AP Photo 

Before The Bourbon Room heads to the spin room, final impressions.The debate was a stand-pat affair. Unlike the New Hampshire debate, Clinton did not come in with a game plan to change the dynamic by driving issue differences with Obama. All three held close to well-articulated policy positions and made little or no attempt to draw blood or beat one another up. Clinton and Obama had strong moments, as already discussed. In the end, the debate was about holding ground already won in Nevada and if any candidate gained here it was probably Clinton because she more artfully and regularly brought Nevada themes and Nevada issues into the mix. Her level of confidence here was striking and smooth for a candidate who in the past made references to personal stories sound like something she was reading off an index card — tonight it sounded less formulaic and that, probably, made her tonight’s slight winner.  

AP Photo 

Race question right out of the blocks. Hillary says she and Barack Obama called the truce. Obama called for it on camera, Hillary followed with a statement — not exactly the same thing and important since Hillary’s camp often accurately points out Obama follows Hillary’s lead on some issues — health care and economic stimulus to name just two.Obama tries to rise above the race issue and get back to the terrain that has been safest for him all along — that of transcending race and seeking to build a bigger coalition. Edwards weighs in tangentially on the side of Obama by highlighting role of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.  and those who conducted lunch counter sit-ins, not the legislative dexterity and power of former President Lyndon Johnson.On Tim Russert’s question of his campaign’s involvement in pushing the race story by highlighting comments from Clinton surrogates that had a racial component, Obama appeared to concede the point that his camp bore some responsibility and pledged to set a non-racial tone going forward. Obama also rejected the theory that in New Hampshire the difference between the polls and the final result had something to do with whites lying to pollsters about supporting Obama but voting for Clinton in private.  Obama’s comfort level can be described as minimally comfortable. He tried mightly, again, to steer it back to the change dynamic.Russert’s question to Clinton about Robert Johnson’s reference to what Obama was “doing in the neighborhood” that he wouldn’t described, Clinton said his comments were out of bounds but said in the campaign it mattered less what someone “none of us have ever heard of” said, but what the candidates themselves say. Johnson, one of the most successful media moguls (white or black) in American history, might be surprised to hear Clinton refer to him in that way. Johnson’s comments were widely interpreted as a reference to Obama’s admitted drug use (marijuana and cocaine) as a teen. Johnson later said he was referring to Obama’s work as a community organizer, an explanation neither the Obama camp nor many black talk radio hosts accepted.

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.

All day the titles of one Doors song and two Who songs (The Doors’ “5 to One,” and the Who’s “905″ and “5:15″) have been ringing in my head.

Why?

No other reason than to keep my toe-tapping to the relentless back-and-forth today between the Obama and Edwards camps over two union-affiliated 527 groups now airing more than $1 million in radio ads in Iowa that indirectly benefit Edwards. (Well, the fact that all three songs have “5″ in them may have something to do with it and that all are under-appreciated parts of both bands’ discography — but let’s not go there loyal Bourbon Room readers).

The groups (the 527s, not The Doors or the Who) are loosely backed by Iowa members of the Service Employees International Union and the Steelworkers union. The SEIU-affiliated group is headed by Nick Baldick, a former top operative in Edwards’ 2004 presidential campaign.

There’s serious money behind these ads, more than $1 million by the Obama camp’s count and that’s enough to saturate the biggest media markets in Iowa — as the groups no doubt intend to do.

In Oskaloosa, Obama came right to the edge of calling Edwards a fraud when he said Edwards should denounce and end the ads.

“You cant just talk the talk,” Obama said with intensity. ”The easiest thing in the world is to talk about change during election time. Everybody talks about change during election time, you’ve got to look at how they act when its not convenient, when its hard.”

Edwards’ first response?

He blamed Obama’s complaints on a change of fortune in the Hawkeye state.

“Senator Obama’s attacks seem to increase as momentum for our campaign grows,” Edwards himself, not a spokesman, said in a statement.  ”As for outside groups, unfortunately, you can’t control them, but let me make it clear – I think money has corrupted our politics and these groups should not be a part of the political process.”

“Can’t control” is 100 percent legally true, as everyone in this game knows.

No one controls a 527 except those who bankroll it with unlimited and undisclosed donations and the operatives who cash those checks.

But as camp Obama swiftly pointed out, Edwards demanded in 2004 that President Bush step away from such no-can-touch legal arcana and stop the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth ads against John Kerry.

Obama’s chief spokesman Bill Burton gleefully e-mailed these Edwards’ riffs on Bush and the Swift Boaters.

“There’s one person, one person who can put an end to this today if he had the backbone, the courage, the leadership to do it. And that person is George W. Bush,” Edwards said in an Associated Press report on Aug. 24, 2004. “Every day that this goes on and the president refuses to say stop these ads,we’re learning more and more about the character of George W. Bush.”  Reporters traveling with Edwards today hounded him on this issue. By sunset Edwards not only told reporters he would call for the union-affiliated ads to be pulled, his campaign farily trumpeted the turn-around.Here is part of an Edwards campaign press sent 5:11 p.m. EST:

At a coffee shop stop at the Smokey Row in Pleasantville, Iowa, a woman Barack Obama sat down to chat with asked about his religious upbringing. Herewith the transcript from our Obama embed producer, Bonney Kapp:

Woman:  I have a question I would really like to ask you. With a Muslim background, how would that effect how you would lead the United States of America?  

Obama: “This is something that keeps on being misreported,  so I’m glad you asked me. My father was from Kenya and a lot of people in his village were Muslim. He didn’t practice Islam. Truth is he wasn’t very religious. He met my mother. My mother was a Christian from Kansas and they married, and then divorced. I was raised by my mother. So, I’ve always been a Christian. I’ve never practiced Islam. For awhile, I lived in Indonesia because my mother was teaching there. And that’s a Muslim country. And I went to school. But I didn’t practice. But what I do think it does is it gives me insight into how these folks think. And Part of how I think we can create a better relationship with the middle east and that would help make us safer is if we can understand how they think about issues. But I’m a member of the Trinity United Church of Christ and have been for fifteen years.

The woman then asked Obama if “you believe in Jesus Christ?”

Obama: “I believe he was our Lord and savior.”

Woman: “Well you’re right and I don’t think enough of people go to church.”

Considering that Clinton endorsee and former Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey brought up Obama’s ties to Islam on Sunday and then sent a letter of apology to Obama on Wednesday, it appears the question of Obama’s religious roots still needs answering and may lurk in the minds of Iowa Democrats in ways as yet undected by the Obama campaign. Of course, these concerns/anxieties may be impossible to detect, thus complicating Obama’s last-minute push for turnout in advance of the caucuses.

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.