The New Republic... give me a break pleezee == probably where the mis=story came from in the first place.

I don't really understand why these things keep getting reported on TPM, Politico, et cetera. Obviously Iowa is very important. Why should anyone be surprised or shocked when someone from a campaign says it out loud? Am I wrong, or is it common knowledge that if Obama or Edwards (or someone else) doesn't win Iowa then Hillary's inevitability will seem... well... inevitable?

I'd go so far as to guess that Obama probably has to win at least one early state to have a shot at the nomination. Iowa is probably his best chance at this point but even a second place finish there would get him some buzz and SC is probably still not out of the question for him. Obama was leading in SC at one point and he's still fairly srtong there. If Edwards were to come in third Iowa, it's entirely possible that enough of his current share of SC could migrate Obama's way to turn it back into a race. If Clinton sweeps the early states though, I imagine it would be all over but the shouting.

Possible Interpretations:

From strength: we know we are going to we are going to win this one (possibly because we have reason to believe we are going to get non-traditional voters out to caucus)

From weakness: we are likely to lose this but possibly we can get enough people to vote for us because they don't want to see us knocked out the of the race early

From strategy: we are going to lose in the other early ones so we need to set the bar low -- all we need to show is we can win this one.

With both Michelle and Plouffe 'slipping' the 'revelation' is probably a tactic for some reason.

The story is relevant for a couple of reasons:

-- It could be a strategic attempt to remind Obama voters that Iowa is critical, or this could be an example of a lack of discipline that affects the campaign's apparent viability looking toward the national.

-- Anything that a senior spokesperson of a campaign (including Michelle) says to reporters is news. Once it's out there -- and they should know this -- it's likely to be reported and repeated. If they don't do as well as hoped, these comments will frame the press coverage affecting their ability to spin toward New Hampshire. This is why saying such things is risky...and all candidates face the same risks, it's not like the Obama folks are 'unfairly targeted' here.

-- Looking at Dean's and others' histories, Iowa could be critical, as fundraising and general story lines in the press could shift to an Edwards/Clinton horse-race in 24 hrs. That would fundamentally change the strategy of the Obama campaign, necessarily. If Clinton comes in third it's inevitable that all those supporting others (or hating her) will claim "she's done." If Edwards does poorly he could truly be done considering he's banked it all on this state.

With all that at stake it's not 'over-coverage' to report the storyline of how one of the top two campaigns spins (or bungles) the expectations game in the first state to vote.

skeptica wrote on September 28, 2007 8:04 PM:
Why is this horse-race nonsense but not Obama's NY rally worth such prominence here? Your "election-central" coverage is increasingly suspect and disappointing.

+++thanks. keep calling them on it---as the perception of Hillary's strength increases 1 percent----their sucking up in hopes of preserving future access increases about five percent.