With all the major candidates engaged in a full court press in Iowa, three polls out since Monday show no clear leader in the state in the run-up to Thursday's caucuses.
Obama, Huckabee Up In DMR Poll The final Des Moines Register poll before tomorrow's caucuses shows Barack Obama leading with 32%, followed by Hillary Clinton with 25% and John Edwards with 24%. The previous iteration of the poll showed Obama leading Clinton 28%-25%. The poll surveyed 800 likely Democratic caucus-goers from Dec. 27-30. On the GOP side, the poll of 800 likely GOP caucus-goers shows Mike Huckabee leading Mitt Romney 32%-26% in Iowa, followed by John McCain with 13%, with Ron Paul and Fred Thompson at 9% apiece. This survey received extensive press coverage, including mention on several nightly news broadcasts last night and on many cable shows.
Clinton, Romney Lead In CNN Poll A CNN poll, which received much less national coverage than the DMR poll, shows Clinton at 33 percent; Obama at 31 percent and Edwards at 22 percent. On the GOP side, the poll has Romney at 31 percent; Huckabee at 28 percent; Fred Thompson at 13 percent; McCain at 10 percent and Rudy Giuliani, 8 percent.
Zogby Tracking Show Clinton, Huckabee Holding Narrow Leads Zogby International's daily Iowa tracking poll shows Clinton leading the Democratic field in Iowa with 30%, followed by Obama, 26%, and Edwards, 25%. Richardson and Biden both pull 5% apiece. On the GOP side, Huckabee leads with 29%, followed by Romney, 25%; McCain, 12%; Thompson, 11%; Giuliani, 8%; and Paul, 7%. The poll surveyed 925 likely Democratic caucus-goers and 903 likely GOP caucus-goers from December 28-31.
Clinton Campaign Disputes DMR Poll The Des Moines Register reports, "Unhappy with the news that" Clinton "didn't top The Des Moines Register's Iowa Poll, her aides this morning say it includes more independent voters than would be expected to participate in the caucuses. The bottom line is that the poll shows that a lot more independents in Iowa want to participate in the Democratic caucus, according the company that polls for the Register." Clinton campaign pollster Mark Penn suggested that the poll is inconsistent with other surveys and "said 40 percent of the caucusgoers included in the Register poll...were independents, even though only 19 percent of caucusgoers were independents in 2004."
As part of the last-minute campaigning, the top three Democrats in Iowa are working to deal with an unusual Democratic caucus rule candidates that receive less than 15 percent in initial counting in any precinct are declared "non-viable," and their supporters are then free to back another candidate. The Los Angeles Times reports Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards "have begun focusing intensely on becoming the second choice among supporters of less-popular candidates such as Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, in a behind-the-scenes battle that could decide the outcome of Thursday's Iowa caucuses." The effort, "in which the top campaigns are deploying an array of strategies, focuses on the brief and unpredictable moment that will occur just after the first votes are cast in the state's 1,781 caucus meetings." More than "15% of caucusgoers are thought to be backing candidates likely to be eliminated in many balloting locations -- turning their supporters into potential king-makers in the close contest among Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards." The Clinton, Obama and Edwards campaigns "are focusing on what their local captains should do once this large bloc of voters becomes available -- in the few moments when victory may rest on the ability to swing voters, in face-to-face appeals and cajoling, toward their second choice."
Obama got a boost on that front yesterday, the AP reports, when Dennis Kucinich, who has consistently polled in the low single digits, encouraged his supporters to back Obama. Kucinich said, "I hope Iowans will caucus for me as their first choice...because of my singular positions on the war, on health care and trade. But in those caucus locations where my support doesn't reach the necessary threshold, I strongly encourage all of my supporters to make Barack Obama their second choice." The Los Angeles Times adds, "While Kucinich's support is slight" in Iowa, "polls show a statistical tie for first among" Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, so, "any small increase in caucus support could turn out to be significant."
Meanwhile, in his column in the New York Post, Charles Hurt writes that Clinton "still faces one of her thorniest problems in her bid for the White House. Although she has a considerable base of devoted fans in Iowa, she is not well liked by those Democrats supporting other candidates. Of the other Democrats who plan to caucus tomorrow and vote for other candidates, Clinton is the second choice of just 15 percent, according to a new poll. Barack Obama is the second choice of 22 percent and John Edwards is the second choice of 30 percent of Iowa Democrats."
Sign up here to get the US News Political Bulletin emailed to you each morning at 8 a.m.
The Chicago Tribune reports first-time caucus participants, "including students, remain the one of the biggest X factors leading up to the precinct meetings. ... Many of the students will caucus in their Iowa hometowns. But nearly a third of undergraduates at the University of Iowa, for example, are from the Chicago area. If they return to Iowa for the caucuses, that could help" Obama, "something of a hometown favorite at the school." Iowa's "phone lines are buzzing as volunteers look for ways to make it easier for people to get to the meetings, even arranging for baby-sitters. ... Obama, who opened 37 field offices in Iowa, is thought to have one of the most sophisticated and robust operations. ... With the assistance of labor unions and interest groups," Clinton and Edwards "have also assembled what are believed to be robust ground operations."
Iowa Caucus Rules Limit Those Able To Participate The New York Times reports because the Iowa caucuses, "held in the early evening, do not allow absentee voting, they tend to leave out nearly entire categories of voters: the infirm, soldiers on active duty, medical personnel who cannot leave their patients, parents who do not have baby sitters, restaurant employees on the dinner shift, and many others who work in retail, at gas stations and in other jobs that require evening duty." If these caucuses "are anything like prior ones, only a tiny percentage of Iowans will participate. In 2000, the last year in which both parties held caucuses, 59,000 Democrats and 87,000 Republicans voted, in a state with 2.9 million people." In 2004, "when the Republicans did not caucus, 124,000 people turned out for the Democratic caucuses." The rules "are so demanding that even Ray Hoffman, chairman of the Iowa Republican Party and a resident of Sioux City, cannot caucus on Thursday night, because he has to be in Des Moines on party business." Now "some are starting to ask why the first, crucial step in that process is also one that discourages so many people, especially working-class people, from participating."
The Los Angeles Times adds that "at least 1.7 million of some 2 million eligible Iowa voters will sit out Thursday's caucuses. As usual, they will leave the decision to a contingent of political activists who are mostly older, whiter and more highly educated than the rest of the nation. The reasons that most Iowans stay away range from the practical to the philosophical to the emotional. They can't get away from jobs or responsibilities at home. They don't like politics. They don't believe their vote will make a difference. They feel oppressed by the ceaseless phone calls and television ads."
Most Iowans Indifferent To Caucuses In the Washington Post's "Washington Sketch" column, Dana Milbank says, "To paraphrase John Edwards, there are two Iowas. One is in the popular imagination, where the locals care passionately about their caucus and talk earnestly with presidential prospects in their living rooms. Then there's the actual Iowa, where most people are indifferent and a small band of the politically active act as extras in the media's stories from the heartland."
The Washington Post reports with "48 hours to go before the Iowa caucuses, it was impossible for even the most focused football fans to forget they were in the cross hairs of a horde of politicians. Wedged between bowl games and New Year's parades, spliced into gaps in the evening news and breaks from 'Oprah,' the ads had but one purpose: to drive Iowans to Thursday's caucuses." The New York Daily News reports that "the gloves are off now, and with a day to go to the crucial caucuses, the airwaves are choked with commercials for the leading candidates. 'Enough is enough,' Obama says in one of his ads. No kidding. Analysts say the candidates spent nearly $34 million on advertising heading into the Iowa caucuses -- compared with $10 million four years ago -- and the TV frenzy has gone wall-to-wall in the final days." The AP adds, "Urging voters to attend caucuses, Clinton and Obama were set to air longer-than-usual, two-minute ads during the evening news on Iowa stations Wednesday. Edwards bought a full-page ad in the Des Moines Register featuring a testimonial from a worker laid off from an Iowa Maytag plant who also will appear in a one-minute TV ad for the candidate."
Iowa Spending Called "Unprecedented" The New York Post reports an "unprecedented swell of money is flooding" into Iowa for this cycle's contest, "with campaigns on track to spend roughly $50 million -- a record-setting figure that doubles the staggering per-vote amount billionaire Mayor Bloomberg shelled out in 2005. The shocking expenditures: about $200 per vote for each of the roughly 250,000 caucus-goers expected to turn out." This "$50 million figure includes more than $30 million for TV ads, more than $1 million for radio ads, and more than $10 million for direct mail." Barack Obama appears to be the top spender, at about $9 million, followed by Hillary Clinton at around $7.2 million and Mitt Romney around $7 million.
The Washington Post reported yesterday that Mike Huckabee "took an unorthodox gamble in his bid for the presidency Monday, unveiling an attack ad against" Mitt Romney "and then immediately pledging not to run it in the hopes of appealing to the better nature of Iowa voters." Huckabee appeared "flanked by posters his campaign produced to question Romney's credibility" as he "decried gutter politics in America but then directed the attention of scores of reporters and television cameras to a movie screen, where he played the 30-second hit piece on Romney's honesty and record." Said the former governor, "I pulled the ad. I do not want it to be run at all." However, the Post noted, "the ad was being played on national television and had been posted on blogs and other Web sites -- without costing his campaign a penny."
The New York Times also said "the circumstances of the commercial and the nature of free media, particularly now with YouTube, make it likely that the advertisement will be viewed far more often than if it had simply run. There is a long history of news coverage guaranteeing a commercial publicity that money could not buy."
Fox News' Special Report reported Romney "pulled no punches, ridiculing Huckabee for announcing to a roomful of reporters yesterday that he decided not to air a tough attack on Romney right before playing bits and pieces for all to see." Romney: "I don't think Governor Huckabee was able to fool the media. ... I don't think he'll fool the people of Iowa. It's like saying 'I'm not going to call my opponent any names but if I were going to call him names, here are the names I would call him.'" Fox went on to air what it called " the Huckabee ad you were never meant to see."
The CBS Evening News asked Huckabee whether he regrets showing the ad. The former Arkansas governor said, "You know, at the time I thought it was an important way to prove that we actually had it. Probably if I had it to do over again I wouldn't have shown it."
The New Hampshire Union-Leader reports John McCain "has built a 6-percentage point lead over Mitt Romney, his closest rival in the New Hampshire Republican primary, according to a poll taken between the Christmas and New Year holidays." Likewise, "Hillary Clinton has strengthened the lead she has maintained in New Hampshire over her two closest Democratic rivals. Clinton shows a gain of 3 percentage points, to 36 percent, over the 7News/Suffolk University conducted a poll in early December." Among Republicans, "McCain tops Romney 31 to 25 percent, a tally that shows McCain's strength exceeding the 5.65 percent margin of error." The Democratic field "is Clinton, 36 percent; Obama, 22 percent; Edwards, 14 percent; Bill Richardson, 7 percent; Joe Biden, 4 percent; Dennis Kucinich, 3 percent; Chris Dodd, 1 percent."
Also reporting on the poll, the Washington Times (1/2, Hallow, 87K) says "Rudolph W. Giuliani apparently got no bump from the renewed focus on national security, terrorism and foreign affairs after the assassination of former Pakistan Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. He ran third with 14 percent in the poll completed Monday, with former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee at 9 percent, Rep. Ron Paul of Texas at 6 percent and former Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee at 2 percent."
Sign up here to get the US News Political Bulletin emailed to you each morning at 8 a.m.
Top
The Financial Times reports this morning that "US military deaths in Iraq fell in December to the lowest monthly total in almost four years, and estimates of civilian deaths also showed a sharp decline." In total, "twenty-two US troops were reported killed in December, the lowest total since February 2004 and the second-lowest monthly toll of the war." US and Iraqi officials "credit the decline in violence to the 'surge' of US troops, as well as Sunni Arab rejection of the radical al-Qaeda movement and a ceasefire called by Muqtada al-Sadr, a radical Shia cleric." The decline in violence is fueling hopes about an early US exit from Iraq. The Christian Science Monitor says that when the "surge" was announced "many experts doubted Mr. Bush's new policy, but some of that skepticism has faded, at least for now, as tangible benefits have emerged." Overall, violence in Iraq is "down dramatically from earlier this year," but "at the same time, better security in Iraq brings an expectation by many Americans that more US troops can return home." Analysts "worry that improved Iraqi security will cause the American public to think it's time to bring the bulk of forces home," as "Mr. Gates has already suggested that, if conditions on the ground dictate it, he would like to see an additional five brigades returned home by the end of 2008." However, "bringing home five combat brigades from Iraq could spread US forces too thin by next fall."
Last night, the CBS Evening News said many questions still remain with "maybe the biggest question of all is this: What happens when the surge is over? US forces are scheduled to return to pre-surge levels by July, and the military's hoping less troops does not mean less progress." In fact, a deadly car bombing in Baghdad yesterday served as a reminder of the precarious security situation in Iraq. NBC Nightly News noted the "massive suicide bombing in Baghdad" left 30 people dead. The Los Angeles Times, AP, Washington Post, New York Times and USA Today run stories on the attack, with USA Today noting "it was the worst bombing in the Iraqi capital since September and one of the deadliest in Iraq in months." Police suspect "al-Qaeda was behind the attack."
Intel Finds US Media Hurt 2003 Effort To Take Fallujah The Washington Times runs a dispatch from United Press International this morning that reports, "A secret intelligence assessment of the first battle of Fallujah shows that the US military thinks that it lost control over information about what was happening in the town, leading to 'political pressure' that ended its April 2004 offensive with control being handed to Sunni insurgents." According to the assessment Fallujah was "not simply a military action, it was a political and informational battle. ... The effects of media coverage, enemy information operations and the fragility of the political environment conspired to force a halt to US military operations." The authors say the press was "'crucial to building political pressure to halt military operations,' from the Iraqi government and the Coalition Provisional Authority, which resulted in a 'unilateral cease-fire' by US forces on April 9, after just five days of combat operations."
NBC Nightly News reported officials in Pakistan "confirm elections are being postponed until late February now." A senior Pakistani Election Commission official told the AP that the commission "has agreed on a new date" and "indicated it would not be before the second week of February, but refused to disclose the exact schedule before the formal announcement on Wednesday."
The Wall Street Journal, meanwhile, warns that "news of the delay could spark protests by opposition groups...which have demanded that the vote be held as scheduled, in hopes of capitalizing on sympathy arising from Ms. Bhutto's assassination." The Washington Post also reports "opposition leaders on Tuesday debated whether to call mass street protests in response" to the anticipated delay. USA Today, McClatchy, New York Times and Financial Times run similar stories.
Sharif The Leading Opposition Figure The AP reports, "Last week's assassination of his erstwhile rival, Benazir Bhutto, has left [former prime minister Nawaz] Sharif, who cultivated ties with the Taliban and tested nuclear weapons while in office, as the standard-bearer of the opposition to President Pervez Musharraf." However, Sharif's position as the likely front-runner "could be a worry to Musharraf and his chief international backer, the United States." While Washington "had pushed for Musharraf and Bhutto...to work out some kind of power-sharing arrangement that would restore democracy in Pakistan and boost the fight against Taliban and al-Qaeda," no "such deal seems likely with Sharif."
Aide: Bhutto Had Evidence Of Election Fraud The CBS Evening News reported, "One of Benazir Bhutto's closest aides said today that at the time she was assassinated, Bhutto was getting ready to give two US lawmakers a report, accusing President Pervez Musharraf's government of planning to rig the upcoming election." CNN's Situation Room said "sources close to Benazir Bhutto tell CNN that on the day she died, she was preparing to give a document to visiting US congressmen detailing alleged efforts by Pakistan's intelligence services to rig parliament elections. CNN has been shown the document by a top Bhutto adviser who helped write it."
US Questions Official Accounts Of Assassination The New York Times reports that US intelligence analysts "are not convinced by the evidence offered so far by Pakistani authorities that a militant linked to Al Qaeda was responsible for Benazir Bhutto's assassination," American officials said Tuesday. Pakistani authorities, "working from a single intelligence intercept collected the day after Ms. Bhutto's death, have identified a militant leader, Baitullah Mehsud, as the chief suspect behind the attack." But a senior State Department official said, "Before our guys say yes or no, they need a hell of a lot more than one thing, even if it is a substantial piece of evidence." Separately, a Pentagon official "said that American analysts were examining several other potential enemies of Ms. Bhutto, including elements of Pakistani Taliban groups and other Islamic extremists." The Chicago Tribune says "the Pakistani government has backed off statements that opposition leader Benazir Bhutto died not from a bullet but because the force of a suicide blast threw her head into a sunroof crank, crushing her skull." Interior Minister Hamid Nawaz "on Monday even asked people and the media to forgive and ignore the comment made Friday night about the sunroof by Interior Ministry spokesman Javed Iqbal Cheema."
Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton, who served as chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the 9/11 commission, write in the New York Times this morning that the "recent revelations that the CIA destroyed videotaped interrogations of Qaeda operatives leads us to conclude that the agency failed to respond to our lawful requests for information about the 9/11 plot. Those who knew about those videotapes -- and did not tell us about them -- obstructed our investigation." Kean and Hamilton assert that "there could have been absolutely no doubt in the mind of anyone at the CIA -- or the White House -- of the commission's interest in any and all information related to Qaeda detainees involved in the 9/11 plot. Yet no one in the administration ever told the commission of the existence of videotapes of detainee interrogations."
Sign up here to get the US News Political Bulletin emailed to you each morning at 8 a.m.
Top
The late night shows were on reruns Monday and Tuesday due to the writers' strike. Jay Leno and David Letterman, however, have announced that they will be back on the air starting tonight.
Sign up here to get the US News Political Bulletin emailed to you each morning at 8 a.m.
Top
Click image for larger view.
Smart analysis, insightful reporting, in-depth perspective—in a new, digital format.
Log in | Buy Now | See sample
View sample page 2View sample page 3View sample page 4View sample page 5advertisement
Get your POLITICALBULLETIN
Click image for larger view.
Smart analysis, insightful reporting, in-depth perspective—in a new, digital format.
Log in | Buy Now | See sample
View sample page 2View sample page 3View sample page 4View sample page 5Embed exclusive U.S. News headlines, rankings, columns, and blog postings to your Web site, blog, or social network.
advertisement
Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our Terms and Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
