LOGO: Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines. A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.Best Political Blog Winner, 2007 Webby Awards, People's Voice and Jury.   Dateline: Iraq - Anna Badkhen and Sarah Stillman on Assignment
 
May 17, 2008
Log in / Register

 Choose a size
Text Size

Reports

Arts & Culture

Digs
Inside the Data Mine

Ear to the Ground

A/V Booth

Truthdig Bazaar
Storm from the East

Storm from the East

Milton Viorst
$ 11.16

more items

 
Reports

Banking on Grass Roots in Iowa

Email this item Email    Print this item Print   
Posted on Dec 23, 2007
Edwards
AP photo / Charlie Niebergall

Pre-caucus courtship:  John Edwards meets with supporters from Caucus for Priorities after winning their endorsement in November.

By Bill Boyarsky

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.)

On television, the campaign appears to be as well plotted as an episode of “The West Wing.” In real life, it’s disorganized and random. When I return confused to my hotel room in Des Moines, I have to turn on CNN to get a sense of order, even if it’s a false one. Correspondents, aided by producers and other support personnel in the CNN campaign bus and at headquarters, summarize the candidate’s activities. Frequent recitation of polls, buttressed by interviews with voters and an occasional academic, give the reports an appearance of accuracy.

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.

Email Newsletter

Get truth delivered to your inbox every week.

Previous item: The Race for Name-Caller in Chief

Next item: The Evangelical Rebellion

Jump to Comments

Advertisement


Elsewhere: .

Comments

Are you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig.

By Conservative Yankee, December 27, 2007 at 5:23 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

122617 by Sandy Dockendorff on

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!

Reply to this | Report this

By Sandy Dockendorff, December 26, 2007 at 1:44 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

It may seem strange to

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.

Reply to this | Report this

By ETSpoon, December 26, 2007 at 5:56 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

So the caucus campaigns in

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?

Reply to this | Report this

By rc, December 25, 2007 at 9:00 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

#122337 by Joe on 12/24

#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.

Joe, 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.

Reply to this | Report this

By Conservative Yankee, December 25, 2007 at 5:45 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

122278 by Douglas Chalmers on

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.

Reply to this | Report this

By Joe, December 24, 2007 at 9:10 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

#122220 by rc on 12/24

#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.

Reply to this | Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, December 24, 2007 at 12:44 pm #
(2932 comments total)

122230 by Conservative Yankee on

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).

Reply to this | Report this

By Conservative Yankee, December 24, 2007 at 8:13 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

122156 by Douglas Chalmers on

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!

Reply to this | Report this

By rc, December 24, 2007 at 7:35 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

#122162 by Joe on 12/24

#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.

Reply to this | Report this

By Marjorie L. Swanson, December 24, 2007 at 4:29 am #
(115 comments total)

It's hardly surprising that campaign

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.

Reply to this | Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, December 24, 2007 at 3:18 am #
(2932 comments total)

#122161 by Joe on 12/24:

#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!

Reply to this | Report this

By Joe, December 24, 2007 at 12:32 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

The author of this piece,

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.

Reply to this | Report this

By Joe, December 24, 2007 at 12:22 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

I've only voted 3rd-Party

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.

Reply to this | Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, December 23, 2007 at 11:13 pm #
(2932 comments total)

#122129 by W Lim on

#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?

Reply to this | Report this

Add Your Comment

Posts by unregistered readers are moderated. Posts by members
are published immediately. Why wait? Register today!






Notify you when others comment on this article?


Are you a human?
Retype the word you see here.


Please read and abide by our comment policy.
By submitting this comment, you agree to this site's terms and conditions.

Newsletter

Get Truthdig in your inbox

Privacy Policy

 
Click here to advertise with Truthdig
 

 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
Robert Scheer's new book offers first-hand insight into the presidential mind
 
 
 
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
Copyright © 2008 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.