Dan Balz's Take
'30 Days of Rough Sledding'
Is Obama running away with Iowa? (Reuters).
How was your weekend?
Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney would part company on the answer to that question. So would Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. John McCain would simply give you a big smile. Rudy Giuliani and John Edwards would like you to think theirs was good but they may be wrong.
The weekend brought an ice storm to Iowa and there was snow in New Hampshire Monday, but the weather did nothing to cool off two nomination battles that grow more intense by the day. The actions of the candidates tell you everything you need to know about how they're feeling.
Hillary Clinton has gone on the offensive against Barack Obama in a way she hasn't come close to up to now. Her attack Sunday on Obama's character was just an opening shot in what aides say will be an increasingly direct assault on the Illinois senator as someone whose record in office doesn't come close to matching his lofty and inspirational rhetoric as a presidential candidate.
Meanwhile, Mitt Romney has gone on the defensive, scheduling a speech Thursday at the George H.W. Bush Presidential Library in Texas on the topic of religion and politics. The long-awaited address will attempt to deal directly with the question of whether Americans will elect a Mormon as president. Romney advisers see it as a critically important moment in which the former Massachusetts governor seeks to overcome whatever doubts Republicans may have about him becoming their nominee.
All of this comes in the context of a new Iowa Poll for the Des Moines Register that puts Obama ahead of Clinton in the Democratic race and Huckabee ahead of Romney in the Republican race. The Iowa poll historically is seen as the most reliable measure of attitudes among likely caucus participants, and as such carries significant weight in shaping perceptions.
On the Democratic side, Obama led Clinton by a statistically insignificant 28 percent to 25 percent, with Edwards close behind at 23 percent. In essence, the poll confirmed what has been said before, that Iowa is a three-way race among the Democrats.
What was notable, however, was the shift in support for both since the last Iowa poll in October. Clinton dropped from 29 percent to 25 percent, while Obama rose from 22 percent to 28 percent. Edwards, who led the Iowa poll in May, remained unchanged at 23 percent. At this point, Obama has momentum and Clinton is trying to reverse it.
Character issues appear to be Clinton's weakness in Iowa, which may explain why she has shifted her attacks on Obama to the subject of his character. She scored better than Obama or Edwards on measures of experience, strength, electability and knowledge of the world. But she was seen by Iowa Democrats as the most negative, the most ego-driven and ran behind Edwards and Obama on who was the most likable and who was the most principled.
The Clinton campaign may have had no choice but to step up the attacks on Obama, but she is gambling against a backlash among Iowa voters over her negativity. Given that they already see her as the most negative in the field, perhaps that is a small risk. But in a three-way contest, the candidate who is seen as turning the most negative often pays the highest price.
Edwards appears to believe that is the case. Once the most aggressive in his criticism of Clinton, he has throttled back in the past few weeks. His advisers are more than pleased to see Clinton and Obama tangling, hoping that in the end it will redound to the former North Carolina senator's benefit. In Saturday's debate in icy Des Moines, Edwards was positively nice toward Obama rather than harsh toward Clinton.
On the Republican side, Huckabee looks strong in the overall numbers, but not as strong when GOP voters were asked to rate the candidates on attributes. That is a similar pattern to the findings of a Post-ABC News poll of Iowa taken last month.
Huckabee was at just 4 percent in the Iowa poll conducted in May. By October he was at 12 percent and today he is at 29 percent. Romney was at 30 percent in May, 29 percent in October and is at 24 percent today. His remarkable rise has reshaped the battle for Iowa and, depending on the outcome here, could dramatically alter the overall race for the Republican nomination.
Though he is the hot candidate of the moment, Huckabee, like all the other Republican candidates, still has a series of questions to answer as he tries to capitalize on the attention he is getting.
In Iowa, Huckabee is viewed by Republicans as the most socially conservative, the most principled and, with Romney, the most civil in tone. And only 1 percent called him the most negative. But he runs behind Romney on who is most presidential., who knows most about the world and who is most electable (Giuliani still tops the list followed closely by Romney). On experience, Huckabee runs fourth, in single digits, behind McCain, Romney and Giuliani.
But Iowa is just one part of the Republican equation. Romney now faces two different battles in two different states. His problem in Iowa is clearly Huckabee. In New Hampshire, he has competition from both Giuliani and McCain. Given that his strategy is based entirely on winning early and gaining enough momentum to carry him through some treacherous battles later, he now can ill-afford any slippage in either place.
McCain got an unexpected boost Sunday when the Union Leader, the conservative newspaper in Manchester, endorsed him. McCain has never quite been the ideal conservative for the Union Leader's taste, but the newspaper leadership appears in a more pragmatic frame of mind in this campaign than in some recent ones. McCain's straight talk and foreign policy experience carried the day and the question now is what kind of clout the Union Leader still has.
Giuliani and his team see any rise by Huckabee in Iowa as good for the former mayor, since it causes problems for Romney. But he has had a difficult week ever since politico.com's Ben Smith reported on the questionable expensing for security details on trips to the Hamptons when he was mayor and beginning an affair with his now-wife Judith Nathan.
Giuliani's goal has been to spring a surprise on Romney in New Hampshire, but the combination of McCain's Union Leader endorsement and his own problems have put new obstacles in his path. As one GOP strategist put it Monday, 'Rudy's team did not handle last weeks discovery well. They are in for 30 days of rough sledding."
That leaves Romney to deal with the issue of religion. There has been a long debate inside the Romney campaign about whether and when to give such a speech, with those arguing against generally holding the day -- until now. Romney is said to be more comfortable with what he wants to say and the campaign team believes he has to do it now or wait until the nomination battle is decided.
"If he can address it [his religion] in a way that allays the concerns of a key constituency in the Republican Party he will have served his campaign well, said Terry Nelson, who was McCain's campaign manager until mid-summer. "I hoped he would address it sooner, and now it looks like it is in the context of him slipping behind Governor Huckabee. I guess only he and his campaign know why now, and not earlier."
After an eventful weekend, this week could prove to be defining moments for both Romney and Clinton.
--Dan Balz
Posted at 2:17 PM ET on Dec 3, 2007
| Category:
Dan Balz's Take
Share This: 
Technorati
| Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
Posted by: kiku | December 4, 2007 9:26 AM
Well peterdc,
That's probably because the "new polls" you referred to that were emailed to all the news outlets by Hillary's campaign, are actually OLD POLLS. They were conducted 2 and 3 weeks ago. Check for yourself.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2007/12/in-dueling-iowa.html
Just more distortion of facts from the Hillary Clinton camp.
Posted by: julieds | December 4, 2007 3:31 AM
Since Obama never names whom he is talking about when referring to ambition, why did HRC think it was her unless this is actually true? If so whats wrong with that? why go after what kids said in third grade? Btw what did she want to be when she was 5yrs? Just curios.
Posted by: FebM | December 3, 2007 11:09 PM
So Romney feels he needs to explain Joe Smith, Golden Tablets, Racism, Sexism etc. Huckabee is a minister in the Southern Baptist Convention. They didn't reject their support of slavery until 1995. In 2000 they confirmed that only men could serve as ministers and married women are required to be subserviant to their husbands. Huckabee is the one who needs to explain his religious convictions !
Posted by: jharbison4 | December 3, 2007 7:14 PM
More important for Romney's so-called "JFK speech" is whether he will address his own religious bigotry. It will be highly hypocritical if he goes to College Station and pleads for tolerance for his Mormon faith while, at the same time, refusing outright to even consider appointing a Muslim to his cabinet if he's elected.
It's a shame that the media aren't calling him out on this more, or even mentioning it in the stories about this speech.
Posted by: edwardaggie98 | December 3, 2007 6:41 PM
I hope that Hilary will not turn too negative, since the main goal for us is to elect a Democrat.But I also recognize that her character has been under constant, if sometimes subtle, attack by both Obama and Edwards. It's fair game if she anwsers back. I hope she's careful, though. Obama still might be the best choice for VP
I also saw those other polls showing Hilary ahead. Are they less legitimate or important?
On the Republican side, it's hard to know who to root for. I feel like one of those survivor players, rooting for the weakest candidate to make it to the end.The New Yorker had a nice piece on Huckabee, saying basically that he was the most civil of the nut cases. His absurdly regressivetax plan won't go anywhere so we shouldn't worry, says the New Yorker. But the absurd has not been exactly a stranger in Washington the last decade, so that's cold comfort.
Posted by: jganth0 | December 3, 2007 5:22 PM
Isn't it just like Hillary, with her many public shortcomings of character over the decades, to attack Sen. O on character issues?!
Talk about throwing mud! Talk about spin! I hope the Dems. in Iowa aren't as gullible as she'd like them to be.
I'm a Dem. voter in NH, I'm a woman, & I will not support Hillary.
Posted by: Mruns | December 3, 2007 5:08 PM
I wonder how Mr Balz rationalizes his heavy reliance on a single poll. It seems like the sort of thing a responsible journalist would avoid.
There is a danger in having so many reporting man-hours allotted to the process and nuance of campaigning, rather than the substance of proposed policies. This article, heck, The Trail in general clearly demonstrates this.
Posted by: zukermand | December 3, 2007 4:42 PM
If a state held a political caucus, and nobody came, would anyone...except the MSM horse race reporters....care?
Posted by: angelos_peter | December 3, 2007 4:38 PM
Mr. Balz- another story with a caption about about Obama running away with Iowa.
What happened to reporting on the two new polls out today- AP/PEW and the University of Iowa poll, both with Clinton leading between 5 and 7% in Iowa and the PEW poll showing her with wide leads nationally and in NH and SC. Guess it doesn't fit your headlines or picture does it?
The bias keeps showing in the Washington Post!
Posted by: peterdc | December 3, 2007 4:28 PM
lnardozi writes
"And again no mention of Dr. Paul. Don't you wonder what the media is trying to hide?"
Its not that the media is trying to hide something, it is that the media recognizes something that Rep Paul's supporters have yet to realize - that he has zero chance of winning the Republican nomination. If he starts showing some signs of life in the polls, the media will start talking about his candidacy.
Posted by: bsimon | December 3, 2007 3:59 PM
And again no mention of Dr. Paul. Don't you wonder what the media is trying to hide? You know corporations run the media. Why don't corporations want us to have expanded personal freedom? Because they'd lose their free lunch that they're getting from our tax dollars!
Posted by: lnardozi | December 3, 2007 3:25 PM
All Romney has to do in his JFK speech is to establish unequivocally that even though God's word didn't end with the Old and New Testament, but instead carries on in the Book of Mormon, this doesn't matter because of our firm constitutional separation of church and state.
Posted by: FirstMouse | December 3, 2007 2:55 PM
Anyone interested in what Huckabee is really like face to face should try this funny (but it actually happened) column:
http://goupstate.us/index.php/lanefiller/2007/11/02/title_14
Posted by: lanefiller | December 3, 2007 2:47 PM
Oh just admit it. It is having to listen to a Joyous Mormon Tabernacle Choir after the Election is won everyone dreads!
LOL!
The Republicans have an oppportunity to display what EVERYONE Craves. Political COOPERATION! TEAM UP! Now!
Mitt Romney with a "Huck" VP, a VP position made very strong by Cheney, with the others in the Cabinet, keeps the Congressmen in Congress!
It also makes a very Formidable and Capable Exectutive Branch for even a Dim-Led Congress to HAVE to deal with!
"HALELUJAH!, HALELUJAH!!!"
There, that wasn't sooooo bad, now was it?
Posted by: rat-the | December 3, 2007 2:45 PM
It would be nice if Romney's speech was as direct as JFK's. The separation of Church and State is absolute, no government funding for private religious schools, no interference with by church leaders in policy deliberations. Back then the fear was that a Catholic would "take orders from the Pope". Now the fear seems to be that a Mormon won't take orders from Jesus. Hasn't the extreme religious evangelical right-wing caused enough trouble? Where are the strict constitutionalists now?
Posted by: thebobbob | December 3, 2007 2:35 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
Clinton votes twice for war because polls tells her it's popular. Obama argues against the war, despite the polls. And Clinton calls Obama a coward?