H K Livingstone (and others) make reasonable points about this endorsement business but should rise to the challenge, then, of picking people who count.
Gore (suggested by Justin - no relation to me) is an obvious one and they must be working on it, but gritty blue collar folk must surely be the real prize. I see John Edwards has told reporters in New Orleans that he has not made any decision about his own endorsements but is hoping to talk to both the candidates.
Seems to me he does it now - or in the next few days - or loses his clout. Meanwhile, if Obama cannot get any gritty folk on board maybe a revolutionary candidate should think outside the box - how about Tony Blair?
Is McCain inevitable? He looked testy and tired at the CNN debate but he is picking up than Tony Blair...
The surely leaves his supporters with a tricky decision of their own to make.
Even if Edwards goes for Obama, many of his blue collar supporters will move towards the Clinton camp.
But if Edwards himself continues to campaign with the energy he has shown so far, and his wife does the same, it may well be that he can bring his people with him - with potentially huge consequences.
Another point: the Obama camp is attempting to rid itself of the impression that it is na茂ve in its operations. I thought Obama's people made a terrible error in allowing journalists to think they would win in New Hampshire, but they are fast becoming much more savvy - and with Edwards they have plainly done some deal behind the scenes.
Watch out for more high profile endorsements of Barack. I see Jimmy Carter has refused so far, but efforts continue to get him on board.
The CNN Democrats' debate on Thursday night is now the (latest) biggest moment in American politics this year. It will be Him and Her. No funny lights telling them to shut up. No third candidate to scold them for being silly. No Mike Gravel. He (Obama) needs to outperform her. It is as simple as that.
Washington DC: Speaking minutes after his , Rudy Giuliani told his supporters that terrorism "is there, it is a reality - we cannot wish it away". And yet the extraordinary fact is that the people of Florida appear to think it has gone away, a view that suggests to me a lack of consistency or logic on behalf of the electors.
The on their exit poll said: "Given four choices, nearly half of Florida Republican primary voters said the economy is the most important issue facing the country. Terrorism was picked by two in 10 voters, while immigration and Iraq were picked by relatively few."
Two out of ten???? What planet are the others on? If you thought terrorism was a threat a year ago how can you not believe it still is? What has changed? Interesting: and surely a debate for the general election.
Mitt Romney's speeches are getting odder: did he really say it was "time for the politicians to leave Washington and the citizens to take over"? Politicians are representatives of citizens, are they not? So the citizens taking over would be, umm, politicians.
Interesting that Governor Romney praised George W Bush during his speech (for keeping America safe). The exit polls suggest Republicans who still like Bush tended to vote for Romney, but this is surely not a winning constituency.
I heard Wolf Blitzer on CNN announce the arrival of John McCain "and his wife Sidney" at their campaign HQ - before correcting himself. Now that would have been a story...
Washington DC: Apologies to those who think this blog is too tough on the Senator from Illinois - I do think he tends to get a rather adoring press. Perhaps he deserves it!
But perhaps not. Is there a risk that Mr Obama has flown a little close to the sun? strikes me as the potential beginning of an Obamabacklash amongst the educated classes who like the guy, but...
Regarding the Kennedy endorsement: surely Caroline was the big story here? She usually stays above the fray, backing only the eventual candidate, so her words carry some weight.
As for Ted: plenty of weight but a lot of it is - well - baggage. "Si se puede, porque El Ted lo dice" (Yes we can, because Ted says so), is an unlikely slogan, according to the witty and sceptical take of .
And on to this evening in Florida where, to please the Ron Paul millions (trillions?) and to show that this blog gives no special treatment to elderly war heroes, I would like to draw attention to the following advert.
WASHINGTON DC: So the is sprinkled on the senator from Illinois. Thinking about Barack Obama and watching him at work in the last few days, I find myself wondering if he and the other candidates (Republicans as well), even the Clintons in their way, have already achieved some of the change they desire, some of the bright new start they promise.
Many Americans hope that this election will alter worldwide perceptions of their nation - many foreigners, friends of America put off by the Bush years, hope the same thing. Wait till January 2009 they say: help is at hand. But look at the vigour of the process this year, the unique openness, the stunning setbacks and comebacks, the media being caught out so badly in New Hampshire, the , , Huckabee's fascinating recalibration of the evangelical message from hellfire soon to milk and honey now (and no income tax to boot) etc etc etc.
How can the outside world, how can reasonable people anywhere, not be impressed with the choices and the seriousness with which millions of Americans have now taken those choices? I offer two recent commentaries from the UK. The was written before New Hampshire and contains a lot of intellectually lazy nonsense about the 主播大秀 (supercilious - moi?) but is a really interesting early take on the relevance of the last month to the British experience of politics.
The is a more personal attack on me from the opposite standpoint but also - again more interestingly - an attempt to make the case for regarding this presidential process as being utterly bogus.
For my money the first take makes some sense; the second, this year of all years, is a mighty difficult argument to follow.
WASHINGTON DC: I wonder if my wife captured the essence of the Obama message to young people when - half-watching his victory address from the sofa - she mis-heard the chant "Yes we can!"
"Why are they shouting 'Next weekend!'?" she asked.
Rather a fitting rallying cry for a campaigned fuelled so much by cheery youngsters, with time on their hands and hookups political and personal on their minds.
On a weightier note: on what appears to be a highly significant endorsement, following the
"Kennedy confidantes told the Globe today that will appear with Obama and Kennedy's niece, Caroline Kennedy, at in Washington tomorrow to announce his support. That will be a potentially significant boost for Obama as he heads into a series of critical primaries on Super Tuesday, Feb 5."
Let's hope the senior senator steers clear of senior moments like
WASHINGTON DC: The biggest issue after this is surely the future of the president. Not Bush, Clinton. Two facts from South Carolina: the first that Bill Clinton's advocacy was of marginal importance, at best, in a place where he has a real constituency (black people).
To quote the AP on the exit polls: "Bill Clinton's campaigning in the state was cited as an important factor by nearly six in 10 voters. Overall, those who said it was important voted in favour of Obama, though by smaller margins than those who said it was unimportant, suggesting the former president's effort may have helped Hillary Clinton slightly."
I see that President Clinton - did I really hear him tell an admiring audience the other day that he was not in politics any more? - has been out comparing Obama with Jesse Jackson. Is that just a touch heavy-handed?
This is an just in, but where is the Endorser-in-Chief: Oprah? I saw someone on CNN (I think) suggesting she "man marks" Bill around the South now - why not?
WASHINGTON DC: Interesting point from JC on whether Democrats might not vote for a man because of his race - but surely it is not as simple as that? I understand that the modern party has ditched its old southern traditions but, even so, are all Democrats so reliably free of the taint of racism? Are any of us, black, white or any other colour? People are people, it seems to me.
But K Tyson
makes a point worth remembering as well, that a vote against Obama is not - of course - necessarily a vote against his race. RH asks about whether we have asked white South Carolinians whether they would back Obama - the honest answer is that I did not broadcast any white people backing him or opposing him, though I talked to three white people, all of whom liked him. Interesting to see what the exit polls say about white support for the senator.
As we wait for the results... Oh dear - from the ever reliable Ron Brownstein rather puts a dampener on the prospects of a nice holiday after 5 February...
WASHINGTON DC: Following on from what we might call the "Dick Morris thesis" on race and the Obama campaign I pass on something that the Obama folk are peddling down here in South Carolina, or more precisely will be peddling after a win which is then characterised as a win "wholly due to black voters turning out for the black candidate". First they will call this a form of racism (do black voters not count?) and secondly according to the document I have seen:
"The fact of the matter is that blacks represent potentially pivotal blocs of voters in most battleground states in November 鈥 including Florida, Ohio, Missouri, Arkansas, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Virginia and even Nevada. Obama鈥檚 ability to inspire and mobilize black voters could easily prove instrumental in swinging those competitive states to the Democratic column in November. Indeed, in Nevada where blacks are about 6% of the voting age population, with Obama on the ballot they comprised fully 15% of the caucus electorate according to the Entrance Poll -proof that he can bring them out beyond their numbers or past participation."
All of that is fair enough, I suppose, except that Hillary Clinton's special appeal to Latino voters might rather counterbalance it. Although black people have been more reliable voters in the past? The subject is now much discussed both sides of the Atlantic with the
For the record, I asked Obama - during a campaign stop here - if he accepted that the media gave him an easier ride that they did the Clintons. He laughed. He claimed it wasn't true. But he went on to call the press "the referee".
I have never heard a politician do that unless he thought the referee was making the right decision...
CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA: The Dick Morris thesis on South Carolina is fast becoming a kind of in the media world. (He suggests that Barack Obama has been trapped into going for a big win in South Carolina that establishes him as The Black Candidate and destroys his chances everywhere.)
It can only be true, of course, if the (in a 97% white state) was an abberation, which it may well have been for a whole host of reasons. But talking to African Americans in Charleston (where I am at the moment), there is still plenty of optimism that the racial aspect of his candidacy need not be fatal.
Trouble is, of course, that no poll can suggest whether or not they are right because of the obvious risk of people lying. In this election - with 20% of Californian Democrats undecided - I cannot really see how Mr Morris can be so sure.
CHARLESTON: The answer to the conundrum is simple, it seems to me. The conundrum is this: why did he not catch on in spite of the fact that he had a genuine, if somewhat offbeat, appeal? The answer: the Republican Party is serious, or getting serious, about winning in 2008; it is not that Fred was deficient policy-wise but that his general demeanour, lacklustre to the point of other-worldliness, was never going to triumph against tough-savvy Hillary or New Deal Barack.
It seems to me that the Republican Party is now searching for winners: is plainly there, or thereabouts, but so is Romney, now that the economy has (semi-officially) , and Huckabee and Giuliani are not out of it yet. Assessments on the history of the Thompson non-surge. He will be missed.
showed Fred at his best. His fans will be watching it and crying into their whiskey...
UPDATE: I should add, though, that my personal favourite advert of the campaign so far was , created for the slow-to-catch-fire southerner by Slate Magazine (I know it's a spoof but it's great).
Has Barack Obama already lost? I ask this after receiving the following from a well-informed person with connections in New England and New York State on the technique of absentee ballot organisation:
"You go to a primary state when no-one else is working it hard. You work it hard. You tell them you will be back. As soon as your visit is over, you remind the people (New Hampshire) that the weather at primary time can be really bad... and there may not be any car pool since every one is so strapped for cash, your local organizer is susceptible to flu, etc. etc. You convince them to file an absentee ballot, just in case, so their vote counts.
"Now, get this, you're Hillary's tout so guess who you are pushing for that ballot paper - that you just happen to have with you. Here are the words the woman I talked to let slip she said to an absentee voter: 'Hillary really appreciates your support,' as you stand over them filling out their ballot. It's a woman thing, especially older women.
"There was another line that I think is particularly onerous with old-age pensioners - this may be their last chance to vote for a woman president - to make their vote count."
Now my contact - who is not a conspiracy theorist or fantasist - believes this (perfectly legal) pressure was used by Hillary in New Hampshire and might have made the difference on the day (or before it) and, more important, is being used in many other states as well. And it could make the difference between winning and losing on Super Tuesday.
Has the Obama campaign - fuelled by dreams and guided by 26-year-old speechwriters with golden pens, and the audacity of hope etc etc - actually messed up big time when it comes to the nitty gritty business of getting people to vote, not just on the day (which is what the media has focused on) but BEFORE the day as well...
The points people make about the 主播大秀 are interesting and I take note of them. To my mind, the Democrats have been the bigger story up to now and I think we are right to do more about them; though that balance might well be about to change.
An imbalance in the minutes devoted to each side does not denote bias. What I watch for is a contemptuous attitude towards a party's values - or one that suggests that they are self-evident truths! Having said that, the 主播大秀 is a British news organisation and part of our appeal (I hope) is that we offer a foreign perspective. Un-American is okay, it seems to me - but not anti-American.
The Obama attack on Bill Clinton - - calls into question whether the Illinois senator will be willing to slope off into the night should he lose, lick his wounds, as is the custom in these matters, and then come back with some more or less genuine speech of support at the convention at the end of the summer.
Plainly the former president has upset the once future president and, while it seems obviously true that the Clinton camp and the Obama camp do not have the policy differences of, say, Huckabee and McCain, they plainly cannot stand each other. Bloomberg/Obama anyone? Or Obama/Bloomberg?
The Huckabee concession speech was a stunning attack on Mitt Romney - surely suggestive of a Republican civil war if the eventual choice comes down to Huckabee or McCain against the Michigan winner. Huckabee praised McCain for his "civil and decent" campaign in South Carolina. He did not mention Romney by name but the implication could not have been clearer: that the Mormon business leader has overstepped the mark in his previous attack efforts and stands to have his so called Nevada "victory" shoved where it does not belong. Might Huckabee be a rather nifty McCain VP choice?
But I get ahead of myself. Another thought from the McCain victory: surely Mike Huckabee's failure to win is a massive blow to Rudy Giuliani in his effort to seriously begin his race in Florida? A Huckabee win would have allowed the former New York mayor to present himself as the alternative to the God-bothering tendency in the Republican party. Now McCain is the secular choice, along with Romney I suppose. The chaos benefited Giuliani; if the chaos is just a little less chaotic now, Giuliani is in trouble. Another thought on the McCain campaign - they can do sexy! Look at ...
And a final non-horserace point about the Republicans: they are in quite a mess. The 主播大秀 sometimes gets it in the neck for being overly excited by Democrats (I reject that, by the way, but the charge is out there) but the nastiness of the battle ahead for the Republicans is surely far more of a genuine punch-up among real enemies, policy enemies, than is the Democratic fight. Nobody can pretend that the Clintons and Obamas will be going out to dinner any time soon but, on policy they are, frankly, pretty close.
And so to the Democrats. Hillary Clinton because she won women and she won Latinos. She also won because some voters think - or are persuaded to think - that Senator Obama is a Muslim. This is a fact: I met otherwise well-informed voters in New Hampshire who believed that he refused to be sworn in as a senator with his hand on the Bible. It is out there; it really is. It does not explain the Clinton victories but it adds to them.
Obama must win in South Carolina, of course, to keep the show on the road - and he can win given the large number of African Americans who will vote next week - but he also needs to re-tool his campaign urgently to reach out to the Democats he is missing; in particular he needs to find those women who went for him in Iowa. He has the better brand but many shoppers seem to think they cannot afford it. Think Bang & Olufsen!
UPDATE:
Here is another quick thought on the Obama/Osama issue. A friend writes to me from Las Vegas: "After it was all over here last night met a bartender who considered himslef a liberal, working class guy, life long Democrat, hated Bush, pretty worldly, who told me he didn't vote for Obama because the guy was 'brought up a Muslim and once a Muslim always a Muslim'."
Amid the , surely the most important long-term figure is the turn-out: something around 100,000 did I hear?
How many did they get to vote here in 2004? Nine thousand.
I know the Nevada caucus is more important now than it was then - but the fact is that Democrats are coming to the polls this year, they are up for it. Republicans are not.
It could change of course. Republicans could get enthused somewhere down the road, but at the moment they are not.
Perhaps conservatives feel disoriented when every candidate feels like an insurgent - none has the clear backing of the national party leadership and there is no obvious frontrunner. Whatever the reason, they are lagging behind in the enthusiasm race.
Never mind the winner in Nevada, feel the width of the voting pile...
So, . She looked utterly shell-shocked after the loss in Iowa - is she beginning to get that serene look back now, the one she had last summer when she swept imperiously through the early candidate debates?
Never mind what we hear from the Obama camp about his achievement in getting this close; these events are magical as much as rational. And the magic - that was his - is now (maybe?) hers to squander...
Mitt Romney's in Nevada is regarded as a non-significant result by his fellow top tier Republicans but, in this weirdest of campaign seasons, has he perhaps done the wise thing? He has, after all, won something on a day when only one other Republican will be able to claim that (in ) and he guarantees himself a mention, if only a short one, when the days results are discussed.
And I draw your attention to the below, which I have just received from the UK - Romney does not approve of Europeans and their fancy socialist ways but someone in the UK plainly loves him, or sees him as a meal ticket ...
"Mitt Romney has been cut to win the Republican Party candidature and the race for the White House after a number of significant wagers, British bookmakers Ladbrokes said on Saturday.
"The former Massachusetts governor, who has chosen to campaign in Nevada whilst his rivals slug it out in South Carolina, hit the comeback trail in Michigan.
"And the win has impressed a number of gamblers who have backed him in from 14/1 to 12/1 to take up residence on Pennsylvania Avenue and from 4/1 to 3/1 to get the GOP's nomination."
Easy to forget that the today involve Republicans as well: it seems that only Mitt Romney has been there and amassing the delegates, again a true rational business leader approach to campaigning from the man who rescued the Olympics in nearby Utah.
BUT here is the issue for the Republicans, going far beyond the question of who wins their caucus today: is the party serious or not about appealing to Latino voters, who make up about a quarter of 's population and are a huge force as well in the key 2008 battleground states of and ?
Pollsters say the evidence is that legal Latino voters are put off by all the talk of illegal immigration that comes from most of the candidates as they troop around . Is the party commiting suicide - long-term electoral suicide - by failing to appeal to Latino voters who should be in tune with it on other issues (abortion etc) but who feel excluded by the immigration issue? My friend the Republican strategist Leslie Sanchez, who wrote the book , is clearly on one side of this argument.
On the other side though is the simple fact (unpalatable as it may be to the elites, and to foreigners with a sentimental view of American immigration) that millions of Americans really are deeply worried about undocumented workers and about the future of the English language as a tie binding the nation together. There is nothing racist about appealing to them. The Democrats are not going to give them a voice, so why shouldn鈥檛 the Republicans?
There is a risk, is there not, that the "anger" issue - I see the New York Times today - slightly masks the more important question of what a legitimate question is, and whether presidential candidates (and presidents) are ludicrously over-protected from the perfectly reasonable cut and thrust of debate, and ludicrously over-react when someone presses them.
of and the man from AP has been widely circulated, although on this occasion the candidate keeps his cool, it seems to me. The interesting bit comes at the very end, when the press officer attacks the reporter for "arguing".
He should go to Britain, where "arguing" is exactly what interviewers are meant to do, at least that has been the fashion of recent years. Americans looking for real political cut and thrust should take their cue from of the 主播大秀's best known interviewer and (until recently) its best known politician...
In this topsy-turvey election where pundits' predictions turn to dust in hours, I wonder if the received wisdom on the Clintons also needs to be re-visited.
It's been all about Bill's charm and Hillary's lack of it. Yet suddenly, Bill is angry and charmless and Hillary is playing the part of a with the apparent ease and pleasure of a Southwest employee. Being the Clintons, they must be doing this deliberately.
The video of Bill with a San Francisco TV reporter is all over the place at the moment but this clip from the past is still my favourite - heartfelt and authentic and probably not damaging, but the man does get angry!
Having been right up with all the other journos burned by Obama-mania in New Hampshire I was delighted to see that the political parties themselves are finding it 鈥
And let us not forget that while the candidates win, lose, win again, lose again etc etc - there is a world to be run and President Bush is still .
I remember a former very senior CIA person telling me that they failed utterly to predict the downfall of the Shah because whenever senior American officials went to Tehran in those days they had a ball. The dinners were sumptuous! The hotel rooms were out of this world! I see that President Bush's own staff, for instance speechwriter Bill McGurn, are in danger of falling into the same trap - the seduction of Middle East wealth, the sense that all is well when all is not well. The dinners! The hotel rooms! Reminds me of Michigan鈥
I stood next to Governor Romney for a moment or two (a sign in itself of how small-scale and low budget the Republican effort is at the moment, compared with the big presidential-style hoopla surrounding Hillary and Barack) and witnessed the kind of incident that makes you wonder whether this man has what it takes to make voters like him. A girl (she might have been 14) was calling out: "Mr Governor, I had lunch with your cousin."
President Bush would have squeezed her hand and brushed her off - any decent campaigner would have - but Mitt Romney simply froze her out, did not answer, until she persisted to the extent that he had to say: "Great." Or words to that effect.
It sounded grudging and odd; and it did not need to. Of course, that doesn't mean he would be a bad president or that he is a bad man - but on a "rope line" he sucks, as they say here.
His supporters knew it from early on - it's a great day for him and, he says, a victory for optimism. But surely it is a victory for chaos as well! At least in the Republican party - we go on to South Carolina and Florida having had a clear winner in every contest so far - but not the SAME winner.
To be tired of American politics at the moment is to be tired of life...
It's back to politics as we know it now, after the heady crazed participation-fest of . In those states the presidential madness took over and everyone enjoyed it, or pretended to. Even a woman taking the money at a toll booth had the time and interest to discuss the state of the race.
Here in depressed , it is much more difficult to find the campaign amid the grim reality of daily life. Even the snow seems less, well, cheerful; it's the powdery sort that goes up your trousers but isn't thick enough to have any fun with.
Saw today and asked him if his insistence on banging on about issues like climate change might put off Republican voters. "My friend, there are worse things than losing," he replied. I think he means it.
Meanwhile, it is unusual to see anything very nice being written about Mitt Romney - at least by those not attached to his staff - but is interesting.
I have in my possession a car bumper sticker that I cannot quote here in full. It uses a particular word to refer to Hillary Clinton, and goes on to describe her as "shaped like a pear". The first amendment is a wonderful thing but is this going too far?
a respected columnist, in the British newpaper the Daily Mail:
"Reporting from America on the shaky Clinton campaign, 主播大秀 correspondent Justin Webb joked that some men think Hillary's problem is 'she reminds them of their first wife'.
"Do you think Justin would have reported that voters thought Barack Obama's problem is 'he reminds them of their pool boy'?
"No, I don't think so either. Taking a pop at a 60-year-old woman for her age and stature is considered fair game. But you won't get any schoolboy sniggering at the black male candidate. No, Siree. That would get you fired, wouldn't it?"
My defence in this case is that I was quoting from on the Clinton marriage to make the point that these slurs (or truths) are out there. But, being honest, I would not have used it if I did not think it had a certain power and veracity - and, of course, I would never have used such a slur (or truth) associated with Obama's race.
But hold on: maybe I would. More important, maybe many media outlets already have - what about the suggestion that he is which at one early stage in the campaign we heard repeatedly and which he and his people have been forced to address?
It is tricky, this female thing, as tricky as race. I think I agree with the New York Daily News columnist, that - and a hugely difficult one to counter...
UPDATE:
Two contributions worth adding to this discussion. First - and secondly my friend Punditmom in DC, who is hardly a classic downtrodden Hillary Clinton voter but in what we might call the classic New Hampshire model...
Thanks to all those who pointed out that the Hillary line on poetry and prose (as slightly altered by me) came from Mario Cuomo - I had not realised. In fact, I was with Steve Tilley in thinking its provenance was The West Wing...
Seriously, on the subject of accuracy, while we make every effort etc, I must admit that I sometimes write this from memory with no immediate access even to so do forgive me the odd error in precise quotation.
Perhaps I should promise change. That calms the crowd. But does this slogan of 2008 have any meaning? A few pieces over the weekend capture the oddness of the campaign so far: my favourite was simply pointing out that in America Washington is not where change traditionally comes from.
But perhaps more important is the question of whether "change" as bandied about at the moment, has .
Here's what change means - at my children's school a sweet and much-loved man who helps direct the traffic in the morning is very ill and we are asked to give our good wishes, our prayers, and money. Money? He has no proper insurance. Either you think that is OK or you don't (I offer no opinion - the British NHS has its faults just as the US system does), and either you have a plan to change that aspect of American life or you do not.
The main Democratic party candidates all say they do - but that is the point; it should surely come down in the end to the quality of the plan, not the attractiveness of the packaging. The change brand - like all brands - needs substance to work.
Having suggested John McCain was likely to be the next president, I am going to have to be careful to make sure that the 主播大秀's coverage alone does not propel him into that position - so I draw your attention to two photos my colleague Anthony Birchley took in New Hampshire, one assisting his efforts and one, I suspect, not.
The first might be a touch concerning to those independent voters who might be toying with backing the Arizona senator but are not keen on him using his military background to take the nation into further conflict - but the next really does hit home the extent to which the good senator is picking up endorsements from far and wide.
On another subject, doesn't decision to pull out leave in a much improved position? Seems to me that Richardson backers were not going for sex appeal, they were going for experience and character. So his supporters in future primaries will perhaps break for Clinton over Obama?
If the people knew they could but didn鈥檛 let on - if, in other words, this was a trick, they deserve their already golden political medals to be further burnished. I suspect, in fact, that they are as surprised as everyone else but surprise will turn to action now to take to the cleaners. In particular, the Obama camp is vulnerable to the charge of naivety after allowing expectations of his win to build, with even the candidate talking of 鈥渟omething happening鈥. Further proof of Barack鈥檚 unreadiness for prime time?
The Clinton camp intends to focus now on the 鈥渋ssue鈥 of the free ride given by the US press to Obama and the Obamaniacs.
Interesting admission from NBC reporters about the difficulties some have had staying disinterested when covering Obamania in New Hampshire.
We nearly started a TV piece with his voice - preacher-like - over pictures of the pretty New Hampshire snow. It would have looked compelling but, well, a touch hagiographic. Not the words but the images. We thought again - but we could equally have made the case for doing it. The NBC man was simply acknowledging something any educated person knows to be the truth - that political campaigns touch people when they really work and journalists are people. Me, I feel it when I see and his veterans; the chap might well be a cussed old devil (he told me he 鈥渓oves the 主播大秀鈥 and I certainly do not buy that) but what a life he and his generation have led.
Terry McAuliffe - the chair of Clinton campaign - looks as tired as the candidate, which is saying something given the high energy of this man. But he is still animated as usual and with our camera on he mounts a typically robust vision of the long term. Unlike Hillary Clinton in her ABC interview though (she talked of running 鈥渢hrough the nominating process鈥), he suggests that Super Tuesday is the end: that the race can be won then by the Clinton camp. I reckon her vaguer end date might be more realistic.
There is much being made of this Hillary Clinton line: 鈥淵ou campaign in poetry but you govern in prose.鈥 She was intending to make the point that poetry wasn鈥檛 enough, but she seemed to forget that although it isn鈥檛 enough, it is still necessary. You cannot, in American politics this year, cut straight to the prose. New Hampshire was a prose win - fancy college graduates and independents and the like tended to vote for Obama - but those constituencies will not win a general election. She still needs to find the poetry somehow, somewhere.
But I have to say, of the candidates I have seen performing here the least exhausted has been the 71-year-old Senator . After his rally in Portsmouth, he looked bright-eyed and ready for the fray: and there is no question that his campaign - like Obama's last week - is feeling bullish.
I asked him how he would match up against but he refused to get into the subject. Fair enough: but this seems to me to be the big issue for McCain. In the absence of another terrorist attack, how does he convince a more relaxed "post war"-feeling nation, that a gritty, elderly man is the right choice? Still ,it would be a huge battle for the independent vote of the United States - the middle ground that both men are capable of attracting - and that might be no bad thing for America.
Meanwhile, my friend , the able and forthright Washington Correspondent for Britain's Channel Four News, was caught out badly at a Clinton rally the other night. As the shows, she put on her fanciest clothes to attend the event, and found that the candidate had made the same choice!
I am sure Sarah is a fighter for women's rights and for Hillary Clinton's right to stand, but she had not previously seen the former First Lady as her fashion guru. Hillary may be re-thinking her life if she loses, but Sarah is already re-thinking her wardrobe...
Arriving in and going straight to the evening rally at a school near Manchester, I found myself impressed by flashes of real assertiveness - the kind of assertiveness that convinced many Americans during the course of recent months that she was The Candidate.
An example: a question about Vladimir Putin, the Russian president. President Bush told Americans years ago he had looked into Putin's soul - Hillary was contemptuous: "He was a former KGB man; he had no soul!" Take that, Vlad - plainly Mrs Clinton senses a nostalgia for the Cold War rather than our modern, more complex struggles, and she may be right.
On the other hand, there is something missing: she is competent and tough but she does not inspire. People drifted away from this event and the folks in the overflow hall allowed in to boost the numbers did so too...
Just before leaving Des Moines I have a meeting with two Clinton fund-raisers who had been knocking on doors here to try to get the supporters out: they claim many Barack Obama supporters have doubts about his long-term staying power -- they are in love for the time being but in no illusions about marriage.
But what is the event that ends the affair? A terrorist attack? A new foreign war? An economic recession that requires Mitt Romney's ability to get rich and stay rich? Balloons do not pop of their own accord.
And on the legitimacy of the Caucus process commented on so amusingly here: the same fundraisers (bruised a bit by it all) suggest darkly that the Carter Institute would not deem to cover an election in a foreign country with such restrictive rules.
My question on is how, when America is at war on several fronts, when Pakistan is on the brink, when Kenya is teetering, when the Middle East is, well, the Middle East; how in this case can America seriously contemplate electing one of two men who have zero foreign policy experience?
Perhaps it doesn't matter. Perhaps character trumps all and these are unquestionably two charming able politicians who could rise to the top of any Western political pile. Senator Obama is well advised and former Governor Huckabee could no doubt be schooled. But even so鈥
And a thought about Hillary's predicament: is it relevant that Iowa has never elected a woman to Congress or to the Governor's mansion? Only Mississippi has the same record.
Hillary Clinton can come back if anyone can but she must win in New Hampshire. I guess her best way of doing that is getting her supporters to canvas for John McCain, the flinty Republican senator who must use the support of independent voters to win in New Hampshire. If he takes the independents they will not be there to vote for Barack Obama in the Democratic contest. Longshot? It may well be ....
And Mitt Romney the other loser in Iowa: he is embarassed and disabled by his second position. He is in trouble, not yet out but very down.
Met a wonderful Iowan in the hours before the caucuses begin: Glenna Finney works at the in Winterset, half an hour outside Des Moines.
Mrs Finney, like her hero, is a Republican. She USED to know who she was going to support BUT - incredibly really, given all the fuss there has been - she has recently decided that she is, once again, Undecided!
She is seriously going to go this evening without any clear idea about who she will support - and she says she knows others who are in the same position.
That is the aspect of the caucus process so difficult for foreigners to grasp - that Americans (well, some Americans) care so deeply about their democracy that they are willing to go out in the snow and spend time thrashing it out...
people, chatted to backstage while the candidate did his last evening rally, seemed genuinely relaxed and cheerful. The fact is that they go to event after event and see enthusiasm and warmth towards the senator - it's a jump ball, they admit, between the three main Democratic candidates - but then they would, as doing well after lowering expectations is what the Iowa game is all about. I think they think he will win big.
Bumped into , who said the Obama campaign reminded him of Clinton in 92: "It is all about YOU the people, doing what you want and giving you the lead and getting your priorities noticed." But Obama also reminds me of Jimmy Carter, in a way - or, indeed, Ronald Reagan or any of the others who have run successful insurgent anti-Washington campaigns; the rhetoric is of the outsider banging at the gates.
Talking of which - I had an enjoyable chat with , who tells me hand on heart that he can win! I cannot decide whether he is a serious candidate or not, but the decision will be made for me (and you) by the caucus-goers of Iowa in a few hours time...
One of the points of is that candidates and deal with the complexity of real people and their not always neatly boxable views on all subjects.
An example: Glenn Neideigh who runs the Oak View II hunting club outside Des Moines and has voted in the past for Democrats and Republicans, including once for President Bush.
Turning up at his club to shoot TV footage rather than birds, I walked with him all of 20 yards into a field before a windchill somewhere around 0 Fahrenheit started to cramp our conversation.
But I learned a lot even in that short, freeze-truncated meeting: Glenn is a fan of one of the so-called minor Democrats this time around. He cares about illegal immigration but also about healthcare, he cares about Iraq but does not want a withdrawal that damages America even more. He hates political adverts.
In short, he is a middle-of-the-road thoughtful man: Iowa man.
But here is a problem, he is not going to a caucus.
It is not that he does not care - he really does. Or that he is ignorant of he issues - he certainly is not. But he is busy and just cannot make it that night.
And this caucus system (no postal ballot and a set time to turn up) is inflexible. Perhaps that - rather than the choice of state - is the real scandal of Iowa.
If you aren't sure what RSS is you'll find useful.
Elsewhere at the 主播大秀
Latest Americas news
Armed man shared lift with Obama US President Barack Obama rode in a lift with an armed security contractor who had assault convictions, in another security lapse.
Ebola patient 'in serious condition' The first patient to be diagnosed with Ebola on US soil is in a serious condition, a hospital spokeswoman says.
Kissinger 'considered Cuba strikes' US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger wanted to "smash Cuba" by air strikes nearly 40 years ago, newly disclosed government documents show.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.
The surely leaves his supporters with a tricky decision of their own to make. 
Many Americans hope that this election will alter worldwide perceptions of their nation - many foreigners, friends of America put off by the Bush years, hope the same thing. Wait till January 2009 they say: help is at hand. But look at the vigour of the process this year, the unique openness, the stunning setbacks and comebacks, the media being caught out so badly in New Hampshire, the , , Huckabee's fascinating recalibration of the evangelical message from hellfire soon to milk and honey now (and no income tax to boot) etc etc etc. 
To quote the AP on the exit polls: "Bill Clinton's campaigning in the state was cited as an important factor by nearly six in 10 voters. Overall, those who said it was important voted in favour of Obama, though by smaller margins than those who said it was unimportant, suggesting the former president's effort may have helped Hillary Clinton slightly."
But 
CHARLESTON: The answer to the conundrum is simple, it seems to me. The conundrum is this: why did he not catch on in spite of the fact that he had a genuine, if somewhat offbeat, appeal? The answer: the Republican Party is serious, or getting serious, about winning in 2008; it is not that Fred was deficient policy-wise but that his general demeanour, lacklustre to the point of other-worldliness, was never going to triumph against tough-savvy Hillary or New Deal Barack.
But I get ahead of myself. Another thought from the McCain victory: surely Mike Huckabee's failure to win is a massive blow to Rudy Giuliani in his effort to seriously begin his race in Florida? A Huckabee win would have allowed the former New York mayor to present himself as the alternative to the God-bothering tendency in the Republican party. Now McCain is the secular choice, along with Romney I suppose. The chaos benefited Giuliani; if the chaos is just a little less chaotic now, Giuliani is in trouble. Another thought on the McCain campaign - they can do sexy! Look at ... 
And so to the Democrats. Hillary Clinton because she won women and she won Latinos. She also won because some voters think - or are persuaded to think - that Senator Obama is a Muslim. This is a fact: I met otherwise well-informed voters in New Hampshire who believed that he refused to be sworn in as a senator with his hand on the Bible. It is out there; it really is. It does not explain the Clinton victories but it adds to them.
I stood next to Governor Romney for a moment or two (a sign in itself of how small-scale and low budget the Republican effort is at the moment, compared with the big presidential-style hoopla surrounding Hillary and Barack) and witnessed the kind of incident that makes you wonder whether this man has what it takes to make voters like him. A girl (she might have been 14) was calling out: "Mr Governor, I had lunch with your cousin." 
a respected columnist, in the British newpaper the Daily Mail: 
Having suggested John McCain was likely to be 
The first might be a touch concerning to those independent voters who might be toying with backing the Arizona senator but are not keen on him using his military background to take the nation into further conflict - but the next really does hit home the extent to which the good senator is picking up endorsements from far and wide.
An example: Glenn Neideigh who runs the 
Hello, I'm 
