The debate’s ferocity set a new standard for Democratic combativeness.

What America saw tonight was all of the pent up opposition research from Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards spill out on stage as if from a giant, perforated spleen at the Republican National Committee.

Already, Democrats with loyalties in this race and some who remain neutral have fretted to The Bourbon Room that the biggest winner tonight was the likely Republican nominee (Edwards said it would be John McCain). Yet other Democrats found the debate tense but mild when compared to Democratic campaigns of yore.

The debate will test what the campaigns have been unwilling to test on the airwaves — the effectiveness of direct, personal attacks on each other. Every perceived weakness came under assault and each candidate left the stage more bloodied than he or she arrived.

The debate’s greatest contribution was the time alloted for lengthy rebuttal. This gave the debate some of its most sizzling intensity and allowed for dramatic policy contrasts (such as on universal health care, trade and approaches to economic stimulus).

Winners and losers can’t be tabulated based solely on the debate performance.

If they could be, Edwards would again emerge as the clear winner. His crisp, passionate specificity again outshone Clinton and Obama. This is undoubtedly the kind of joust Edwards desperately needed in Iowa, where he still had a fighting chance to win the nomination. If this debate happened in Iowa, Edwards could have contrasted himself against the aggressively nagging and negative Obama-Clinton interplay that dominated the first hour of tonight’s debate (of course, this kind of debate would never have happened in Iowa which is always why Edwards never actually had a chance in this race).

Sadly for Edwards and his diminishing band of supporters, his performance tonight, while cogent, will probably most be remembered for providing either comedic relief or a welcome respite from the Clinton-Obama sniping. The debate could boost Edwards in South Carolina, but since he’s so far behind here it’s unlikely to propel him to victory.

The key question, then, is if Edwards rises who suffers? Clinton or Obama? The Bourbon Room surmises the votes will most likely come from Clinton.

And that’s not because Obama beat Clinton. I’d call their battle a draw on points. But if Edwards rises as a result of tonight’s strong performance, he will more likely take support from Clinton because the arc of the debate highlighted her deep ties to lobbyists, her support for the Iraq war and, in general, the exaggerated criticisms she or her husband have leveled at Obama. Also, on issues where the three did not argue - such as poverty, Dr. Martin Luther King’s legacy, and Toni Morrison’s musings on the blackness of the Clinton presidency — Obama and Edwards were more confidently and naturally eloquent. Clinton didn’t stumble in these moments, but Obama and Edwards out-performed her.

Obama probably lost ground on health care because “universal” vs. “non-universal” polls off the charts with core Democrats (they want universal and, at bare minimum, the fight to START with the goal of universal coverage).

Clinton probably lost ground on Iraq and the stimulus. On the war, criticizing Obama for voting for war funds doesn’t make him a pro-war. Plenty of other anti-war liberals have voted to fund the troops fighting the war. That doesn’t make them pro-war. It makes them accountable to powerless volunteers who didn’t ask to fight the war, merely to have the equipment to prosecute it as best as they can. On economic stimulus, Clinton was first to unveil a comprehensive plan. But that plan did not highlight tax rebates. Hillary said they were held in reserve to avoid tempting congressional Republicans to reopen that debate over extending the Bush tax cuts. As Hillary must know, that was going to happen anyway. Also, many economists fear her call for a five-year freeze on mortgage loan interest rates will drive up the cost of future mortgages and thereby further delay any rebound in the housing market.

Edwards lost ground on trade and the bankruptcy bill, but since these issues are largely peripheral, the damage was less severe.

In summary, Edwards gained tonight. And since he and Obama sounded more like “change” than Hillary, his rise will probably take more from Clinton on Saturday than from Obama.

Obama held his own in the toe-to-toe fight with Clinton. The underdog, which Obama is nationally, always wins when the favorite hits hard and he doesn’t crumble. Also, Obama sounded more high notes among likely African American voters in South Carolina’s primary (where their turnout could easily exceed 50 percent) .

Clinton scored points but took several stylistic hits (drawing the occasional boo) and oddly acted as if Obama was more of a threat now than he was in Iowa or New Hampshire. She also appeared uncomfortable defending her husband’s recently aggressive line of attack on Obama (no one compares Bill Clinton to Michelle Obama or Elizabeth Edwards in the surrogate wars).

In summary, Edwards gave his candidacy a boost. Obama took Clinton’s best shots and survived. Clinton acted as if she hadn’t won the last two contests and regained her aura of inevitability and combativeness suits the challenger better than the front-runner.

Net winner by a slim margin: Obama.

Hillary Clinton won the Nevada caucuses. The turnout was massive, well above 115,000 and far and above any pre-caucus predictions (except those of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid who was closer than anyone with a prediction six months ago of 100,000).

Massive turnout did not propel Barack Obama to victory, as it did in the Iowa caucuses. In two consecutive states (New Hampshire and Nevada), large turnout has lifted Clinton and lifted her where it matters most — among core Democratic constituencies such as labor households, women, and Latinos and lower income households. Yes, Hillary had the support of most of the state’s most prominent state and county Democrats and once led by as many as 25 points two months ago. Obama did close the gap and gave Clinton a tough race. But he still lost. Wins and losses leave consequences in their wake.

In politics generally and in this race particularly, some things matter more than others. Two-straight victories for Hillary based on core party voting blocks means more than the current stir here about Nevada’s delegate allocation.

Right now, the Clinton and Obama camps are arguing over who won the most delegates in Nevada. The issue in Nevada is how delegates will be apportioned from urban centers and rural counties. Obama won 10 of Nevada’s 16 counties and carried the sparsely populated rural counties by lopsided margins and thus may collect more delegates than Hillary, even though she won the turnout and precinct battle .

Nevada Democratic Party Chair Jill Derby disputes this and she should know. Here is Derby’s statement: “Just like in Iowa what was awarded today were delegates to the county convention. No national convention delegates were awarded. The calculations of national convention delegates being circulated are based upon an assumption that delegate preferences will remain the same between now and April 2008. We look forward to our county and state conventions where we will choose the delegates for the nominee that Nevadans support.”

Delegates matter in the big picture, but this dispute is a side-show and here is why: Nevada had 25 pledged delegates to allocate and either Clinton won 13 and Obama won 12 or just the opposite occurred. One delegate either way doesn’t move the needle in any important way.

Whoever captures the Democratic nomination will need to win 2,025 delegates. Viewed in isolation, Nevada is a fraction of that amount. And a one delegate shift between 13 to 12 doesn’t change the trajectory or strategy of this race nearly as much as Hillary’s victory in the raw turnout and precinct-by-precinct contests.

Nevada is about momentum and electability. Hillary leaves Nevada with more of both than she arrived with. That’s what matters. Hillary lost two things in Iowa — the aura of inevitability and the sense that she was genuinely the most electable Democrat. With her New Hampshire and Nevada victories, Hillary can now more credibly assert she is at least as electable — and possibly more electable - than Obama.

Clinton won the union vote here by carrying 7 of the 9 casino-based at-large caucus precincts even though the Culinary Workers Union endorsed Obama and applied intense last-minute pressure to mobilize their members on Obama’s behalf. As The Bourbon Room observed before the caucuses commenced, there is every reason to believe the Culinary endorsement came too late to push Obama across the finish line first. It also means that Hillary arrived in Nevada with a pre-existing following among Culinary workers and their loyalty translated when and where it mattered most — on caucus day and at their assigned precincts. That was especially true among Latino members of Culinary. Of today’s caucus turnout, Latinos comprised 15 percent. Of those, 64 percent voted for Clinton and 26 percent for Obama.

The Latino vote in internal campaign polls before the race had a roughly 65 percent to 35 percent Clinton/Obama split. Notice, Clinton’s actual performance closely matched the pre-caucus polls but Obama’s did not.

It may be that the UNITE radio ad that described Clinton tactics here in the form of a law suit filed against the at-large precinct caucus sites as “shameless” and showing a lack of “respect” backfired on Obama. Of course, Obama’s campaign had nothing to do with the content of the ad, but Obama could have denounced the ad’s content as Clinton’s camp requested. When it did not, Obama gave rise to the perception that he agreed with the ad script which both John Edwards and team Clinton regarded as malicious and out-of-bounds.

If the Nevada race reverberates anywhere other than South Carolina, it’s in California. The Clinton campaign worked very hard to make sure Spanish radio and television were aware of her Latino outreach and the nasty nature of the UNITE radio spot. As one senior aide put it to The Bourbon Room, “we’ve been attached at the waist to Univision and Spanish radio for the last couple of days.” Pro-Clinton surrogates with deep ties to the Latino community, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaragosa and Delores Huerta chief among them, intend to leverage Hillary’s strong Latino showing and the Obama-sanctioned hardball on Spanish radio. Why? To motivate Latino voters in California, the biggest prize by far on the 22-state Super Tuesday calendar (370 pledged delegates).

For these reasons, some things matter more in Nevada than delegate allocations. The Bourbon Room has attempted to listed the most important.

Anecdotal reports abound of heavy turnout at Democratic caucus sites and confusion evident over which site is the correct one for caucus-goers. Calls are flooding into the Nevada Democratic Party call-in center at the Cashman Center near downtown. Turnout could easily top the 40,000 state party operatives set as a goal of “successful” turnout.

Early results show Hillary Clinton leading in vote-rich Clark County but running neck-and-neck with Barack Obama statewide. Eighty percent of likely turnout to come from metropolitan Las Vegas (Clark County) and Reno.

One source of confusion: there are more tan 1,700 precincts but only 520 caucus locations. That means several precincts conduct caucuses at the same location. High schools, for example are conducting one precinct caucus in the cafeteria, another in the auditorium and another in the gymnasium. In rare instances, precinct caucuses will be held outside on the a high school football field. As you can appreciate, moving people to the proper caucus site would be a big chore for caucus volunteers well-versed in the precinct machinery. It could prove frustrating and paralyzing for people pressed into service at the last minute who are unfamiliar with the rules, procedures and logistics.

This problem will not go away today and is likely to spark some grousing about the final results.

But it won’t be the only grousing, I predict.

Early Fox entrance polls suggest Hillary Clinton may do well today, but those entrance polls do NOT reflect sentiments expressed by caucus-goers heading into the nine at-large precincts in casinos located on or near the Las Vegas Strip. Since the casinos are private property, entrance poll takers were not allowed to engage the rank-and-file casino shift workers heading into their caucuses.

Even so, Clinton had a nine-point lead going into the caucuses in the Review-Journal poll and there’s no evidence yet — in the entrance polls, precinct-by-precinct turnout reports, or turnout in the casino-based caucus sites — to indicate she’s lost that much ground to Obama in the closing hours.

I worked in Las Vegas as a reporter for the Review-Journal newspaper from 1986 to 1988 and appreciate the disdain all Nevadans have for cheap gambling metaphors glibly deployed by national reporters when discussing ANY Nevada-based story.

Tempting though it may be, I will avoid the corny gambling cliches as I describe the feeling on the ground here just about two hours before the Democratic caucuses begin.

First, there is some degree of unease in the Barack Obama camp about today’s result.

Second, I detect no preemptive triumphalism in the Clinton camp.

Third, the unions here are at daggers drawn and things could get a bit hostile at caucus sites on and off the Las Vegas Strip before the day is done.

Fourth, the Latino vote looms largest as the subset of voters most likely to determine the outcome. Public polls and internal polls in both campaigns show that vote splitting at least 65-35 for Clinton over Obama. The size of this turnout could spell the difference between victory and defeat.

Fifth, the Culinary Workers Union local 226 is, as expected, pulling out all the stops to help Obama win. But there is rising concern that two factors may limit Culinary’s clout in this hard-fought contest:

A. The endorsement may have come too late to translate the union’s organizing power into massive pro-Obama turnout (remember this fact: it’s much easier for a union to unify and mobilize its members on behalf of a fight for wages and benefits than it is on behalf of a political candidate their membership has little or no intrinsic commitment to). A key question looming over today’s caucuses is whether the Culinary endorsement was so close to the caucuses - just 10 days out — that there wasn’t time to fully mobilize union members on Obama’s behalf.

B. The lawsuit filed against the at-large precincts in nine casinos may have had two salutary affects on the Clinton campaign: the first, creating enough confusion about the process to render Culinary’s aggressive last-minute organizing less effective; and second, deepening pro-Clinton sentiment among Culinary members who disagreed with leadership’ s Obama endorsement. Bill Clinton and Chelsea Clinton just swept through the MGM casino and received a very warm reception among rank-and-file casino workers who eagerly grabbed leaflets Bill and Chelsea handed out explaining casino workers can caucus for any candidate — not just Obama.

Sixth, Rory Reid, son of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and leader of Hillary’s Nevada effort, has never wavered in his belief Nevada was winnable for Clinton. Right not, he appears as calmly confident as anyone in the Clinton camp. To his credit, Rory was calm even in the panic that set in when team Clinton feared it might lose New Hampshire and debated whether to fight hard for Nevada. Reid assured senior Clinton advisers Hillary could win no matter what happened in New Hampshire. Victory is by no means assured for Clinton here, but Rory may have been the one to keep his emotions in check the best and that, in the end, may prove very beneficial to Clinton.

The Bourbon Room has learned from top Democratic sources that six-term U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, a staunch defender of President Bill Clinton during the GOP-led impeachment, will endorse Barack Obama for president during an 11 a.m. EST conference call.

Leahy will appear on the conference call with Obama campaign manager David Plouffe.

Leahy is the Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and also led the fight against GOP efforts to delay and some cases deny confirmation of Clinton-nominated federal judges during the final two years of the Clinton presidency.

Leahy also opposed the Iraq war resolution and has been at the forefront of Democratic criticism of President Bush’s detention policies for enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and the Bush “terrorist surveillance” program.

Leahy also helped negotiate the first Patriot Act and was instrumental in reauthorizing the law with changes that reduced the federal government’s power to search library and personal records of American citizens implicated but not charged in terrorist investigations.

Elected in 1974, Leahy is Vermont’s longest serving senator and was among te first in the Senate to have an official website (launched in 1995) and in 2003 was the first senator to launch a personal blog “More from the floor.”

Two-term Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, the first woman to ever lead the National Governors’ Association, will endorse Barack Obama’s presidential campaign later today, The Bourbon Room has learned.

Napolitano has scheduled a televised press conference in Arizona for later today and will follow up with a telephone conference call organized by Obama’s campaign.

The endorsement gives Obama a nice boost in Nevada, where Napolitano is highly regarded among party regulars and has a higher visibility than most neighboring governors among those with a passing interest in politics — i.e., likely caucus attendees on Jan. 19.

Napolitano was named by Time magazine recently as one of the nation’s top five governors and was the first governor to deploy National Guard forces to the border to stem the flow of illegal immigration.

Napolitano also pushed for and won the creation of voluntary all-day kindergarten. She also raised teacher salaries and boosted health insurance coverage for children. While not identical, these innovations resemble concepts Obama has stressed on the campaign trail.

Obama is looking to convey to party insiders that the New Hampshire primary setback wasn’t devastating and that he’s still in the ballgame. The string of Obama endorsements since leaving New Hampshire has been impressive from a party-insider perspective: Culinary Union 226 in Las Vegas, Nevada Service Employee International Union, Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts and Tim Johnson of South Dakota, Rep. George Miller of California and, now, Napolitano.

Do these endorsement moves votes? Culinary and SEIU in Nevada will make an enormous difference in the Jan. 19 caucuses — probably the decisive difference. Kerry brings an e-mail list of donors and cachet among rank-and-file Democrats who may still have doubts about Obama’s readiness for the Oval Office. With Miller in northern California, Obama gets a congressman with something few others have — a real political organization that can deliver votes. Miller’s also House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s top lieutenant and that association, even if arms length, helps Obama among party regulars.

NASHUA, N. H. — “That’s not change.”

Thus arrives Hillary Clinton’s new slogan, aimed no longer at underscoring her strengths but her opponents’ failings.

At Nashua North High School, Clinton said Obama can’t preach change for the following reasons: he said he would vote against the Patriot Act but voted for its renewal, he said he’s ended lobbyist-financed meals sitting down but the ethic law he touts allows lobbyist-financed meals “standing up,” and because he gave “a very good speech in 2002″ against the Iraq war but “in 2004 said he wasn’t sure how he would have voted.”

With each of these sharply pointed critiques, Clinton said: “That’s not change.”

By the end, her massive crowd began to chant the phrase back - thus giving voice to what the Clinton camp hopes will become a galvanizing cry against Obama. Clinton’s camp now portrays Obama as a false leader and empty prophet who mouths platitudes about change but has zero track record of delivering it.

(more…)

This is a story of how the Iowa caucuses can break your heart., even if you’re not on the ballot.

It happened in 2004 to Dennis Olson and, politically at least, he’s never been the same.

Dennis lives in Urbandale, Iowa, a suburb on the western fringes of Des Moines.

Howard Dean captivated Olson in 2004. Olson told me he’s never been so excited by a politician in his life and he threw himself into “Gov. Dean’s” candidacy with a joyous ferocity bordering on mania.

And unlike some of the stereotypical Dean supporters - the nose-ringed youngsters who dashed around the state in their blaze orange “Perfect Storm” ski caps - Olson was no starry-eyed idealist . Olson knew the caucus ethic of hard work, grassroots organizing that plowed so deep you not only know the names of your committed caucus-goers, you sought and won multiple commitments from them.

“I talked to people again and again,” Olson recalls tenderly now, a small clutch in his throat. “I looked them in the eye. I went over my lists again and again.”

Olson knew the caucuses from watching his mother and father caucus in far northern Iowa, back when caucuses in rural areas often occurred in a neighbor’s living room (it still happens now, but far less frequently).

Olson also knew well the retail nature of caucus politics and fondly recalls meeting a stranger at an anonymous bowl of potato chips at a meet-and-greet in Iowa City in 1976. Olson was in a side room and saw the chips and began to munch. Moments later so did another guy. The two chatted for awhile about nothing in particular. Then Olson remembers the guy wiping the potato crumbs from his fingers, extending a hand a saying “Hi, my name is Jimmy Carter.” Olson remembers leaving Carter behind and thinking, “That guy isn’t going anywhere.”

Oh well. Olson had it backwards. The guy he thought was going somewhere, Indiana Sen. Birch Bayh (father of current Sen. Evan), went nowhere.

Dean was different. Olson knew he was going somewhere. “I just never felt the way about a politician the way I felt about Dean. He really excited me. He really took me.”

Olson signed up as a Precinct Captain for Dean and worked his Democratic neighbors feverishly, taking nothing for granted. Consistent with the requirements of caucus politics, Olson not only obtained multiple commitments, he arranged transportation to the precinct and made Dean available by phone and in his own home for fence-sitters to meet.

“I did everything I could,” Olson told me. “I mean, I went back to people, which is what you have to do. I went back and back again. We always kept talking. I kept asking, ‘Is there anything I can do?’ I arranged phone calls with Gov. Dean if I had to. It wasn’t easy. But he was willing. Some people even met him at my house. That’s how important it was to him. That’s how important it was to me.”

Olson did what the Clinton, Obama and Edwards campaigns are doing right now, right this minute and all across the state. They are compiling their supporter lists, nailing down commitments and dividing their labors between finding new caucus supporters and keeping the ones they already have.

Olson did this and he was sure he did it well.

Then caucus night came. And it happened.

In the closing days, the wind began to turn against Dean and suddenly John Kerry began to gain significant momentum. John Edwards gained too. The “Perfect Storm” had begun to spin out of control and suddenly hard-and-fast commitments began to breakaway like loose shingles.

“There were people I had groomed,” Olson said. “They attended every rally and the signed the supporter form. There were people who had made a personal commitment and signed the form that they would align for Dean. I remember one who I had Dean go to his house himself to get his commitment. And we got it. But then they started to get caught up in the press and they made the switch. I watched them go to other candidates right before my eyes.”

Olson watched Dean’s support slip away in his precinct and had a dreadful fear it was happening elsewhere as, indeed, it was. Olson knew his neighbors weren’t flighty. dishonest or novices. He understood they were with Dean. Hard. But then something happened and they lost confidence. And then they were gone.

That caucus night left Olson so glum he didn’t even stay awake to watch Dean’s now infamous “concession” speech.

“I never saw the scream,” Olson said. “I was too depressed. I had worked for almost two years and to see it all go away was so hard to deal with. I just didn’t feel like watching anything anymore. It took me two days to recover. I can’t remember if I cried or not, but I sure felt like crying.”

Olson said it’s no exaggeration to say the 2004 Iowa caucuses broke his heart and killed off a part of his political being.

“I’m still a part of it,” Olson said, referring to this year’s caucuses. “But it’s not the same. I’ll never feel that way again.”

Olson is an Edwards organizer and he will serve as his precinct’s caucus-night captain, a high-visibility role where he will oversee the caucus itself, enforce the rules and tabulate the results.

Above the fray. That’s the only role Olson says he can tolerate this year.

As for his 2004 caucus-night catastrophe, Olson has just one cautionary observation.

“What happened that night will happen to every candidate somewhere.”

That doesn’t mean any candidate this time will fall as far or as fast as Dean in 2004 (that would be some feat). But it does mean on the night of Jan. 3rd, organizers for every campaign will see what they can’t believe — caucus-goers they were sure would be with them drift into another camp.

And a feeling like betrayal will rise in the pit of their stomach. And it will be all they can do to swallow that welling anger and accept defeat face-to-face. Few things, it seems to me, could be any harder in politics or life.

And that’s how the caucuses can break your heart. A break that doesn’t easily heal. Just ask Dennis Olson.

Hillary Clinton highlighted her antiwar efforts and embraced John Edwards’ $9.50 minimum wage as her five-day Iowa blitz drew to a close, a clear signal camp Clinton needed to do more than hop-scotch across the state on a “Hil-a-copter” and dispatch surrogates statewide to tell tales of the “human side” of Hillary.

In Grundy City Thursday, Clinton talked up her Senate votes to bring U.S. troops home from Iraq within a year.

“In the Senate, I’ve been fighting the Bush administration to change course and end the war,” Clinton said. I have voted to complete the redeployment of our forces by December 2008. I have voted repeatedly against continuing to fund the war.”

In response to a question about timetables for withdrawal, Clinton said: “I think we can bring nearly everybody hom, you know, certainly within a year if we keep at it and do it very steadily.”

These remarks left two campaigns – Edwards’ and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson’s – with the impression Clinton was now embracing a full U.S. pullout from Iraq by the end of next year. If so, it would represent a stark contrast with her oft-stated “safe and responsible” troop withdrawal goal that lacks a hard timetable. Not incidentally, the Edwards and Richardson camps see it as a massive position switch more in line with their long-standing calls for rapid Iraq troop withdrawals.

Of the two, only the Richardson campaign complained on the record.

“Senator Clinton’s statement that we could ‘certainly get all the troops out within a year’ is a stunning flip-flop from what she has been saying all along,” Richardson said in a statement. “She consistently has called for leaving troops in Iraq to fight al-Qaida, train Iraqis, and protect U.S. assets. Has that suddenly been abandoned? If so, why has she changed her mind?

“In a September debate, she said that she could not commit to getting our troops out in five years, let alone in one year. Has anything changed about the logistics besides her position in the polls? It is clear that she is responding directly to my latest ad and my statements that she repeatedly has called for leaving thousands of troops in Iraq indefinitely. Rather than defending her position, apparently she simply has changed it.”

Clinton’s camp says there no change in her position.

“Governor Richardson knows that Senator Clinton has been clear and consistent: if George Bush has not ended the war in Iraq, she will,” campaign spokesman Phil Singer said. “As she has said, she would accomplish that by beginning to withdrawal our troops within 60 days after inauguration at the rate of one or two brigades a month. This would mean that nearly all troops could be home within a year.”

Clinton aides say she has not and will not abandon the belief that a “small contingent” of U.S. combat troops would need to remain in Iraq to guard against a resurgent Al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia.

On the minimum wage, Clinton has now proposed legislation to increase the minimum wage to $9.50 and dropped that bill just before Congress adjourned for the year. This last-minute legislative move strongly signals Clinton feels the need to shore up support among working-class Democrats in Iowa and New Hampshire – households that once formed a core part of her base.

Edwards welcomed Clinton’s pre-Christmas embrace of a $9.50 wage threshold, something that for five months he’s called on all Democratic presidential candidates to embrace.

“Just 14 days before the Iowa caucuses, Senator Clinton has answered my call,” Edwards said in a statement. “But changing America demands all of us do even more. In this spirit, I hope she will join me in rejecting the money of Washington lobbyists that is corrupting our system and hurting middle-class families.”

As for Barack Obama, he hasn’t set a target number for the minimum wage. He has advocated indexing increases in the minimum wage to inflation. Campaign spokesman Bill Burton says that approach would increase the minimum wage to $9.50 per hour “as fast” as Edwards and now Clinton propose.

Poll tidbits: The New Gallup/USA Today poll today shows Obama and Clinton tied at 32 percent with Edwards at 18 percent. In four of six of the most recent New Hampshire polls, Clinton has lead with margins from 3 points to 14 points. Also, today’s new Strategic Vision poll in Iowa shows Obama at 30 percent and Clinton and Edwards tied at 27 percent.

Reading between the line in the polls. Edwards announced this morning that uniquely among top-tier Democrats he will be in New Hampshire — NOT IOWA — the day after Christmas for events in Conway, Laconia, Manchester and Salem. This indicates Edwards sees a real chance to win in Iowa and doesn’t want to neglect New Hampshire so he can capitalize on a possible Iowa victory. Of course, with Clinton and Obama in Iowa, Edwards can dominate the New Hampshire media market. But if Edwards were feeling uneasy about the must-win state of Iowa, he wouldn’t dare venture to New Hampshire and leave the Iowa media market to Clinton and Obama.

In a release, Edwards touts 80 paid staff in the Granite State, “eight times the field organizers it had on the ground during the 2003-2004 cycle.” Edwards says he can compete with “anyone’s” field operation in New Hampshire. It’s worth noting that while the Obama-Clinton battle in New Hampshire has ebbed and flowed, one constant in the polls has been a slow Edwards climb since mid-November from the low teens to the high teens. Still, he has yet to break 20 and probably needs to cross that threshold before the caucuses — which may be another reason to hit New Hampshire on Boxing Day.

The Bourbon Room: Sometimes press coverage of a surge lags behind the actual voter movement. Similarly, a surge may ebb just as the media begins to report on it. Where is the Obama campaign on the surge continuum in Iowa and N.H.? The Bourbon Room senses you’ve plateaued a bit in Iowa.

David Plouffe: In recent polls, Senator Obama has been either tied or ahead of Senator Clinton in Iowa, South Carolina, and New Hampshire, a place where Senator Clinton was more than ten points ahead just recently. All the other trends over the last few weeks - in crowds, enthusiasm, and organization – also point to increasing support for Barack. But this will be a close race that goes down to the wire, and that is why we are focused on getting out Barack’s message of bringing Iowans - and the United States - change that we can believe in.

The Bourbon Room: Why isn’t Bill Clinton right to say an agent of change (he says it’s Hillary) is better than a “symbol” of change which he says is Obama?

David Plouffe: He’s right than an agent of change is more important than someone who’s just a symbol of change, but he’s wrong to say that’s Senator Clinton. There is only one candidate in this race who has a proven record of standing up to the special interests, and bringing Democrats and Republicans together to bring about change for ordinary Americans. And that’s Barack Obama.

The Bourbon Room: By definition, Obama represents more than partisan or ideological change. You’ve thought about this a million times, I’m sure, but as the first momentous contest looms so close and with the race so tight, how confident are you that Iowa and, by extension, America is ready for the political-cultural-racial change Obama represents? Secondarily, how great a risk is there that all this momentum may end up in bitter disappointment rather than transcendent change?

David Plouffe: As Senator Obama has said, when he’s elected America will look at itself differently and the world will look at America differently. We’ll have renewed hope that our leaders can bring this country together so we can meet the challenges we face, and the world will have renewed hope that America is ready to lead again. That’s a change Americans are ready for.

On the second question, if Senator Obama had listened to the cynics, he never would have passed the strongest ethics reform in Illinois in 25 years, or the most sweeping ethics reform in the U.S. Senate since Watergate. So we’re not going to start listening to the cynics now.

The Bourbon Room: There’s no history of 20-somethings playing a decisive role in the Iowa caucuses. None. Even up to 35 year olds, participation is minimal. Why on earth does this campaign believe it can do what no other campaign has done?

David Plouffe: There’s no doubt that Barack Obama has energized Americans to get involved in their democracy in a way that we haven’t seen in a long time. That’s why we’re seeing such large crowds wherever Obama goes. That’s why so many young people are involved in this campaign. And that’s why we expect young supporters to play an important role on caucus night.

The Bourbon Room: Who is the bigger obstacle to change in Washington, a lobbyist or a Republican?

David Plouffe: The biggest obstacle to change in Washington isn’t one person, one industry, or even one party. It’s a mindset that puts the partisan and special interests ahead of the people’s interests. That’s the mindset Barack Obama will change when he’s president. He’ll be honest with the American people about the challenges we face, and show leadership that’s based on principle and conviction, not poll-driven calculation.

The Bourbon Room: Has the Bush presidency lowered the bar on the “experience factor,” in that many Americans may now discount the value of his “experienced” set of advisers and look at Obama and say “could it get any worse?”

David Plouffe: The question many Americans are asking is who has the right kind of experience to be President. Senator Clinton has lots more experience working the system in Washington than Barack Obama. But the system in Washington is broken. As a U.S. Senator with a strong record of challenging conventional thinking in Washington and reaching across the aisle to get things done, Barack Obama has the experience America needs right now.

The Bourbon Room: The campaign has tried very hard to avoid calling itself a movement, a revolution or any all-encompassing label that would identify Obama in a way that might leave some feeling excluded or uneasy. After all, revolutions and movements have an us versus them division at their core. Why is it so important for Obama to avoid this “branding” and how much does America’s racial history play into that calculus?

David Plouffe: I disagree with the premise of the question. We’ve been calling ourselves a grassroots movement for change from the very beginning – because that’s exactly what we are. This campaign is built on an unprecedented amount of support from ordinary Americans. And it’s precisely because this movement includes so many Americans of every race, religion, and political party that Obama is the most electable candidate in this race, and the only candidate who can enter the White House with the broad coalition to enact an agenda for change.

The Bourbon Room: With camp Clinton lowering expectations in Iowa and Edwards trapped in the “must win” reality of his campaign, where is Team Obama on its chances in Iowa and the possibility and necessity of victory on Jan. 3?

David Plouffe: We’ve said from the beginning that every candidate has to do well in Iowa to continue on in this race. And we’re confident that we’ve built the kind of strong grassroots organization across the state to do just that on January 3.

The Bourbon Room: David Plouffe, thanks for visiting. Come back any time.