Yesterday was the largest turn out for an Iowa Caucus ever and so many of those who came to caucus were young and as they would say “Fired up and ready to go”. And went they did. Obama won the night and his supporters are celebrating.

Elizabeth and John Celebrate their victoryBut there is a story that’s being ignored by the mainstream media, it’s still a two person race to them but in the eye of many Edwards supporters, last night was a victory for him as well. And no, Edwards did not concede in his speech last night, because it’s not over and I think that since he had the most attention he’s probably gotten so far by the MSM the last thing he wanted to do was talk about a “loss”. Rather than that, he focussed on what is so important to him and his focus for his campaign, Edwards continues to talk about the poor, the homeless and the disenfranchised in our Country. He wasn’t there to talk about candidates, but the people who still have no voice.

Edwards released a statement regarding Obama’s win and said that he called him personally to congratulate him.

“Earlier tonight, I called Senator Obama to congratulate him on his victory in the Iowa caucuses. Tonight’s results shows how clearly the American people are sick of the status quo and ready for a president who will fight for the bold change America needs. “

And, I sincerely believe that this is a win for all Democrats. Almost twice as many Democrats came out to caucus than Republicans and the race is tight right now to show that we have a tough decision to make, that we have three amazing candidates to chose from, there is no loss here for Edwards or for any Democrat.

If you did not have a chance to see Edwards’ post Iowa Caucus debate, please take the time to do so, it is at the end of my post. This is why this man inspires me, this is why I care so much about this election, more than I have ever before. And the good news is, more people are going to hear his message.

It also means money for his campaign. Today they released a statement saying that yesterday is “putting the campaign on track for its best online fundraising day to date.” And half of those who contributed were first time donors and more than 90% were donations under $100. This is the campaign that relies on small money donations rather than lobbyist and PAC money, every cent counts.

So, what does this have to do with California? In order for California to count we have to help Edwards win Nevada. I am planning to drive to Las Vegas on the weekend of the 12th in order to canvass and phone bank for Edwards and the Nevada supporters have pledge to come to California and help us do the same for our Primary on February 5th.

Just three more days to New Hampshire and this whole nomination process has been knocked on it’s butt. It’s no longer a two person race and thanks to Edwards, it’s no longer about “Politics as usual”.

Cross posted from The Liberal OC

I got 5 hours of sleep, but managed to write this last night for Beyond Chron.

Barack Obama’s victory in the Iowa caucus last night sent a powerful message of change – as a record turnout (especially among young voters) picked him the winner with 38% of the total vote.  John Edwards, who likewise ran a populist campaign that emphasized change, came in second place with 30%.  When asked what was the most important factor in a candidate, voters picked “change” over “experience” by a 51-20 margin – giving Hillary Clinton’s establishment campaign a humiliating 3rd place finish at 29%.  Obama defied expectations by even beating Clinton among women and registered Democrats, which questions her viability as a candidate.  But while Obama’s insurgent campaign has crystallized the message of change, the dirty little secret in presidential primaries is that the establishment always wins.  As the fight moves to New Hampshire and other states, Obama’s campaign will have to defy historical precedent to dethrone the Clinton dynasty.  I believe he can prevail, but it will be a different story for Mike Huckabee – who won last night’s Republican caucus.

According to the mainstream media, the big story last night was the record turnout in the Democratic presidential caucus – 236,000, well over the 150,000 predicted and more than double the 120,000 in 2004 (which was nearly double the number from 2000.)  Sixty percent were first-time caucus-goers, and they overwhelmingly favored Obama.  Most incredibly, over half of Obama supporters were under the age of 30 – proving that heroic efforts to get Iowa students and other young people to come back from Christmas Break paid off.

But the real message from last night’s result was that voters desperately want change, and Obama’s eight-point victory doesn’t come close to measuring how deeply that sentiment was felt.  John Edwards, who ran a populist campaign that emphasized economic justice and a shake-up of the status quo, came in a strong second at 30% — meaning that 68% of Iowans picked a “change” candidate when the alternative was a former First Lady who epitomizes the Washington establishment.  “The one thing that’s clear from this result,” said Edwards, “is that the status quo lost and change won.”

Even Clinton had to acknowledge this in her concession speech, as she gave credit to all candidates for having presented the case for change.  “We’re sending a clear message that we are going to have change,” she said, “and that change will be a Democratic President.” Throughout the campaign, Clinton had tried to re-invent herself as an “agent of change” – but the voters didn’t buy it.  She was left trying to feebly tie the message of change back to experience – as she stood there flanked by her husband and his former Secretary of State.

Clinton’s only legitimate basis for being a “change” candidate is that she would become the first woman President in history.  Her campaign had sought to use this strategy to bring many first-time women to the caucus, who were supposed to be her secret electoral weapon.  But among women, who comprised a healthy 57% of the Iowa turnout, Obama still beat her 35-30 – with Edwards lagging behind at 23.  There was a small gender gap, but it was practically nonexistent.

Clinton even lost 33-32 among registered Democrats, who were supposed to favor her while independents favored Obama.  The Clinton camp even tried to discredit a Des Moines Register poll earlier this week because its sample included a high number of non-Democrats, even though it made the most accurate prediction for the actual caucus.

But Obama did not win because independents and Republicans showed up to support him, which is what everyone anticipated.  As Chris Bowers pointed out, 76% of caucus attendees were registered Democrats – which was not too different from the 79% figure four years ago.  Despite his broad appeal among independents, Obama would have still won the Iowa caucus last night even if only registered Democrats were allowed to participate.

For Clinton, the front-runner who had hoped to get the Democratic nomination by inevitability, coming in third place was embarrassing and calls into question her viability as a candidate.  Bear in mind that she was not just the party’s anointed establishment front-runner, for every presidential primary cycle has one like that.  She is the wife of a popular former two-term President, and one who had cultivated her own career as First Lady and later as a U.S. Senator to merit her own formidable credentials.  

Obama’s Iowa victory will put to test a long-established rule about presidential primary politics (uninterrupted for over 30 years) that the establishment always wins.  In every cycle, a candidate like Obama captures the media’s attention as he tries to take on the party’s anointed leader.  They may win an early primary or two, but have always lost to the front-runner when Super Tuesday kicks in.  Mondale in 1984, Bush in 1988, Clinton in 1992, Dole in 1996, Gore and Bush in 2000 and Kerry in 2004 all faced insurgent candidates when they sought their party’s nomination.  But in the end, it didn’t matter.

Here is how Obama can defy this trend.  New Hampshire is only five days away, and a clear Iowa winner usually gets a momentum boost.  New Hampshire independents can opt to vote in either party primary, and if they go Democratic are likely to choose Obama. Republican John McCain’s poor showing in Iowa makes me think that independents are now even more likely to vote in the Democratic primary, which will give Obama a solid victory.  Therefore, he comes out of New Hampshire looking like a strong nominee.

South Carolina is on January 26th, and Obama is already tied with Clinton there with its high percentage of African-American voters.  Here is where an Obama victory in Iowa and New Hampshire would have a substantial ripple effect.  In the past year, almost every black person I have spoken to about Obama tells me that they don’t believe America is ready to elect a black man.  After white voters in Iowa have given Obama a solid eight-point victory, we should expect a huge black turnout in South Carolina.

Then comes Florida on January 29th, and the Super-Duper Mega Tuesday on Steroids on February 5th.  Despite favorable media coverage and a solid momentum boost from earlier victories, every insurgent candidate has lost the nomination here – as they simply get overwhelmed by the establishment’s money and institutional connections.  But Barack Obama has something that no insurgent has had – a huge campaign warchest, financed mostly from online donations.  With resources and momentum, he can still win.

Obama’s win can finally end that streak – showing that it is possible to take on your party’s establishment and win the presidential nomination.  I believe that Obama can make history, but I am convinced that the same will not happen on the Republican side.  Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee is also an insurgent who beat the establishment in Iowa last night, but does not have the financial resources that Obama has.  Huckabee will suffer the same fate of other insurgents – he’ll be the media sensation for about a month, but will lose the nomination.

Obama’s victory speech last night felt like we were on the cusp of a historic moment, and the people I was with at the San Francisco victory party believed that this was unlike any other Election party we had attended.  “They said this day would never come,” said Obama in Iowa.  “The sights were set too high.  They said this country was too divided.  At this defining moment in history, you have done what the cynics said you could not do.  You have done what America can do in this new year.”

As Randy Shaw predicted last year, America may be at the forefront of a new progressive era.  And Obama’s victory last night in Iowa could be the beginning of better things to come.  After all, it did show that America is thirsting for a change – now the trick is to keep the momentum going.

Send feedback to [email protected]

I wrote this for today’s Beyond Chron.

If you work for Hillary Clinton and your candidate’s ahead in the polls, your job is to avoid unpleasant surprises – even if it means planting questions in the audience.  Last week, Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff, a 19-year-old college student, attended a campaign event in Iowa – where a Hillary staffer asked if she wanted to ask a question.  When Muriel told them what question she wanted to ask, they said “no” and gave her a typed query – one that would not make news, and allow Clinton to repeat her campaign talking points.  I got to ask Hillary a tough question at the Yearly Kos Convention in August – but Clinton has done her best to avoid such unscripted moments, as her “inevitable” nomination rolls along.  After Muriel got some media attention, the Hillary camp asked her to stop talking to the press.  Kind of reminds me how two Clinton staffers confronted me after my exchange with the Senator.  Hillary’s campaign is running a tight ship, but planting questions to control the message speaks volumes about a candidate we simply can’t trust.

I really feel for how Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff went along with what the Clinton camp asked her to do.  Ten years ago, I was a politically minded college student myself – eager to attend events and talk to high-level politicians.  Right now, candidates in Iowa are swarming the state to win the presidential caucus in January – so being a college student in Iowa is very exciting.  Muriel attended a Clinton campaign event because she wanted to learn more, and was thrilled to be asked if she had a question.  “I thought it was a great opportunity,” she told CNN.  “[Hillary] might be our next President.”

But when the camp asked Muriel before the event what her question would be, they were not happy with what she had in mind.  She wanted to ask how Hillary’s energy plan compared with what her Democratic opponents’ had to offer, but an aide said he wasn’t sure if Clinton knew enough about the other plans to give an intelligent response.  So he pulled out an official binder, tore out a page with 8 pre-written questions – and told her to ask the one that was under the heading “college student.”

The question they told her to ask – “As a young person, I am concerned about the long-term effects of global warming.  How does your plan combat climate change?” – was a softball question that allowed Hillary to give a detailed response about her platform.  Politicians don’t like questions that make the news, because it takes them off-message.  They would rather repeat their talking points that reporters will jot down, and avoid anything that could shift the outcome of an election.  The question they gave Muriel allowed Clinton to do just that.

In fact, it sounds a lot like the first question Hillary got asked at the Yearly Kos Convention that I attended.  That question – “How will you reform No Child Left Behind?” – allowed Hillary to give a long-winded nine-minute response in a break-out session where only 30 minutes were allotted to take questions.  I don’t know if that first questioner was a plant, but it certainly ate up time where Clinton could have been grilled about Iraq in a crowd skeptical about her presidential campaign.

My question at the session put Hillary on the defensive – where she got stuck defending the less pleasant parts of her husband’s Administration (Defense of Marriage Act, Telecommunications Act, NAFTA and Welfare Repeal), and quite a few media outlets picked up on it.  But it’s almost as if I got called on by accident.  Out of five lucky people who asked questions, I was the only one her Internet Director did not call out by name – as he instead addressed me as “the man in the red shirt.”

As Muriel left the Iowa campaign event, she overheard another attendee say that he too had been told by the Clinton camp to ask Hillary his question.  Only four people (out of 200) at the event got to ask the Senator a question, so Hillary’s campaign managed to plant half of the questions – as the national press corps simply looked on.  “The question-and-answer sessions in Iowa are really important,” said Muriel in a later CNN interview.  “But if you’re planting the questions in advance, that takes the voters out of it.”

Muriel said in the interview that she didn’t know if other campaigns pursue such tactics, but that if one does it the others probably do as well.  The Obama, Edwards and Richardson campaigns have all denied planting questions at their events – and I believe them.  At Yearly Kos, Hillary had her Internet Director call on people during the break-out session – whereas the other candidates blindly called on audience members.  John Edwards even allowed follow-up questions.

It’s an unfortunate part of this year’s primary season as Hillary plows ahead with the Democratic nomination under the guise of “inevitability.”  If she can avoid unscripted moments, she will be the next President because no unpleasant surprises means no momentum change for the other candidates.  Her campaign juggernaut is a machine that simply moves in cruise control – even if it means planting questions in the audience.

After they got busted in Iowa, the Clinton camp asked Muriel to keep things quiet.  When she told a college reporter about the planted question, Muriel asked as a courtesy that he notify the Clinton campaign – proving that she does not have an axe to grind with anyone involved.  Suddenly she got a call from Hillary’s Iowa Director of Publicity.  While they politely confirmed Muriel’s account of what happened, their last comment to her was “the campaign would like you to not talk about it anymore.”

Sounds like the contact I had with Hillary’s campaign after my question at Yearly Kos.  On the final night, as the delegates were all drinking at 1:00 a.m. to celebrate a great Convention, I suddenly got approached by two Hillary staffers – a man and a woman – who started a “good-cop, bad-cop” confrontation with me.  The woman thanked me profusely for “asking such a smart question,” while the guy said, “I’m not going to leave you alone until you become a Hillary supporter.”

Needless to say, he was not successful — and after we talked for about five minutes, he yelled “you’re helping the terrorists” and they both walked away.  Apparently, getting unscripted moments is just too much to handle for Hillary Clinton – as her campaign machine chugs along to win the nomination.  Question-and-answer sessions that give the appearance of “dialogue” are treated like TV commercials, and people who break through their machine are “problems” that need to be dealt with.  That is not the type of democracy that we deserve — and are brought up to respect.

EDITOR’S NOTE: To read Paul Hogarth’s self-serving advice on how to ask a tough question, check out this article.  Send feedback to [email protected]