 |
|||
|
|
|
 Banking on Grass Roots in IowaPosted on Dec 23, 2007
DUBUQUE, Iowa—In these final days before the Iowa caucuses, John Edwards’ chance for the presidency comes down to people like Jim Clifford, trudging up an icy driveway to persuade Leo Oswald, a shipping clerk at the Georgia Pacific plant here, to turn out and support Edwards. Clifford is among the many volunteers for the various presidential candidates who visit homes and make phone calls to get supporters to the caucuses. They are the unknown warriors of the campaign, but their work will make the difference between victory and defeat in Iowa. Edwards is tied with Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in the polls. I trudged alongside Clifford, a union member from California. Oswald was shoveling ice and snow from his driveway. He, like Clifford, was a strong Edwards and union man. But he explained that he will miss the caucus. Oswald works the 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. shift and he’ll be napping and getting ready for the job when caucuses are held at night. “Just won’t have time,” he said. As a matter of fact, he said, probably just 10 percent of the 125 union members at Georgia Pacific will attend the caucuses. That is in line with a Des Moines Register poll estimate of 12 percent Republican and 10 percent Democrat attendance at caucuses around the state. That is a tiny percentage of the 57,204 people living in Dubuque and the 2,944,062 residing in Iowa. Such a low level of involvement makes me wonder about news accounts that portray this as the battle of the century. (At this point, I must digress. The caucuses are a travesty of the American political system. They are so undemocratic, unfair, unrepresentative and overly complicated that they deserve an entire column, which I will do soon. For this piece, all you have to know is that small groups of Democrats and Republicans get together in caucus meetings and select convention delegates pledged to various candidates.) Advertisement I encountered a much more uncertain story when I hooked up with Clifford and his co-worker, Donna Norton, a nurse at the Kaiser hospital in Vacaville, Calif. Norton is also a United Health Care Workers West leader and a mental health counselor at Kaiser in San Diego. I thought they were admirable—true believers who left family and friends in California during the Christmas season to work for a presidential candidate. We met in a coffee and sandwich shop in the nicely restored downtown section of Dubuque, a blue-collar city in northeast Iowa on the Mississippi River. It took more than three hours to get there, a trip slowed by fog. Using lists given them by the Edwards campaign and the union, Clifford and Norton work 12 hours a day making phone calls to potential Edwards supporters and visiting them at home. With Clifford at the wheel and Norton checking lists and me in the back seat, we drove through neighborhoods covered by snow. The homes were attractive, ample and unassuming. The people, said Norton, are Democratic, “very Catholic and very pro-life.” If the pro-choice Edwards opposed abortion, she said, he would run away with the votes here. They stopped whenever they came upon a house occupied by a prospect. Night shift worker Leo Oswald was our first call. Undeterred by Oswald’s inability to attend a caucus, Clifford cheerfully engaged him in conversation. He got Oswald to talk about his workplace, and it turned out to be a story of multinationals, the villains in some of Edwards’ speeches. One corporate owner after another, each one bigger than the last, putting the Dubuque plant further down the corporate ladder. “So it goes,” said survivor Oswald. There was a purpose behind Clifford’s conversation. Even if Oswald could not attend the caucus, Clifford’s friendly manner might persuade him to urge a co-worker or relative to go. Clifford and Norton visited three other houses on their list of prospects, but nobody was home. They left campaign literature on the doorsteps. Their day had the haphazard quality of the city council and legislative campaigns I used to cover. But the Edwards national campaign apparatus, like all the others, is trying to give outsiders like me the impression of order. That was clear when Clifford, Norton and I visited the Edwards headquarters in Dubuque. Four young men were punching computers and making phone calls. I sat down and asked them questions. Nothing tough, just their names, what they were doing and what was Dubuque like. One of them said I would have to call the press person at state headquarters. They were not authorized to talk to the media. I assured them that I could figure out what they were doing just by watching. I did. It was boring. My experience has been that low-level campaign workers enjoy talking to reporters. But these four were under unusually strict control. Obviously, more important than the doggedness of campaign workers are the candidates’ own appearances on television and in person in winning the hearts of the activists who will attend the caucuses. The other night, I heard Sen. Chris Dodd, an underdog, speak to a union crowd at a Des Moines tavern, the Star Bar. His wife, Jackie, came along, carrying one of their daughters. Dodd, from Connecticut and a pol familiar with campaigning in union halls and bars, knew how to talk to the crowd. “I think we can surprise the world,” he said. He added that “I want a ticket out of Iowa,” a nicely put way of describing how a surprising showing here would propel him into later races. “I am going to win the Democratic nomination.” Afterward, Dodd moved through the crowd of men and women, a senator used to being in charge. But he doesn’t know what these people will do Jan. 3. It is out of his control. None but the most naive would be deceived by polls and analysis. Control is in the hands of the volunteers making phone calls and trudging up driveways. CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. Add Your Comment |
Acts of Love
Email
Print
Share
Digg
Facebook
TwitThis
StumbleUpon
Reddit
YahooBuzz
Email
BlinkList
del.icio.us
Fark
Furl
Google
LinkedIn
Mixx
MyShare
NewsVine
Propeller
SphereIt
Technorati
YahooMyWeb
Newsletter 
Become a Fan
Follow Us
Subscribe
Tags|Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation
Copyright © 2012 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.
By Conservative Yankee, December 27, 2007 at 5:23 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
122617 by Sandy Dockendorff on 12/26 at 1:44 pm
“It may seem strange to some who have never experienced it, but the caucus process is really very straight forward.”
I agree with your entire post. I have caucused as a Republican delegate and as a Democratic Delegate here in Maine on a number of occasions. I have gone to the State convention, and admittedly the process is longer, BUT it insures that folks who supported a marginalized candidate have a second chance to use their vote.
I like the process. As well as being a duty I have found it to be fun!! At least as much fun as voting at 12;01AM in the New Hampshire primary!
Report thisBy Sandy Dockendorff, December 26, 2007 at 1:44 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
It may seem strange to some who have never experienced it, but the caucus process is really very straight forward.
People go to a place in their own neighborhood and choose who will get delegates…and then they elect those delegates. The same thing happens in primaries…the difference is that during a caucus we vote on who those delegates will be. Primary voters must have some other mechanism for selecting delegates…because it is the delegates that elect the nominee. No where in this country, whether you vote by pushing a button, filling in circles, or pulling a lever, do we actually vote for the nominee.
The 15% threshold exists in all states whether you hold a primary or a caucus…but in a caucus you get to decide who your second choice is. Not so in a primary state. If you vote for someone who ends up not getting at least 15% in a primary state…oh well.
By the way, there is other work completed during a caucus. The media probably doesn’t know about that. This is where we start electing our party leadership, discuss issues and vote on which to pass on up to the county conventions, and elect the people who will put together the county conventions. So all those out there complaining about how the Democratic Party is run…by all means, come out to the caucus…and stay to get ALL the work done.
The only negative thing anybody can say about the Iowa caucuses is that it takes too long. Well, maybe if we pondered that choice a bit and did our own research about the candidates and what they stand for, we’d get better nominees. When something is really important, maybe it should take longer than a media-induced nearly stupefied poke of a button.
Report thisBy ETSpoon, December 26, 2007 at 5:56 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
So the caucus campaigns in Iowa aren’t “organized” and more resemble local city council campaigns. Yeah…and?...That’s what Democracy is supposed to look like, jerk-Boyarski. Not the slick MadAd b.s. we get after Iowa, though in truth we Iowans are inundated in that crap too during the caucus season.
It’s undemocratic? Well, tell me, mister smarty-pants-whichever-Coast-your-from, is there any political process in this country, outside a New England townhall meeting, where one has to openly interact with one’s neighbors? I’m planning on submitting the Democratic Party’s traditional opposition to the Taft-Hartly Act, the so-called right to scab law, as a plank for the country party’s platform. I have to stand up in front of people I know and don’t know and do this. BTW, jerk-Boyarski, did you know that the Democratic Party dropped opposition to Taft-Hartly from the national party platform in 1988? It’s been a downhill slide for union workers ever since.
I’ve been to every Iowa Caucus since 1976. Gee, now who was it who came out of that Iowa Caucus to win the presidency?
Report thisBy rc, December 25, 2007 at 9:00 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
#122337 by Joe on 12/24 at 9:10 pm
(Unregistered commenter)
#122220 by rc on 12/24 at 7:35 am
rc, you set me back a pace. I thought the caucuses could be improved upon and remain useful in the face of voting-machine fraud.
Report thisJoe, I would like to hear how caucuses could be improved. IMO, they require an enormous time commitment. That’s a tough sell given the low rate of participation in primaries and the general election.
By Conservative Yankee, December 25, 2007 at 5:45 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
122278 by Douglas Chalmers on 12/24
“Strange that you should compare Hillary (never mind about Bill) to George Bush.”
You are correct. They are different. GWB is a business shill from Greenwich Connecticut, and Bill is a Business shill from Hope Arkansas, and Hill is a business shill from Chicago.
Bill is fat and looks like a Hawg farmer, GWB is gaunt and looks like a sleazy banker, and although she lacks the warm nurturing side, Hill passes for a woman. Sorry I missed the differences.
As to if I would prefer another four years of GWB to hill-the-business-shill; I simply don’t see how a change from one to another will effect my life, even marginally.
Report thisBy Joe, December 24, 2007 at 9:10 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
#122220 by rc on 12/24 at 7:35 am
rc, you set me back a pace. I thought the caucuses could be improved upon and remain useful in the face of voting-machine fraud.
Report thisBy Douglas Chalmers, December 24, 2007 at 12:44 pm Link to this comment
122230 by Conservative Yankee on 12/24: “The British royalty looks like a class act next to these shit-kicking clods…”
Strange that you should compare Hillary (never mind about Bill) to George Bush. Also strange that he isn’t running for office but she is. But you would rather another GWB…...???
Strange too that you would compare the Clintons unfavorably with the “British” monarchy (English, actually but co-opted from Germany a few hundred years back), themselves a bunch of inbred ingrates who have degenerated into something quite second-rate themselves.
The Bushes are another matter, though…... Episodes of “The West Wing” are indeed preferable and so too is that Spanish-American president, Martin Sheen (Ramón Estevez).
Report thisBy Conservative Yankee, December 24, 2007 at 8:13 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
122156 by Douglas Chalmers on 12/23 at 11:13 pm
“How much longer are you going to be slaves of some fanciful but dictated new world order?”
As long as Business-shill families Clinton’s and Bush’s agree to share the white house (I guess)
The British royalty looks like a class act next to these shit-kicking clods!
Report thisBy rc, December 24, 2007 at 7:35 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
#122162 by Joe on 12/24 at 12:32 am
“The caucuses, even with 5-10% of registered Party members, requires extended exchange of ideas over many hours.”
That was not my experience. I agree with Boyarski. The 2004 caucus I participated in was ridiculous. A body count. No discussion, just a contest of how many people you could drag in. Hardly anyone understood what was going on.
Report thisBy Marjorie L. Swanson, December 24, 2007 at 4:29 am Link to this comment
It’s hardly surprising that campaign workers aren’t allowed to talk to reporters when every word, every slip of the tongue will end up being used against the candidate. Media types are endlessly looking for something to say that will justify their taking up time and space. And usually failing miserably.
Report thisBy Douglas Chalmers, December 24, 2007 at 3:18 am Link to this comment
#122161 by Joe on 12/24: “This election is probably more critical than blog writers have been insisting. The overall system (globally)is becoming unstable. Bullying the world, politically and ecologically, is just winding the strings too tight….”
Agreed, Joe, and what is worse was that the Neocon look-alikes in many countries also took the opportunity after 9/11 to exploit the war on terror for the benefit of their own nefarious political agendas.
The USA has thus destabilized the entire world as a result. Homelessness is not just in the USA. Corporatism is not just in the USA. Destruction of health care is not just in the USA. Even AIPAC is not just in the USA!
Report thisBy Joe, December 24, 2007 at 12:32 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
The author of this piece, Mr. Boyarski, believes:
“The caucuses are a travesty of the American political system. They are so undemocratic, unfair, unrepresentative and overly complicated that they deserve an entire column, which I will do soon..”
I disagree entirely. The caucuses, even with 5-10% of registered Party members, requires extended exchange of ideas over many hours. The typical Primary State voter mainly gets his or her head filled with neg ads for 48 hours, then walks zombie-like into a voting booth designed to negate his vote.
Report thisBy Joe, December 24, 2007 at 12:22 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
I’ve only voted 3rd-Party in recent times but I trust John Edwards enough to vote for him (if I can’t get R.Paul as a formal option). This election is probably more critical than blog writers have been insisting. The overall system (globally)is becoming unstable. Bullying the world, politically and ecologically, is just winding the strings too tight.
Report thisBy Douglas Chalmers, December 23, 2007 at 11:13 pm Link to this comment
#122129 by W Lim on 12/23: “This comment is a test…”
Tested - but is it true?
“In these final days….. trudging up an icy driveway to persuade….. a shipping clerk….. to turn out and support Edwards…” may make some difference to who wins - but what difference does it really make who supposedly runs the country?
Final change comes in the hearts and minds of people across all states as well as in the mouths of politicians. How much longer are you going to be slaves of some fanciful but dictated new world order?
Report this