[NYTr] Obama upends his party's politics

[All the News That Doesn't Fit]

sent by MichaelP

[Upending the Dem leadership has seemed to be impossible - I'll believe
it after it happens. -Michael]

LA Times - Jan 4 2008
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-demassess4jan04,1,4553284.story?coll=la-politics-campaign&ctrack=1&cset=true


Obama upends his party's politics

His   promise  of  change  resonates  more  than  Clinton's  claim  of 
experienc. 

by Peter Wallsten

DES  MOINES  --  Barack Obama's surprisingly convincing win in Iowa on 
Thursday  upended the Democratic presidential race and overturned some
of the fundamental assumptions of modern-day American politics.

Voters  in  an overwhelmingly white state embraced an African American 
candidate.


Women,  given  the  chance to vote for the first credible female White 
House hopeful in Hillary Rodham Clinton, voted in larger numbers for a 
man.

And  the Democratic Party's most formidable political machine, drawing
on deep-pocket  donors and the celebrity of former President Clinton,
was beaten by a man who just three years ago held an office no higher
than state legislator.

Amid  it  all,  Obama, a first-term senator from Illinois, changed the 
rules of the Iowa caucuses.

Long  viewed  as  an  insular  process dominated by longtime political 
activists,  Thursday's  first-in-the-nation  voting  event of the 2008 
campaign  turned  out  to  be  a  forum  for  unaffiliated  voters and 
first-time participants to say they were looking for something new and 
different.

One-fifth  of  the  Democratic  caucus participants were independents, 
according to a media survey taken as voters entered precincts Thursday 
night -- and of them, 41% backed Obama and just 17% opted for Clinton.

Moreover,  57%  of  caucus-goers  said  it was their first time taking 
part,  and  first-time  caucus-goers  made  up  two-thirds  of Obama's 
supporters.

Even among Democrats -- who Clinton strategists have long argued would
be her saving grace -- Obama and Clinton essentially tied, winning 32%
and 31% respectively.

The  entrance  survey  of 2,136 Democratic caucus participants, called
the National  Election  Poll, was conducted for a consortium of media 
organizations, including the Los Angeles Times, by Edison/Mitofsky.

The  results  helped  answer a question that has lingered for nearly a 
year:  Would a desire for experience in a time of war outweigh voters' 
desire for change in national leadership? According  to the media
survey of Democratic caucus-goers, just one in five  considered
experience to be the most important factor, compared to  more  than
half  who  said  an ability  to bring "needed change" mattered  most.
And  among  those who embraced change, more than half backed  Obama
while Clinton and John Edwards split most of the rest in that category.

For  the  New  York  senator,  the  results stood as a sharp rebuke by 
voters to a central argument of her candidacy: that she, more than her 
rivals, was prepared to assume the responsibilities of the presidency.

Surveys  have  long  found  that  Clinton, the second-term senator and 
former   first   lady,   was   viewed  as  the  most  experienced  and 
best-qualified to lead on matters of national security and war.

But  voters instead endorsed Obama's primary argument for "turning the 
page" in Washington, an argument that essentially painted Clinton as a 
status quo candidate.

"Change  is the driving dynamic of the race, as opposed to who has the 
most  conventional resume or who voters see as the 'strongest leader,'
" said David Plouffe, Obama's campaign manager.

The  results  are  especially  damaging  for Edwards, the former North 
Carolina  senator.  Even though he barely edged out Clinton for second 
place  the  Democratic race is very much a two-person contest, pitting 
Obama against Clinton.

Edwards  was the party's 2004 vice presidential nominee thanks in part
to his  surprisingly  strong  second-place finish here in that year's 
caucuses.  But  after  campaigning  in  the state nearly nonstop since 
then,  Edwards  was thought by some to have the strongest organization
and the best chance at victory.

Despite gaining steam in recent weeks with sharply populist attacks on 
"corporate  greed" and lobbyists' power, Edwards on Thursday failed to
win his core base of union households and lower-income people.

He  placed  third  among  union households, winning 24% of that group, 
compared  to  31%  for  Clinton  and  28%  for Obama, according to the 
entrance survey.

Edwards  vowed  on  Thursday  to  compete  in  Tuesday's New Hampshire 
primary  and  beyond,  but strategists for his rivals said they do not 
view him as a threat, mostly because of his lackluster fundraising and
the expenditure limits imposed on his campaign because of his decision
to accept public financing.

Clinton, however, has the national support base and resources to forge 
ahead.

She  retains  double-digit  leads in national polls and in most of the
big states that vote in late January and early February.