Rock, if you were to say Obama would win in Brooklyn, I'd run out to make a wager, but how much time do you spend in Iowa?

I don't think race is important among the people Obama is trying to reach -- the post-1960s generations. So I don't think it will be as much of an issue as some believe. He certainly hasn't made an issue of it.

Moreover, because Iowa is so white, the Black vs. White hosility that existed back in the day probably didn't exist there. No crime, no welfare, no lynchings, no Jim Crow, no ghettos, no issues. And Iowa isn't a place many people from outside move to.

But that also makes it a very old state demographically, with the oldest housing stock in the United States.

I guess we'll see.

And Maltese will defeat Addabbo in the State senate, Roc!

http://joeaddabboagenda.blogspot.com

I've been saying this since I've been hearing this argument that Race will affect Obama's bid, and here I'll say it again: Obama has transcended race enough in this campaign that the only people who his skin colour would cause them to vote against him wouldn't ever vote Democrat, anyways.

Obama has transcended race just enough that the average Democrat probably wouldn't think twice about voting for him due to his race. If it were Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson running I would say that many Democrats may have a problem with that...but Barack's charismatic and inclusive style leaves only the most bigoted of voters to worry about his race, and they usually vote Republican...so who cares!

Obama '08 

Well, it's nearly neck and neck in Iowa...Hillary, John and Barack. The idea that Iowans will buck with the conventional wisdom that the nomination is Hillary's for the taking is appealing. And why not think that? I mean, after all, look at 2004, everyone said that Howard Dean was an unstoppable freight train to the nomination, but then Iowans caucused and said "not so fast governor." Then came the scream and, well, we know what happened next. But Is Barack like John Kerry? I think not.

Your theory will only work if Barack has made a case study of the campaign of Howard Dean and does not make the same mistakes in Iowa that Howard did. Because, Howard, although he was the front runner in 2004, was a candidate much more like Barack than Hillary. And he majorly screwed up in Iowa. It wasn't just the scream that killed him—that was after the caucus where he came in third. It was poor organizing on the ground. He had more volunteers in Iowa than every other campaign combined. He had more grassroots support than all the other candidates combined. On top of that, he had more money than the other candidates. Well, what happened in Iowa? Well, lots has been written on the topic, but a lot of people feel that the young hip enthusiastic Deaniacs were actually a turn-off to the regular caucus goers. Who did they go for? Not the upstart anti-war candidate beloved by the left, with young, enthusiastic volunteers, but the establishment candidate who voted for the war, but who they thought was "electable."

I'm not sure how Barack doesn't go down the same road that Howard did.

The confidence exuded by Rock Hackshaw in this post is palpable. And that is understandable, given the recent poll data about Obama's lead, Clinton's missteps surrounding illegal immigration and any detailed info Hackshaw may have about Obama's campaign activities in Iowa.

In the end, it will not matter. Obama will be neither President nor Democratic Nominee in 2008, because the collective American psyche is simply not prepared to accept such a possibility. But what about Iowa?

Examining previous caucuses will be of little use. There are several untested variables to consider, such as Obama's crossover appeal & Oprah Winfrey's active participation. And let's face it, Clinton's poor performance has hurt her more than anything else.

Moreover, even those polled demonstrate their soft support for their preferred candidates. According to ABC's own analysis, "forty-three percent say there's a chance they could change their minds by the Jan. 3 caucuses; 20 percent say there's a good chance of it."

And there is no correlation between what Democratic Iowans SAY they're going to do to a pollster or campaign canvasser on the phone and what caucus goers are ACTUALLY GOING TO DO in January. And it all comes back to turnout, turnout and more turnout. And when all is said and done, will caucus going Iowans have the courage to stand up hand this victory to a Black man?

I (sadly) do not think so. But maybe that's because I'm just an old, Black cynic.

Caucuses are an insider's game.  I have been to caucuses in Iowa and they can be an intimidating experience, to have to stand up in public, voice your preference out loud and defend it.  Time and again it has proven that older voters caucus for this reason, not younger voters.  Howard Dean begged and pleaded for younger voters across Iowa to go caucus for him.  They said they would, but when push came to shove, and it came down to actually going out at night and pubicly caucusing with all these older people, they would not do it.  Older voters decide caucuses and older voters vote establishment.

Obama has a chance, but it is dependent on the support of John Edwards collapsing.  Edwards, like Gephardt four years ago, only has strong support in Iowa, he is in single digits in most other places.  If Edwards supporters decide, as Gephardt supporters did four years ago, that he cannot win, they will desert him.  If this happens, polls show Obama is a stronger second choice for them than Hillary.   However Hillary may be a stronger second choice for the ten to twelve percent backing Bill Richardson.  So it is hard to tell. 

Also do not underestimate the lurking presence of Bill Clinton, who will certainly be unleashed by Team Hillary if it looks like they might lose Iowa.  He'll be all over the news and at the main caucus sites and rallies.  Older voters will find it very hard to go against him, and by extension Hillary. 

The press is abuzz with reports this morning of a secret meeting here in town between Barack Obama and Michael Bloomberg.  It could be a potential endorsement, but what if it is more?  Obama's single biggest polling weakness is his lack of political experience.  So what if the solution, the way to make him much stronger, is for Barack to announce in December that Mike Bloomberg has agreed to be his runningmate?  It is not unprecedented for a presidential candidate to announce his vp choice in the primary season, Reagan did it in 1976.  

Obama-Bloomberg would be a hell of a ticket and his presence early standing next to Barack would lend a lot of weight to his campaign and counterbalance attacks Hillary's outright or veiled attacks against his youth and experience.

That is how he may win.  Asking out-of-staters to caucus in Iowa - while technically allowed - skirts the definition of cheating and surely runs counter to the spirit of the Democratic Caucus.

But there is a one in three chance that Obama will get this anyway, so there's nothing particularly surprising about your prediction.  It's like predicting that the roll of a dice will be a 3 or a 4 on your next throw.

But one thing is for sure - with all this hoopla about Obama's momentum - if he doesn't get Iowa - he's done for.  He has set himself up for this by all this hoopla and this will be a make-or-break state for him as much as it is for Edwards now.