner would have a significant advantage in the general election. Many late deciders seem to be making their decisions on this fact. Even a few Hillary and Obama supporters have been switching over and citing it as their reason for doing so. It’s a very positive development for Edwards, and one I would have not predicted a few weeks ago.

The good news for Edwards supporters in Michigan (and IN, IL, and WI) is that they don’t have to drive hours deep into Iowa to get to a place where they are most needed. I say this because I believe the cities right along the eastern edge of the state, on the Mississippi River, are the “battleground” areas. One example, Davenport, is only a two and a half hour drive beyond Chicago. Burlington, Muscatine and Dubuque are three more which are just across the river from Illinois.

If we can hold our own in the battlegrounds along the Mississippi, I think we’ll have this thing won.

So, do I have any other readers heading to Iowa to join Robert? If so, send me photos and updates. The caucus is just 6 days away now… If you can’t get out to help in person, how about contributing a few bucks? I’m sure it would go to good use.

[And all the photos were wiped out in the infamous Iranian Hacker Attack, but, those of you who are interested can still read about my meeting with John Edwards here.]

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.

6 Comments

mark

Posted December 28, 2007 at 4:09 pm | Permalink

As it doesn’t look as though I’m going to get to Iowa myself, I just gave the campaign a few more bucks, what I would have spent on gas had I gone.
Robert

Posted December 28, 2007 at 5:00 pm | Permalink

What kind of car do you drive? I’m hoping it’s a motorhome.
Robert

Posted December 29, 2007 at 12:50 pm | Permalink

Here’s a clip from an e-mail Jen O’Malley, the Iowa State Director of the Edwards campaign, just sent out:

“We’ve just received some great news that I want to share with you. A new Iowa poll, released today of likely Democratic caucus goers, shows John Edwards moving into the lead with just six days left. The Lee Enterprises newspapers poll shows John and Barack Obama at 29 percent each and Hillary Clinton at 28 percent, with 19 percent of Democrats still making up their minds. This poll confirms our momentum — John has moved up 5 points in just two weeks. But we need your help to keep this momentum going.”
Robert

Posted January 1, 2008 at 11:47 pm | Permalink

Southern Political Report ran an article regarding InsiderAdvantage’s Majority Opinion Poll entitled “Reallocated Numbers Based on Second Preferences Gives Edwards A Solid Lead”

They project totals after reallignment to look like this:

41% Edwards
34% Clinton
25% Obama

I’ve been wagering with staffers here in the office that the final numbers will look more like this:

35% Edwards
30% Clinton
20% Obama
15% other
Steph's Dad

Posted January 2, 2008 at 10:07 am | Permalink

No huge surprise – the other MM (Michael Moore) seems to be behind Edwards as well.

Who Do We Vote For This Time Around?
A Letter from Michael Moore

January 2, 2008

Friends,

A new year has begun. And before we’ve had a chance to break our New Year’s resolutions, we find ourselves with a little more than 24 hours before the good people of Iowa tell us whom they would like to replace the man who now occupies three countries and a white house.

Twice before, we have begun the process to stop this man, and twice we have failed. Eight years of our lives as Americans will have been lost, the world left in upheaval against us… and yet now, today, we hope against hope that our moment has finally arrived, that the amazingly powerful force of the Republican Party will somehow be halted. But we know that the Democrats are experts at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, and if there’s a way to blow this election, they will find it and do it with gusto.

Do you feel the same as me? That the Democratic front-runners are a less-than-stellar group of candidates, and that none of them are the “slam dunk” we wish they were? Of course, there are wonderful things about each of them. Any one of them would be infinitely better than what we have now. Personally, Congressman Kucinich, more than any other candidate, shares the same positions that I have on the issues (although the UFO that picked ME up would only take me as far as Kalamazoo). But let’s not waste time talking about Dennis. Even he is resigned to losing, with statements like the one he made yesterday to his supporters in Iowa to throw their support to Senator Obama as their “second choice.”

So, it’s Hillary, Obama, Edwards — now what do we do?

Two months ago, Rolling Stone magazine asked me to do a cover story where I would ask the hard questions that no one was asking in one-on-one interviews with Senators Clinton, Obama and Edwards. “The Top Democrats Face Off with Michael Moore.” The deal was that all three candidates had to agree to let me interview them or there was no story. Obama and Edwards agreed. Mrs. Clinton said no, and the cover story was thus killed.

Why would the love of my life, Hillary Clinton, not sit down to talk with me? What was she afraid of?

Those of you who are longtime readers of mine may remember that 11 years ago I wrote a chapter (in my first book) entitled, “My Forbidden Love for Hillary.” I was fed up with the treatment she was getting, most of it boringly sexist, and I thought somebody should stand up for her. I later met her and she thanked me for referring to her as “one hot s***kicking feminist babe.” I supported and contributed to her run for the U.S. Senate. I think she is a decent and smart person who loves this country, cares deeply about kids, and has put up with more crap than anyone I know of (other than me) from the Crazy Right. Her inauguration would be a thrilling sight, ending 218 years of white male rule in a country where 51% of its citizens are female and 64% are either female or people of color.

And yet, I am sad to say, nothing has disappointed me more than the disastrous, premeditated vote by Senator Hillary Clinton to send us to war in Iraq. I’m not only talking about her first vote that gave Mr. Bush his “authorization” to invade — I’m talking about every single OTHER vote she then cast for the next four years, backing and funding Bush’s illegal war, and doing so with verve. She never met a request from the White House for war authorization that she didn’t like. Unlike the Kerrys and the Bidens who initially voted for authorization but later came to realize the folly of their decision, Mrs. Clinton continued to cast numerous votes for the war until last March — four long years of pro-war votes, even after 70% of the American public had turned against the war. She has steadfastly refused to say that she was wrong about any of this, and she will not apologize for her culpability in America’s worst-ever foreign policy disaster. All she can bring herself to say is that she was “misled” by “faulty intelligence.”

Let’s assume that’s true. Do you want a President who is so easily misled? I wasn’t “misled,” and millions of others who took to the streets in February of 2003 weren’t “misled” either. It was simply amazing that we knew the war was wrong when none of us had been briefed by the CIA, none of us were national security experts, and none of us had gone on a weapons inspection tour of Iraq. And yet… we knew we were being lied to! Let me ask those of you reading this letter: Were YOU “misled” — or did you figure it out sometime between October of 2002 and March of 2007 that George W. Bush was up to something rotten? Twenty-three other senators were smart enough to figure it out and vote against the war from the get-go. Why wasn’t Senator Clinton?

I have a theory: Hillary knows the sexist country we still live in and that one of the reasons the public, in the past, would never consider a woman as president is because she would also be commander in chief. The majority of Americans were concerned that a woman would not be as likely to go to war as a man (horror of horrors!). So, in order to placate that mindset, perhaps she believed she had to be as “tough” as a man, she had to be willing to push The Button if necessary, and give the generals whatever they wanted. If this is, in fact, what has motivated her pro-war votes, then this would truly make her a scary first-term president. If the U.S. is faced with some unforeseen threat in her first years, she knows that in order to get re-elected she’d better be ready to go all Maggie Thatcher on whoever sneezes in our direction. Do we want to risk this, hoping the world makes it in one piece to her second term?

I have not even touched on her other numerous — and horrendous — votes in the Senate, especially those that have made the middle class suffer even more (she voted for Bush’s first bankruptcy bill, and she is now the leading recipient of payoff money — I mean campaign contributions — from the health care industry). I know a lot of you want to see her elected, and there is a very good chance that will happen. There will be plenty of time to vote for her in the general election if all the pollsters are correct. But in the primaries and caucuses, isn’t this the time to vote for the person who most reflects the values and politics you hold dear? Can you, in good conscience, vote for someone who so energetically voted over and over and over again for the war in Iraq? Please give this serious consideration.

Now, on to the two candidates who did agree to do the interview with me…

Barack Obama is a good and inspiring man. What a breath of fresh air! There’s no doubting his sincerity or his commitment to trying to straighten things out in this country. But who is he? I mean, other than a guy who gives a great speech? How much do any of us really know about him? I know he was against the war. How do I know that? He gave a speech before the war started. But since he joined the senate, he has voted for the funds for the war, while at the same time saying we should get out. He says he’s for the little guy, but then he votes for a corporate-backed bill to make it harder for the little guy to file a class action suit when his kid swallows lead paint from a Chinese-made toy. In fact, Obama doesn’t think Wall Street is a bad place. He wants the insurance companies to help us develop a new health care plan — the same companies who have created the mess in the first place. He’s such a feel-good kinda guy, I get the sense that, if elected, the Republicans will eat him for breakfast. He won’t even have time to make a good speech about it.

But this may be a bit harsh. Senator Obama has a big heart, and that heart is in the right place. Is he electable? Will more than 50% of America vote for him? We’d like to believe they would. We’d like to believe America has changed, wouldn’t we? Obama lets us feel better about ourselves — and as we look out the window at the guy snowplowing his driveway across the street, we want to believe he’s changed, too. But are we dreaming?

And then there’s John Edwards.

It’s hard to get past the hair, isn’t it? But once you do — and recently I have chosen to try — you find a man who is out to take on the wealthy and powerful who have made life so miserable for so many. A candidate who says things like this: “I absolutely believe to my soul that this corporate greed and corporate power has an ironclad hold on our democracy.” Whoa. We haven’t heard anyone talk like that in a while, at least not anyone who is near the top of the polls. I suspect this is why Edwards is doing so well in Iowa, even though he has nowhere near the stash of cash the other two have. He won’t take the big checks from the corporate PACs, and he is alone among the top three candidates in agreeing to limit his spending and be publicly funded. He has said, point-blank, that he’s going after the drug companies and the oil companies and anyone else who is messing with the American worker. The media clearly find him to be a threat, probably because he will go after their monopolistic power, too. This is Roosevelt/Truman kind of talk. That’s why it’s resonating with people in Iowa, even though he doesn’t get the attention Obama and Hillary get — and that lack of coverage may cost him the first place spot tomorrow night. After all, he is one of those white guys who’s been running things for far too long.

And he voted for the war. But unlike Senator Clinton, he has stated quite forcefully that he was wrong. And he has remorse. Should he be forgiven? Did he learn his lesson? Like Hillary and Obama, he refused to promise in a September debate that there will be no U.S. troops in Iraq by the end of his first term in 2013. But this week in Iowa, he changed his mind. He went further than Clinton and Obama and said he’d have all the troops home in less than a year.

Edwards is the only one of the three front-runners who has a universal health care plan that will lead to the single-payer kind all other civilized countries have. His plan doesn’t go as fast as I would like, but he is the only one who has correctly pointed out that the health insurance companies are the enemy and should not have a seat at the table.

I am not endorsing anyone at this point. This is simply how I feel in the first week of the process to replace George W. Bush. For months I’ve been wanting to ask the question, “Where are you, Al Gore?” You can only polish that Oscar for so long. And the Nobel was decided by Scandinavians! I don’t blame you for not wanting to enter the viper pit again after you already won. But getting us to change out our incandescent light bulbs for some irritating fluorescent ones isn’t going to save the world. All it’s going to do is make us more agitated and jumpy and feeling like once we get home we haven’t really left the office.

On second thought, would you even be willing to utter the words, “I absolutely believe to my soul that this corporate greed and corporate power has an ironclad hold on our democracy?” ‘Cause the candidate who understands that, and who sees it as the root of all evil — including the root of global warming — is the President who may lead us to a place of sanity, justice and peace.

Yours,

Michael Moore (not an Iowa voter, but appreciative of any state that has a town named after a sofa)
mark

Posted January 2, 2008 at 10:39 pm | Permalink

Nader came out for Edwards today too.

And the first lady of Iowa has been campaigning with him pretty consistently this past week.