It's pretty easy to get caught up in the politics of the day. Did you see that video? How many people turned out for that rally? He said what in Nevada?! Actually, it is way too easy to find yourself buried under the daily happenings and ripples. What I want and need you to do right now is step back from it all and count to 10, slowly and backwards. Go ahead... do it.
There. Doesn't that feel better?
Now I want you to see the box of everyday politics but not go back inside of it. Instead, I want you to consider what was going on prior to the 2004 election. Sen. John Kerry had been named the Democratic nominee (although not officially). He was looking around for a running mate and several names were being tossed around. Who was being considered?
At that same time, the DNC was considering another dress rehearsal of the dreaded (at least in Iowa and New Hampshire) calendar committee which would take a look at, and possibly make adjustments to, the 2008 Presidential contest calendar.
Who holds the most power in the DNC? (Hint: It isn't the Chairman) One of the most powerful men in Iowa was on very good terms with the person who could, effectively and with one word, put an end to the calendar committee. Knowing what was at stake for Iowa, why wouldn't that "Iowan" go to bat for the home team?
Skip forward now to the formation of the calendar committee and the Iowans who were a part of the voting process. Once everything was made public, those same individuals were the first to claim to voting with New Hampshire (that is, voting against the calendar which placed Nevada between Iowa and New Hampshire, VIOLATING OUR OWN STATE LAW). If that was true, why was/is New Hampshire so ticked off at Iowa? Could it be that there was a series of votes and the Iowans only sided with our longterm NH friends on the final vote? Knowing a strong partnership with New Hampshire was a very good thing for Iowa, why would those sent to the DNC to represent Iowa vote against our best interests?
And why now, when faced with the fact that the current DNC calendar violates our own state law (the one which requires the Iowa caucus to be at least eight days prior to any other Presidential contest), why has no action been taken by the State Central Committee to rectify the situation? Hell, the way things are going, I wouldn't be surprised if party leaders asked Democratic elected officials to change the election law to allow for Nevada to be put between Iowa and New Hampshire!
As we've stated before, this is the time for Iowa's true leaders to stand up. We must repair the relationship with Iowa and New Hampshire. We must take any and all necessary steps to guarantee Iowa goes first in the nation -- and at least eight days ahead of any other contest.
Above all else, we the people need to make our voices heard. We need to remind our Democratic leaders they were sent to the DNC as representatives of Iowa -- not to represent the DNC to Iowans. What is happening right now is proof those representing Iowa to the DNC are either disingenuous or incompetent. Either way, they should be immediately replaced.
Getting back to the daily political box of happenings, let's consider what the rumor mill is serving up: former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, fresh from ending his own campaign for lack of funds, is set to endorse the candidate with the deepest pockets (Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton). Why?
Clinton has just about everything going for her right now. She has money, name recognition, money, Bill, money, JoDee, money, powerful friends, money, huge rallies, money and, of course, money. While all those things are pretty important when facing a Super Tuesday event such as what is shaping up on Feb. 5, they aren't 'all that' when campaigning in Iowa. Matter-of-fact, nearly all of those things she has going for her are liabilities in Iowa where retail politics just don't play.
There is a reason why Sen. Barack Obama and Clinton are seeing their campaigns lose steam in Iowa while others (i.e., former Sen. John Edwards, Sen. Chris Dodd) are moving forward. Iowa's caucus-going public doesn't like being one of 1,000 at an event. Candidates are not merely convincing a constituent to go behind a curtain and pull a lever or fill in an oval. Here people must be inspired to become ambassadors of their chosen candidate and bring others to him/her. That, thank God, cannot happen by advertisement and mega-events alone.
In short, all the money in the world cannot buy an Iowa caucus win. It's what makes us different from the rest of the nation and one of the key reasons we have and should be first in the nation.
If you want to understand the importance of meeting or beating expectations when it comes to Iowa, go visit with Gov. Howard Dean. When Iowa goes first, and there is at least an eight day window for the press coverage and bounce, candidates know they must win the game of expectations.
I know that box is calling you to come back and look at the latest video or transcript, but before you go... please consider: Who would benefit if the importance of the Iowa caucuses was diminished?
![[Essential Estrogen]](http://www.essentialestrogen.com/gfx/blank.gif)

Comments (2)
"retail politics just don't play." I assume you mistyped and meant wholesale politics - that's the massive ad buy, gigantic rally, air-war variety. Retail politics is what Iowa is famous for.
And, counterintuitively, I think it's turning out that the more front-loaded the calendar becomes, Iowa gains influence, rather than loses it. There's no way anyone can compete in 25 states on February 5 if they don't show well here on January 14. Before this year Iowa was influencial in shaping the outcome of other early (ie, small) state contests; now Iowa holds the key for everything after the caucuses. It is now very likely to be true, in a way we have never seen before, that whoever wins Iowa will win the nomiation.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Posted by iPol | March 24, 2007 10:02 AM
Posted on March 24, 2007 10:02
Yes, you are correct... my blunder for using 'retail politics' in lieu of 'wholesale politics'
Iowa seems to gain influence with the the front-loaded calendar because right now on paper, Iowa is shown as leading things off on Jan. 14. Unfortunately, that is only on paper.
Once Iowa is leap-frogged or sits only 24 hours in front of another contest, our importance is drastically reduced. (How many will sit around for victory parties in Iowa if the N.H. primary is the following day? How long of a news cycle bounce will the winner -- or loser -- get in that same scenario?)
The influence you view Iowa as gaining right now, is not attributed necessarily to our state but to the state which leads the pack. In as much as it is naive to believe Iowa will caucus on Jan. 14, it is equally as naive to believe Iowa maintains its importance if it isn't First in the Nation.
Posted by Original Author | March 24, 2007 10:33 PM
Posted on March 24, 2007 22:33