Obama the frontrunner, Hillary the underdog

Hillary Clinton is fighting for her political life in New Hampshire. A number of factors have made Obama the frontrunner.

(1) The betting. Who is favourite at any one moment is a matter of fact. Follow the money. Overnight, Saturday night/Sunday morning, the mantle shifted as the markets tipped from Hillary to Obama.

(2) The New Hampshire polls. A 10 point Obama lead caught the headlines, though other polls are tighter. He has the big mo.

(3) John Edwards: His debate strategy - defending Obama against Hillary - revealed that he believes his best hope is to knock Clinton out and go head-to-head over change.

(4) The debate dynamics. Obama was comfortable in the role of front-runner. The strategic dilemma for the Clinton camp in adapting to their new underdog status - how to draw contrasts, aware of the price to be paid for going negative - was on display. Obama parried the contrasts effectively, particularly his answer on why 'words do inspire'

(5) The media narrative. Each of these factors has played into the media narrative that Iowa is giving Obama immense momentum. (It is not giving Mike Huckabee momentum on anything like the same scale).

There is some rationale to this, which the media reinforces and strengthens: the Iowa demographics were exceptionally good for Huckabee, as New Hampshire's are not. But there is nothing about Iowa that made it particularly promising Obama territory. The Iowa number-crunching Obama's turnout success and appeal to independents, and his ability to defeat Clinton among women, suggests he will do well in New Hampshire, given the high number of registered Independents. And there is also evidence of Obamamania on the ground in New Hampshire.

Hillary Clinton's problem is the loss of inevitability. There is one big Clinton argument. That the Democrats need to win - and that running Obama against McCain would be the greater risk in November. Hillary has negatives, but they are known. We don't know whether or not he has a glass jaw.

But the Clinton campaign are not going to get a hearing for that argument over the next 48 hours, and look likely to go nil-three in New Hampshire and South Carolina.

The problem with a hope squashing 'reality check' strategy is that if Obama is possible, Democrats want him to be possible. He is asking voters to suspend their disbelief. And, if they do so, he wins.

After Iowa: Obamamania

The magic of the TV digibox meant I was able to see the candidate's victory and concession speeches this morning without staying up. Huckabee's was a reminder of how much better he comes across in person than if you read what he is actually saying. Obama's was quite a speech, especially if you watch it. It was textbook Obama - reprising his 2004 Convention theme - while creating that sense of occasion, momentum and the participation of voters in making the improbable possible.

I was struck by three things.

First, if he moves to national prominence as a co-frontunner, it will become clear that he is already running against Rudy Giuliani in his hope versus fear pitch.

I'll be a president who ends this war in Iraq and finally brings our troops home who restores our moral standing, who understands that 9/11 is not a way to scare up votes but a challenge that should unite America and the world against the common threats of the 21st century.

But that can also play to the concern among the Democrat base of a Hillary Clinton foreign policy risking being 'Bush-Cheney lite' without having to go too negative.

Second, that Obama's response to the Hillary Clinton argument on different approaches to change is to claim to represent and unify the Obama-Clinton-Edwards strategies, of hoping, working for and fighting for change.

For many months, we've been teased, even derided for talking about hope. But we always knew that hope is not blind optimism. It's not ignoring the enormity of the tasks ahead or the roadblocks that stand in our path.

It's not sitting on the sidelines or shirking from a fight. Hope is that thing inside us that insists, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that something better awaits us if we have the courage to reach for it and to work for it and to fight for it.

Third, that he is making the space to challenge the Clinton campaign if they change strategy and go negative.

That is what we started here in Iowa and that is the message we can now carry to New Hampshire and beyond. The same message we had when we were up and when we were down

Authenticity matters in politics - and Obama has it.

After Iowa: Hillary's challenge

Both races are more open this morning than they were last night - but that also means it was a much, much better night for the Democrats than the Republicans.

It was difficult to see how the Republican race could prove decisive. The impact has been to make it more confused, though with one clear casualty. The Mitt Romney campaign looks fatally wounded. (John Ellis has a brilliant robust dissection of what went wrong with the most 'politics as usual' campaign offered to Iowans; while Michael Tomasky points out that his $6.5 million Iowa campaign comes out at $300 a vote).

I very much doubt Mike Huckabee will make the nomination in the end - nor how there could be a winning electoral coalition for Huckabee in November, as his economic approach is unacceptable to a large part of the Republican party, while his social agenda will scare off key groups of swing voters. This is good news for the absent Rudy Giuliani and for John McCain, though McCain did not do particularly well. But there is no Republican unity candidate - and that is going to affect their ability to mobilise in November.

Obama won big - by a striking seven point margin, exceeding expectations. The concentrated burst of primaries make timing matter more in 2008 than ever before. They may not pull it off, but right now, the Obama campaign have got everything right.

John Edwards edged Clinton for second place: a strong showing in such a competitive race. But it may prove the high point of his campaign, and may not be enough to keep his candidacy going into the Southern primaries after New Hampshire. Clinton-Obama will become a compelling media frame and Edwards will struggle to stay visible. What happens to Edwards fairly strong base of support in the South is an important unknown factor.

It is far, far too early to write Hillary Clinton off. This morning, she is probably still the favourite and frontrunner for the nomination. But for how long? I can see three strategic problems for the Clinton pitch, going into the next round of contests.

(1) Both results strengthen the sense that this is a 'change' election. The famous right track/wrong track indicator is at record levels, showing 7 out of 10 Americans believe the country is going in the wrong direction.

Hillary presented two main 'closing' arguments on the eve of the poll and returned to these in her post-caucus concession speech.
- First, that she can win in November; she has been tested and presents less electoral risk;
- Second, that she is the President who will be 'ready of day one'.

So Hillary wants to stand for 'the experience to deliver change'. But the contrast with Obama risks making her 'the Establishment' against the risk of 'Change', in a race with no other status quo candidate.

(2) The high turnout and Obama's crossover appeal to independents may strengthen his core 'uniter, not a divider' argument. The risk of Obama is reduced if he demonstrates the ability to deliver. Over the next week, a sense of what these results and New Hampshire mean on 'electability' will emerge, from detailed number crunching and how that then turns into a new common sense among the commentators, bloggers and activists. That is a primary consideration for many Democrats this year, and will be the substance at stake in the post-match spin and counter-spin.

(3) If the momentum of Iowa and the media focus propel Obama to victory in New Hampshire, Obama would become the favourite. The Hillary Clinton campaign has been a 'safety first' campaign of the frontrunner. Could she emulate her husband's 'comeback kid' reputation? They are very different politicians.

Time magazine is already this morning reporting talk of a change of strategy but I doubt she could change her argument significantly without it looking like panic, and costing her in authenticity. If, as Time's report suggests, this means 'going negative' it would backfire and play to Obama's strengths.

The Obama campaign is still an unlikely insurgency - yet that is precisely its appeal if it can be shown to be a viable one. Hillary Clinton will have to hold her nerve, but she may find that she is in the campaign race on the terms that her opponent wanted to define.

Before the spin comes in ...

Every campaign will want to declare that they are on the road to victory.

Real Clear Politics has a good ready reckoner as to what they really need

And here's a good spin explaining the thinking behind the campaign strategy we won't find out anything about tonight - Rudy Giuliani's unconventional bid for the Republican nomination.

The race is on ...

The race for both nominations remains incredibly open as the first votes are cast. Firm predictions are probably foolish.

I have felt that John Edwards would do better in Iowa than many expect. He could come through to top the poll on the night. His union support and strong appeal to the Democrat base on economic inequality should help him in a caucus. It is less clear whether, even if it happened, that would make the nomination a genuine three way race for long.

The influential Des Moines Register poll was very good for Barack Obama. Still, that might not help him in the expectations game. (A lower profile CNN poll had Clinton ahead). That Obama's lead was based on his appeal to independent voters strengthens his claims to electability in November. But will they caucus tonight? (The New Republic blogunpicks the numbers).

Obama's chances depend on increasing the caucus turnout. The university holidays don't help him. (However, Time says his strategy is to 'campaign young, but organize gray'). First place would be a remarkable achievement. It is still an outsider insurgency campaign, but victory could give Obama the momentum into a closely contested New Hampshire primary to make the February 5th contest too close to call.

Hillary Clinton is still the frontrunner with a strong national lead, and remains the most likely Democratic nominee. She is electable in November, particularly this year. The experience and credibility cards are her strongest suit. But this is a 'change' election: standing for 'change' and for 'less risk' is a balancing act. With no President or Vice-President in the race, there are dangers in Clnton becoming the establishment 'continuity' candidate, despite being a Democrat bidding to succeed a Republican President. But a credible bid to be the first female President will mobilise support (as well as anti-Clinton opposition). The 'big bang' nationwide contest in 22 states on February 5th is good news for her campaign, but she needs to win one of the first three contests to prevent the campaign dynamic changing against her.

So I have a feeling its still going to be Hillary - but quite probably not tonight. And there is still everything to play for.