Skip to main content

    As an Edwards supporter you can imagine how much it pains me to write this diary, but after everything that has happened here in Iowa in the past month I feel that I owe it to the community to give an honest firsthand report.  For starters, I can't begin to explain how impressed I was by the overwhelming turnout for Obama and the monumental organizational effort it required.  For somebody that didn't have any built-in support from previous runs at the presidency or major unions it was nothing short of amazing how much he dominated the other two major campaigns in terms of on-the-ground organization.  This was much to my dismay as I thought quite incorrectly that a 2004 presidential run should have lent itself nicely to a strong grassroots effort in 2008.  Fortunately the results have shaken me up and into a more objective state so that I can make these observations today.

    I've come to the acceptance stage of my grief cycle over Thursday's results and feel like I can look clear-eyed over what happened and what went wrong for Edwards.  Obviously this race isn't over by a long shot, but here are some things that I have noticed that probably worked against him in Iowa and that I hope are being improved upon in the lead-up to NH and beyond.  What I hope to do is really show how "change," the much-hyped theme of this primary season, is the essence of the Obama campaign beyond a mere rhetorical focus.

Grassroots Organization
    I know just from other comments on DKos that I'm not the only one that experienced frustration due to inept organization and/or coordination between the national and local effort in the Edwards camp.  After filling out a ton of forms on the website I wasn't contacted once over the phone and only had one email to show for my efforts about a week later.  I never got any details about canvassing nor did I even get directions to the phone banking site.  Contrast this to the Obama campaign touching base every few days through a LOCAL organizer inviting me to meetings, asking if I would caucus, etc.  Then on caucus night the Edwards campaign was the only one without a clear organization while Obama had a group of at least 4 20-somethings that were obviously well-trained by the campaign and had made the 1+ hour trek to a town of 1200 people in northeast Iowa  from Illinois.  The Obama campaign brought an almost unheard of turnout to Iowa and it's only going to snowball.

    While Hillary and Edwards stuck with the tired campaign ad format Obama ran ads that were different and looked modern.  Again, "change" is something that is exemplified and not just talked about.  This is obviously not something to base a voting decision on but let's be honest about how important image is.  Edwards sitting in front of a window showing a  winter setting talking about taking power from the corporations is an example of stale thinking, and the setting is the only thing that saved him from the most boring ad of the year which came from the Dodd campaign.  Contrast that with an Obama ad consisting of B&W stills showing him at his most presidential paired with a soundtrack that doesn't sound straight out of a Disney movie.  Who's for change again?

    The Obama campaign has transcended mere issues and now represents a shift in mindset of the American electorate.  Whether or not this is politically appropriate is irrelevant; right now people aren't being drawn to specific policy measures or even broad policy objectives but change itself.  We don't care what it is as long as it is different.  Obama is not a WASP and not tied to the presidency of the 90s and so he exemplifies change in that regard as well.  Obama's message itself is change, not change through specific policy measures or change within the current political landscape but pure, unadulterated change.  That message resonates with people that haven't been paying attention lately while Hillary and Edwards have probably wrung out all the support they're going to get with their current themes of experience and fighting the man.

    These three factors come together to present a clear and focused image of Obama as an agent of change.  Any attempt to unseat Obama must address all three of these factors in a way that not only matches his mastery but builds on them to provide a clear choice based on the strengths of the other candidates.  For Edwards and Hillary supporters, it's time to move beyond the denial or bargaining stage and realize that the game has changed.  The sooner they fall into line with the new course Obama has charted the better chance they have of eventually overtaking him.  It's time to concede that the old ways aren't working anymore and start redefining themselves in terms of what has been working for Obama.  Otherwise it will all be over by the second week of February.

Originally posted to neia on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 09:46 AM PST.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Thanks for Your Honest Appraisal, Neia!!! n/t (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    global citizen, neia
  •  Tips for change! (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Can Tab, SSMir, global citizen, Newzie

    How many times did I use that word?

  •  What changes specifically? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Skip the postmodernist mumbo-jumbo, I am asking about policy.  Policy matters.  The specifics might not fit into a flashy soundbyte, but they matter.  How is cozying up with corporations and triangulating the political middle any different than what Bill Clinton did, which ultimately accomplished almost nothing and can only be viewed positively in comparison to George W. Bush, the worst president we have ever had to date?

    Vote John Edwards and break the corporate media stranglehold on American politics.

    by Subversive on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 09:58:21 AM PST

  •  Wow, I hadn't heard about Field difficulties (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SSMir, Newzie, neia

    Thanks for sharing that info, Neia.  I've been an Edwards fan since his Senate days ... he was my number one pick from day one in the last presidential cycle and, on policy, he's my number one pick this cycle (although Obama is a close second and Clinton is well within margins of satisfaction for me).  Sad to see that this campaign staff didn't hold the Field program together sufficiently in Iowa.  Had they done so, they could have beaten Clinton by a lot more and perhaps that would have given them a better chance at pulling off the upset in NH against one or both of their campaigns (although I can still hope he performs well there!).

  •  Again This is CHANGE not talk !!!! (0+ / 0-)

    Dec 13th 2007 witnessed the launch of,=

    which was created by the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act =

    by Tom Coburn and Barack Obama. The site enables tracking of $1 trillion in federal spending on contracts, grants, earmarks, and loans. The bill faced serious opposition, including anonymous holds by some of the biggest porkbarrel spenders (including Ted Stevens), but in the end, Coburn and Obama prevailed.

    So what kind of data does this site give us? Well, how about the top 100 recipients of federal money, =

    or say which congresspeople rake in the most pork. =
    And that's just scratching the surface.
    And, to my surprise (especially for a government site), an API is available  =
    to make it easy to extract data.

    Read on for more examples and some implications. and Obama's reform track record =
    The site is clearly a treasure trove of data and is a huge step forward towards government accountability. What's also nice is how user friendly it is.

    Let's look at a few examples of what we can dig up.

    Example 1: The list of transactions with KBR, Inc. (formerly part of Halliburton) in 2007 = . This came out to a paltry sum of $2.7 billion dollars (so far this year), which is nothing compared to previous years as the bar graph on the summary page  = shows

    Example 2: No bid contracts are among the darkest corners of federal spending - the lack of competition in these contracts is in large part what leads to overcharging by contractors and waste of taxpayer dollars. Well, there was $30 billion in no-bid contracts in 2007 = , including money to some companies I had never heard of, including $1.2 billion to Armor Holdings, Inc.  = and, strangely, $163 million to the government of Canada. =

    There are a million more examples, and I'm really looking forward to seeing them in the coming weeks and months.  

    I'm very happy to see another positive step towards government transparency, something that Sen. Obama has been a leader in.

    I have one challenge to everyone - find one interesting, strange, or otherwise noteworthy pieces of spending using the site.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site