Iowa Trip to Mark New Intensity for Obama Campaign

By Dan Balz and Perry Bacon Jr.
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, September 30, 2007; Page A04

On Tuesday, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois will embark on a four-day campaign swing through Iowa, starting off with events that will mark the fifth anniversary of a speech he gave opposing the war at a rally in Chicago. His advisers have labeled it the "Judgment and Experience Tour," and Obama's success in persuading voters he has both may hold the key to his presidential aspirations.

The tour signals the intensification of Obama's bid for the Democratic presidential nomination and a commitment to spend more time in key early states such as Iowa and New Hampshire and fewer days in the Senate, where he will miss virtually all votes next week. And it will also mark increased engagement with his main rival, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

.......................

National polls suggest that Obama has gained no significant ground on Clinton since the race began, and a new survey in New Hampshire showed the gap between the two widening, giving rise to concern even among Obama's supporters that he has not yet found his groove as a candidate.

At the same time, third-quarter fundraising reports, which will be released in the next few days, are expected to show that the novice candidate and first-term senator has raised $75 million or more in his nine months of campaigning. On Thursday, Obama's aides said, the candidate drew more than 20,000 people to a rally in New York's Washington Square Park. And a poll of Iowa Democrats released by Newsweek yesterday showed Obama leading the Democratic field among people likely to attend the caucuses.

Obama advisers remain confident, saying they are laying the groundwork for strong finishes in the early states that will propel Obama to victory.

"Our campaign was never geared and the plan was never written to win the nomination in September and October," said Robert Gibbs, Obama's communications director. "It's planned and written to win this in January and February when people vote."

Obama's chief strategist, David Axelrod, said that "there is this fascination in the political community and Washington to treat every day like Election Day."

...........................

In a campaign that has been defined as a contest between change and experience, Clinton seems to have the advantage. In recent weeks, Obama has retooled his stump speech to more directly address the experience question, casting his opponents as people simply with more "years in Washington." And he will emphasize this point by arguing that it was sound judgment, not deep Washington experience, that led him to oppose the Iraq war, in contrast to Clinton and other Democratic candidates.

Yesterday, Obama responded to former president Bill Clinton's criticism in an interview last week that the senator is too green to be commander in chief. "I remember what was said years ago by a candidate running for president," Obama told a crowd in Concord, N.H. "He said: 'The same old experience is not relevant. You can have the right kind of experience and the wrong kind of experience.' Well, that candidate was Bill Clinton, and I think he was absolutely right."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/29/AR2007092901540.html?hpid=topnews

"National polls suggest that Obama has gained no significant ground on Clinton since the race began..."

"And a poll of Iowa Democrats released by Newsweek yesterday showed Obama leading the Democratic field among people likely to attend the caucuses."

D'oh!

He outpolls her 52-44 when likely caucusgoers are asked about their 1st and 2nd choices, which is significant, if you understand how the caucus works. Not only that, he's polling at over 50%:

==If you were attending a Democratic caucus TODAY, which ONE of the following eight presidential candidates are you most likely to support? And who would be your SECOND CHOICE for the Democratic presidential nomination? (Table will add to more than 100% due to multiple responses.)==

BASED ON DEMOCRATIC VOTERS

First/Second Democratic Choice (NET)
Total Likely Democratic
Caucus-Goer
49 Total Hillary Clinton 44
48 Total Barack Obama 52
41 Total John Edwards 41
15 Total Bill Richardson 19
7 Total Joe Biden 11
2 Total Dennis Kucinich 2
1 Total Chris Dodd 2
* Total Mike Gravel 0
1 Total other candidate 1
12 Total undecided 9

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21036143/site/newsweek/

Am I the only DUer who actually reads whole polls before posting?

The NEWSWEEK Poll was conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International on Sept. 26-27. Telephone interviews were conducted with 1,215 Iowa registered voters; the overall margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points. The margin of error for questions asked only of Democratic voters is plus or minus 5 percentage points and "likely" Democratic voters is plus or minus 7;

and they were just that, dreams...He has the financial resources to compete and he has already outorganized Hillary on the ground in Iowa. Now with Edwards basically admitting that he can't keep pace financially, a good share of his support in Iowa will start to migrate elsewhere because who wants to nominate someone who will be financially hamstrung between March and August 2008? Hard to believe Obama doesn't get the better of that situation relative to your girl.

Iowa is the only state Obama is even close. Hillary continues to run the race nationwide, while Obama has concentrated his efforts in one state, Iowa. As Michelle said, if he doesn't win Iowa, the dream is gone.

:freak:

I guess Oprah's gushing endorsement wasn't all that influential after all.
I still think his 04 Convention speech was a masterpiece:
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/convention2004/barackobama2004dnc.htm

He's going nowhere, uh-huh.

Team Clinton is crapping themselves over Obama is more like it. He continues to outraise her, outdraw her on the road and, as today's Newsweek poll shows, is even starting to outpoll her in Iowa.

Lordy, aren't you guys all on the same email list?
:eyes:

Reading is fundamental, MP.

But I'm an objective realist, so I didn't.

Without Bill, Hillary would be dead in the water. I remember when I posted Obama's experience next to Bill's. I'm glad the campaign finally figured out to just go straight after the Big Dawg, if you can beat Bill, you've got it wrapped up. Bill & Hil together haven't beaten Obama yet. That's how strong a candidate he is.

The election of Bill Clinton in 91' saved us from what is happening right now. BushI would have started the war in his second term and taken control of Iraqi oil as they are now. That is reason for attacking the Clintons so relentlessly because he spoiled their PNAC plans of controlling Iraqi Oil! Republicans tried for 7 yrs to remove him from office and failed.

Republican control of Obama is their new strategy. Obama is their Republican puppet in waiting.

x( again at a bad time for me but I hope I can squeeze in at the end of the event.

I've seen him in large venues but have never had the opportunity to shake his hand or hear him in a smaller crowd. Unfortunately I think this trip will be another rock star trip. No chance to ask questions, just stump speech again.

he also sees that Obama is much better. stronger, more unifying and doesn't have the baggage and the sleaziness that bill had. that Obama is more focused and more powerful with the ability to be great and not just good.
Obama is what Bill had the promise to be but, Bill lacked the focus and the discipline and took the easy way too often.

Obama can and probably will be much better president than Bill.

No doubt - Bill is envious of his skills...and character.

I get the impression Obama has the seriousness Bill lacked.

And I think that really frustrates Clinton. Maybe he sees what could have been...were it now for the problems, some of his own doing.

Also, Clinton REALLY better not make an argument about inexperience, because many view the first two years of his first term to be a complete fucking mess. This was the time of Hillarycare and a complete inability to get anything through despite having both houses controlled by Democrats. Whatever "experience" Clinton had beforehand is irrelevant in retrospect because it took Clinton a while to accomplish anything of real value, and that too many of those "accomplishments" were bad compromises AFTER Gingrich took over the House....

They say, he's retooled. No. he is doing as he always planned.
Why do pundits always feel they can play the campaign managers and not just let the candidates take care of their campaigns themselves and let them run things their way.
this is a chess match, not wrestling or the 50 yard dash.

It's unheard of in a democratic campaign for a democrat to hire Neoconic Republican strategists. In this case, Bush's very own strategists. The same people who've stolen the last two elections from democrats. So, to whom do you think Obama's obligation and allegiance would lie? Hint... Not with Democrats.

in mid-September...and her close-mouthed, Republican-style campaign won't say why:

* The Clinton campaign quietly dropped Angelique Pirozzi, the senator’s Iowa field director, from the team late last week. Clinton’s campaign would not confirm whether Pirozzi had resigned or had been fired; “She is no longer with the campaign,” was all spokesman Mo Elleithee would offer. The WaPo noted, “Pirozzi, often described as a protege of uber organizer Michael Whouley, has a long history in Iowa Democratic presidential politics, having served as caucus manager for Sen. John Kerry’s 2004 victory and as deputy caucus manager for then-Vice President Al Gore in 2000. In between those races, Pirozzi managed Kerry’s 2002 re-election race to the Senate.”

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/12908.html

It's his own outrageous statements that have made people desert him and turn to HRC. Sad, too, as I'd rather have seen him win the primary than HRC. (Edwards is my first choice, but Obama is my second.)