I’m writing this post. I’ll put it up when it becomes available. I basically want to recount my time in South Carolina in detail.

I can’t say I’m a huge fan of Mike Gravel. Ever since the first Democratic presidential debate last March, his rants against the establishment have aggravated many voters and distanced him from the mainstream.

It’s no wonder this guy has been excluded from the debates; he’s the longest of the long shot, an elder statesmen trying to make a comeback against impossible odds. And honestly, I wish he would have just retired and maintained his dignity.

But as much as I disagree with his presidential run, I appreciate his service as the senator from Alaska. He worked to release the Pentagon Papers, and has long been a staunch advocate for direct democracy.

He’s a liberal–a decent one at that.

But when I see this interview, posted on his website, criticizing other Democrats, I lost respect for a man I once considered to be a respectable, crazy old man.

Here’s the part that I take issue with:

Q: So then what do you make of Obama’s promise of change and all the rhetoric that’s been going on in this campaign?
A: Foolish. Foolish. Dangerous, dangerous. Because he doesn’t even recognize that he can’t deliver. That’s dangerous. I would rather Hillary, at least she recognizes what she’s talking about. He doesn’t
Q: Edwards?
A: Edwards, he probably knows better what he’s talking about than Obama. Obama of the three is most dangerous. Because he raises greater expectations of the youth, that he can’t deliver. The worst thing a leader can do is raise the expectations, and they don’t happen. You create a whole new generation of cynics. And that’s what he’s doing. And it’s youth that line up that have a reason to hear what he’s saying.

This is exactly what is wrong with politics today. Saying we can’t get things done. The can’t do, won’t do, won’t even try to do attitude. What breeds cynicism more: nurturing the attitude that we can’t do something, or failing to do something and trying again? A least in the later were making progress through discussion.

What I don’t think Mike Gravel understands is that Barack Obama is pushing for a new age of politics–one that bases itself upon bipartisan negotiation and progress. You have to raise expectations to demand things out of your leaders. And you can’t say, “oh well we can’t promise things because we might not deliver them.” Gravel should know himself as an advocate of direct democracy, the purpose of government is to serve the people. And when leaders make promises to the people and don’t deliver for illegitimate reasons, they should be kicked out of office.

Energizing and revitalizing the younger generation out of apathy does not breed cynicism. It breeds awareness of the problems that we face as a nation today. Obama has done so much to inspire youth to care about politics today. To say that he is de facto breeding cynicism based on the presumption that he can’t deliver seems unrealistic, if not anti-democratic.

I expect more of Sen. Gravel. For a man who advocates against the establishment, he sure knows how to play the Washington game.

* Feel free to apply the name “Mike” to Mike Huckabee as well. I’ll spare you my evangelical conservative rant, however the statement is accurate in that instance as well.

Hillary Clinton’s website currently says, “Keep the momentum going!” Her 3% victory gives her campaign the right to claim that she’s building momentum. But is it?

I would say (as once released in a memo by Clinton Chief Strategist Mark Penn following Obama’s Iowa victory) “Where’s the bounce?” Where is Hillary’s bounce after winning New Hampshire?

Barack Obama was endorsed by the Nevada SEIU and the major Culinary Workers Union that represents over 60,000 union members. Next Saturday, they will surely be a force in Nevada’s democratic primary. As it stands, they’re one of the major political aparatuses in the state of Nevada, and with their ground support working in conjunction with Obama’s all ready impressive Nevada field operation, I see a serious race building up in the nation’s first western caucus.

And today Obama was endorsed by former Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry (D-MA). A huge endorsement that lends the Obama campaign the support of more establishment Democrats. Adding to Kerry was the endorsement of South Dakota Sen. Tim Johnson, and Rep. George Miller of California. Says MSNBC’s Chuck Todd:

California congressman George Miller (D) is also backing Obama’s presidential campaign. This is perhaps the closest thing to getting a Nancy Pelosi endorsement as you can come without actually getting it. Miller is incredibly close with her politically. He wouldn’t be doing this without her consent of sorts.

Tons of endorsements following his New Hampshire loss: unions, senators and a representative with a close connection to the Speaker of the House. But where are Hillary’s endorsements? Where’s her bounce?

Certainly not in the fund raising battle. In the first 8 days of this month, Obama raised $8 million dollars compared with Hillary’s $3 million. The morning after his loss in New Hampshire, he received $500,000 in contributions online.

And lets be honest, no one in the press wants to see Hillary win. No one wants to report that the establishment candidate trumped the little guy. It’s no wonder they hyped the polls and coverage in the days leading up to New Hampshire… it’s just not a good story.

And in the realm of poll numbers- traditionally after a victory in an early state, your candidate makes gains. Hillary’s win may have slowed Obama’s momentum, but it certainly has not killed it. He is still leading by wide margins in South Carolina and his field operation in Nevada is growing stronger. (Still no polls out of Nevada yet).

Insider Advantage, Jan. 9, 2007
Obama 40%
Clinton 33%

Rasmussen, Jan. 9, 2007
Obama 42%
Clinton 30%

Honestly, Hillary will have to destroy him with win after win to kill his momentum. She can claim she has it, but in reality, she has neither the poll numbers, nor the endorsements, nor the finances to demonstrate it. Obama is a runaway train in the Democratic party; he’s emblematic of a movement and I don’t know if the Clinton’s can stop it.

I guess we’ll see.

I thought I would share an article that has several quotes from me on the front page of the Wilmington News Journal Jan. 8. It’s about youth activism.

The college campaign
Candidates are increasingly aiming at young people, and they’re responding
By RACHEL KIPP, The News Journal

New Hampshire Final Results
Clinton 39%
Obama 37%

First thing’s first. I think this discussion of the Hillary Clinton “surge”, “comeback” and/or “decisive victory” is overplayed if not factually inaccurate.

For reasons unknown and unforeseen, every poll taken in New Hampshire was wrong. Obama went into the New Hampshire primary with an RCP average of 8.3%. New Hampshire polls had Obama up; a Suffolx University poll had him up by 5, and WMUR by 9.

But I dispute the media calling this a victory for the Clinton campaign. It was extremely close, and a win is a win for the Clintons. But don’t make the mistake of thinking that she had to “overcome” anything–the only thing she had to “overcome” was lowered expectations as a result of faulty polling.

Tomorrow, several media and consulting firms have a lot of explaining to do.

The Clinton campaign doesn’t know what to expect in New Hampshire. Following a dramatic Iowa loss, the New York senator is bracing for her worst nightmare in the Granite State: an influx of independents (roughly 45% of New Hampshire’s voting bloc) and youth for the Illinois senator.

The latest polls from New Hampshire show an Obama surge, though the depth of that surge is unknown. What is known for certain is that Obama is up and Clinton is down. Looking at a graph from pollster.com we can gain a better understanding of where the candidates were as far back as early 2007: Clinton on top, Obama below.

Starting around October and into November, the Clinton’s developed a mentality that their firewall, should Obama or Edwards win Iowa, was New Hampshire. They assumed that their high numbers in the state would stall any candidates’ momentum. A memo was leaked from within the Clinton campaign last May suggesting a pull out from Iowa; it’s safe to suggest that Clinton Chief Strategist Mark Penn realized Iowa’s unfavorable climate toward Hillary.

But the firewall theory proved faulty. Hillary Clinton polled high only because people know her from 15 years in the national spotlight and once people started paying attention to the election, they reexamined their choice. Senator Obama was not well known nationally, and still isn’t if you believe he is 20 points behind. But in the early states where people were getting to know him, he became a sensation. The Clintons soon had a new title pinned to their backs: the establishment.

Last Thursday during Clinton’s concession speech in Iowa, she surrounded herself with Madeline Albright, Bill Clinton, and Wesley Clark… it was almost something out of a wax museum… relics of the past, the old party gargoyles if you will.

Obama’s victory party projected something of a different tone. His speech was given before a youthful, alive and enthusiastic audience, and his very image and persona projected newness and change. He was not the candidate of the establishment; he was the new guy on the block–the Washington outsider, the change agent, who’s victory symbolized the power of overcoming expectations and running against “the machine.”

Obama now has the big momentum that may just carry him through New Hampshire. He is popular among independents and Democrats alike–a coalition builder who very well could win the Democratic nomination. The Clinton strategy: stall him. Should she lose in New Hampshire her campaign will focus on winning “closed-ballot” states where independents are closed from voting in Democratic primaries. The reality is that despite a competitive Democratic primary, Hillary wins over more party-line Democrats than Obama. Her lesson from Iowa: resist the independent vote and narrow the universe of potential voters to just party Democrats. Good for her campaign, but not for the party.

But with so much excitement coming from Obama, is this really the strategy we as a party want to pursue? Block our expansion by nominating a polarizing candidate who’s unfavorables are through the roof? Is that the kind of bitter, ill fought, mudslinging general election we want in 2008? And why take swipes at a guy who’s building the Democratic base, forming coalitions among those who don’t traditionally vote in primaries or elections: the young, the poor, minorities. Groups who came out in huge numbers for the Illinois senator in Iowa.

Because really, a big tent coalition like that can beat any of the Republican candidates in ‘08, and we can’t afford to lose again.

Wow, did Hillary get angry with Obama and Edwards. It was fairly clear early on that she was upset over the Iowa result, but I really never expected her to lash out on the definition of change like that. Yeesh.

Anyway, here are my comments throughout the debate:

9:15: Gibson continually interrupts Obama as he is discussing how our shift in attention from Pakistan to Iraq has lead to turmoil in the region.
9:24: Richardson blah blah blah on nuclear terrorism, my mind wanders when he talks.
9:32: The issue is health care, why is Hillary attacking Obama on his vote to fund troops in Iraq?
9:34: Edwards: “forces of the status quo” Ouch for Hillary, just ouch.
9:37: Clinton gets pissed at Edwards, unbelievable. She’s talking about how her 35 years in service have “worked toward change.” I don’t think she understands the concept.
9:39: Richardson says “what’s wrong with experience?” Oh Bill, experience is your life. Maybe that’s why you’re polling at 5%.
9:41: Question over change, Edwards now struggling to redeem himself from looking too over the top. Or perhaps a brilliant strategy? I don’t know.
9:50: Clinton “that hurts my feelings.” Oh my gosh, she shows her human side! What’s with Obama’s “you’re likable enough” moment?
9:52: Clinton: “In 2000 we elected a president we wanted to have a beer with.” Wow, she just compared the front runner with Bush, that can’t be good. That whole image of change was just compared to Bush, I think that can back fire.
10:00: Clinton: “I am the agent of change” What??? No you’re not, if establishment had a name, she’d be named Hillary.
10:07: Edwards on the Patients Bill of Rights… nice stump speech incorporation.
10:09: Same with Obama, more stump speech.
10:15: Hillary’s “reality check” moment.
10:16: Obama should address Hillary’s accusation about his NH co-chair being a lobbyist. That’s probably a distortion of facts.
10:17: STOP BEING NOSTALGIC ABOUT THE CLINTON YEARS, we want to look to the future, not the past!
10:21: “Words inspire.” I love it Obama. “Words are power”.
10:29: Gibson asks question to Edwards, Hillary interrupts to talk about tax cuts.
10:32: Obama: “We have to get back to a bottom up economic growth system for middle class families.”
10:33: Richardson goes off topic, talks about education and art??
10:35: Hillary attacks Republicans. Tries to be above the fray when she’s been negative all night. Doesn’t answer Gibson’s question about your “worst debate moment which you’d want to take back.” I think everyone knows hers is the illegal immigrant licenses question. I wonder why she so humorously decided not to respond. Has she clarified her position?
10:37: Obama talks about the Republicans and ending their policies of fear. Good job, stay about the fray. Nice end.

Bill Richardson: Didn’t really stand out. Whenever I listen to him my mind wanders. He lacks enthusiasm, he lacks some energy and he’s too centric on his resume. He personifies the typical “experience” candidate which unfortunately, is not what were looking for right now.

John Edwards: Good decision sticking with Obama and attacking Clinton, though I thought in attacking Hillary he risked a backlash against himself. Overall, good night for John.

Barack Obama: I think he won tonight’s debate. He didn’t make any policy errors, he remained calm and had a few good lines. He didn’t gravitate to the extreme of being docile (like Richardson) or being over the top (like Edwards). He acted, well, presidential.

Hillary Clinton: She looked pissed. She had a moment which is going to be aired again and again and again. Voters will wonder whether she can handle stress under fire. She did have a few good moments where she showed her “human” side, but overall I don’t think those will be the clips that make the morning news.

Side note here: Just moments after the debate, Hillary Clinton’s people posted two videos that seemingly contradict one another on Obama’s single payer health system. I find it funny that Clinton vowed not to go negative in New Hampshire but they’re willing to try to dig up muck.

Hillary’s “Moment”:

According to Political Wire, here are what the pundits have said about tonight’s debate:

Chuck Todd: “The focus on this debate for so many in New Hampshire and the media was twofold — how would Obama handle being the frontrunner and how would Clinton handle be the challenger. Well, thanks to a subdued format, Obama seemed to pass his test with flying colors… I’m not sure David Axelrod could have scripted this debate better if he did it himself.”

Rick Klein: “Edwards may have turned in the strongest pure performance. But that will be overshadowed by a couple of stand-out Clinton moments. She let it all out tonight — the entire book on Obama. But she opened the book on herself with those flashes of anger. New Hampshire voters don’t like candidates who feel entitled to nominations — they get to decide, things are not foreordained and candidates are not inevitable. Sen. Clinton had some moments tonight she’ll want to take back.”

Chris Cilliza: “The challenge Clinton faced in tonight’s debate — and the challenge she faces in the New Hampshire primary more broadly — is that Edwards clearly believes his path to the nomination requires bouncing out Clinton to create a one on one race with Obama over who is the true change agent in the field.”

Marc Ambinder: “Iowa victor Obama had a target on his back, but he’s acquired a Kevlar vest as a front runner. Like Clinton tonight, he was unflappable.”

And if the politicos can’t convince you that Obama won last night than maybe Frank Lutz and his focus group can give us some insight:

Obama has two enemies: Hillary Clinton and John McCain. For Obama to be victorious in New Hampshire he must win over enough Democrats to beat Hillary Clinton, and enough independents to beat John McCain. Remember that New Hampshire is notoriously independent (45%).

Winning Democrats:
Target: Hillary Clinton

Barack Obama could win the Democratic vote in New Hampshire. Many polls have him pulling even with Clinton. Lets look an ARG poll out today:

American Research Group, Jan. 5., 2008
Among NH Democrats:
Clinton 34%
Obama 32%

Rasmussen Reports gives Sen. Obama a 65% chance of winning the New Hampshire primary. Many polls have him tied with Hillary among Democrats. A CNN/WMUR poll shows 60% of New Hampshire independents and Democrats planning to vote in the Democratic primary see Obama as an agent of change. Rasmussen’s poll shows Obama leading in the quality of electability, and what we’ve seen from Iowa is a strong urgency to vote against the establishment.

With Clinton’s aura of inevitability vanished, with her electability argument diminished, and with Obama’s message of change, I think it’s very possible for him to win New Hampshire. Clinton is currently struggling to define her message in the shadow of a devastating loss.

TIME magazine has a great piece on the Clinton Campaign’s internal turmoil.

Winning Independents:
Target: John McCain

Reports the Washington Post:

In virtually every demographic category where Obama found his greatest strength in Iowa, New Hampshire’s electorate has at least as many or more of those voters, based on a comparison of the entrance polls from Thursday’s caucuses in Iowa and from the 2004 Democratic primary in Hampshire.

Take independents. They constituted 20 percent of the caucus electorate in Iowa on Thursday, but four years ago in New Hampshire they constituted nearly half (48 percent) of the Democratic electorate.

Obama is competing with McCain for that independent vote. In Iowa, he won 51% of the Iowa independent vote.

Reports the New York Times:

Polls here say that almost two-thirds of these voters are leaning Democratic, making them particularly critical to Mr. Obama’s effort to win a second contest in a row. Meanwhile, Mr. McCain is trying to tap into this pool of voters to edge out former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts.

I think that Obama’s fresh appeal, that appeal to change, will give him more support than McCain in New Hampshire among independents.

New Polls
American Research Group, Jan. 5, 2008
Obama 38%
Clinton 26%

Concord Monitor, Jan. 5, 2008
Obama 34%
Clinton 33%

CNN/WMUR, Jan. 5, 2008
Obama 33%
Clinton 33%

Rasmussen Reports, Jan. 5, 2008
Obama 37%
Clinton 27%

Historic. A junior Senator of African descent has won the Iowa caucus. Really, not only did he win it, he crushed his opponents big time. Iowa, a state which has never elected an African American to office, has elevated Senator Obama to front runner status.

Final Iowa Caucus Results:
Sen. Barack Obama 38%
Fmr. Sen. John Edwards 30%
Sen. Hillary Clinton 29%

It’s a political earthquake to the likes of which this country has never seen. Lets look at the breaking news as Obama emerges victorious Thursday night:
MSNBC (1 min).

CNN: (40 sec)

CNN’s breakdown of what demographics went for who is available here.

Here are some things that I noticed:

1. Youth came out in tremendous numbers to support Obama. In the counties of Iowa State University and the University of Iowa, Obama won in a landslide. CNN reports that 57% of voters between the ages of 17 and 35 voted Obama. Unprecedented for that generation to turn out in such large numbers… a generation which in 2004 only 14% voted in the general election. I think this speaks to the quality of Senator Obama’s message, his call to change, his appeal of newness, his exciting and engaging personality, that excites so many youth.
2. Men and women both went for Obama. Women–a demographic heavily courted by the Clinton campaign broke for Obama 35%, compared with Clinton’s 30%.
3. The wealthy and the poor broke for Obama. He won over caucus-goers who earn less than $50k a year by 34%, and those over $50k a year by 36%. Particularly interesting: 41% of those earning $100k a year + caucused for Obama. John Edwards, who’s entire message has been to fight poverty, was dealt a major blow. His central campaign theme fell upon def ears in many of these precincts: only 19% of those earning under $50k a year voted Edwards, and among the even poorer–less than $15k a year, Edwards lost with only 17%.
4. 51% of Obama’s supporters caucused for him because they find him most likely to bring about change. John Edwards, who’s been echoing the same theme, only had it resonate with 20% of his caucus-goers. Hillary Clinton, who in recent days also harped on the change message, got 19% of Iowa Democrats caucusing for change.
5. In the experience question, the lines couldn’t be more definite: 5% of Obama’s supporters caucused for experience, compared with 49% of Clinton’s supporters who caucused for her experience qualities.
6. Obama and Clinton equally won over union households, 30% apiece. A big upset to Edwards, who counted on union endorsements to put him over the top, received 24% of their support.

What does this mean? Well unprecedented turn out– approx. 230,000 people, nearly double 2004. 20% more independents voted in the Democratic caucus, most of whom went to Barack Obama.

Image from Huffington Post.

I think this is it for John Edwards. This is the best he’s going to do. A second place showing is not enough to catapult him into New Hampshire where he does not have the ground organization or the fund raising reservoirs to compete with Obama and Clinton.

Now Obama has a huge fund raising and psychological advantage. On the fund raising side he’s going to raise millions within the next few days, and Clinton’s Silicon Valley supporters are going to be edgy, soon flooding her offices with calls expressing concern and anxiety over Obama’s feat. Psychologically, Obama has this huge lead in Iowa, which may very well resonate with New Hampshire voters when they read the headlines this morning.

But I’d like to focus specifically on John Edwards. He appeared on Larry King last night and had an interesting, yet hypocritical, spin to his second (nearly third) place showing. He said the Obama campaign won because they outspent him by millions and millions of dollars in advertising (nearly $9 million) and yet he beat the Clinton campaign who, as he said, also spent millions and millions of dollars ($7 million). He pointed to how little advertising he’s been doing in recent weeks, and his second place showing as a sign of momentum.

I say baloney. Edwards has been camped out in Iowa for the past 4 years, it’s devastating to his campaign that he did not capture the first place victory that they were dependent upon to bounce him into New Hampshire. It’s a equally devastating that the Clinton camp spent $7 million dollars in advertising–in the end, equal to Edwards’ time spent in Iowa. How hypocritical to suggest that one person spends millions, but hey, I beat the other person who spent millions as well, and point to the millions that person spent as a burden you’ve overcome. You can’t take two people who’ve spent millions, lose to one, win to the other, and say that spending millions is a burden you’ve overcome.

But enough about John Edwards, I think his economic populism will certainly not be able to turn out the massive amounts of independents to win in NH, nor will it appeal to the libertarianism of New Hampshire voters. I predict that after New Hampshire he’ll become increasingly irrelevant. (Thinking back to his 4th place finish in 2004).

Let’s begin to look at New Hampshire, at least initially. Polling there shows a tight race, like Iowa. Edwards attempted to spin it tonight on Larry King as still a three way race, but polls show a different story. This will be a Clinton-Obama show down.

The big question, can an Obama Iowa victory be the “umph” he needs to win New Hampshire? Well, he certainly has a catapult.

Franklin-Pierce, Jan. 1, 2008
Clinton 32%
Obama 28%

CNN/WMUR, Dec. 30, 2007
Clinton 33%
Obama 31%

American Research Group, Dec. 30, 2007
Clinton 31%
Obama 27%

Obama clearly within shooting range of Clinton in all these polls. I think within the next few days we’ll see some interesting new numbers come out of New Hampshire that show some kind of bounce. Of course he’ll still have to invest millions into the state and campaign hard, but hey, Hillary looks beatable, and independents may realize he’s their guy.

Equally bad for the Clinton camp: both her electability and inevitability arguments have been destroyed. Clinton is no longer seen as the most electable Democrat, and her aura of inevitability, that shield that we saw in earlier debates, has been punctured.

Of final notes in terms of political repercussions. Biden and Dodd drop out, Gravel, despite MSNBC’s report that he dropped out, is actually still in. Kucinich is to compete in New Hampshire. Earlier reports of deal making between Richardson and Obama and Biden and Obama have been publicly denounced, but were privately encouraged. Reports Political Wire: “Multiple reports — such as this one from The Hotline — confirming that Biden and Richardson backers are being urged to support Obama.” And this video from David Gregory.