Saturday's J-J dinner
Posted: Monday, November 12, 2007 9:21 AM by Mark Murray
Filed Under:
Democrats
There may be no more important judge of Obama's J-J appearance than the Des Moines Register's David Yepsen, and he gave the candidate the clear win. Yepsen predicts that the "the passion he showed should help him close the gap on Hillary Clinton by tipping some undecided" Iowa Dems his way.
And the Obama campaign got the exact type of lead it wanted out of the Washington Post, which pits the Dem contest as a two-person race between Clinton and Obama. "In the space of an hour this weekend, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois, using some of their most pointed and forceful rhetoric of the campaign, framed the choice for Democrats deciding their party's presidential nomination. Clinton gave a strong speech at the Jefferson-Jackson dinner late Saturday. But Obama, criticized for occasional lackluster performances, delivered one of his most focused and powerful addresses. In the view of many watching, he emerged as the oratorical winner at the biggest Democratic political event in Iowa before the state's January caucuses."
The New York Times: “Neither Mrs. Clinton nor Mr. Obama mentioned the other by name at the dinner. But the subtext of their remarks was apparent to thousands of Iowans who either sat in rapt attention or responded in extravagantly orchestrated displays of cheers, signs and chants. ‘Not answering questions because we’re afraid our answers won’t be popular just won’t do it,’ Mr. Obama said. ‘Triangulating and poll-driven positions because we’re worried about what Mitt or Rudy might say about us just won’t do it.’”
Clinton’s “references to Mr. Obama were some of her most direct attacks on him and reflected the strength that Mr. Obama was showing in polls in this state, though he lags behind her in national polls. ‘We are ready for change,’ Mrs. Clinton said, seizing on a central promise of Mr. Obama’s campaign. ‘Change is just a word if you don’t have the strength and experience to make it happen. We must nominate a nominee who has been tested and elect a president who is ready to lead on Day 1. I know what it’s going to take to win.’”
Yet count Salon's Walter Schapiro among those in the national media who believe Obama finally found his voice on Saturday night -- only to hide that voice on Sunday morning with Tim Russert. "But what a difference eight hours can make. The next morning, Obama appeared for a full-hour interview in another arena of political combat, facing off against Tim Russert on ‘Meet the Press.’ The fiery Obama of Saturday night had been replaced on Sunday morning by a replicant, a tepid candidate mostly concerned with avoiding mistakes rather than winning converts. Early in the interview, Russert ran a clip from Saturday night's speech and challenged Obama to identify precisely who was ‘talking and acting and voting like George Bush Republicans.’ This was Obama's moment of decision -- either up the ante by calling out Hillary, or fold… Obama's lackluster performance with Russert (no hits, though no obvious errors) illustrates a much larger, though still fixable, problem with his campaign. He has displayed an inconsistent, zigzag style that makes it difficult for him to sustain any mood, any argument, any message in his campaign. Every time Obama takes off the gloves, he immediately feels compelled to lace them up again."
And CQ's Craig Crawford was equally impressed with Obama's J-J speech, but wonders if it was too little, too late. "The shortness of time before Iowans vote could be Clinton’s best friend because until recently her rivals have kept fairly quiet about their complaints, allowing her to build a loyal following in the state. The worst thing for Obama about his powerful speech on Saturday is that he might have waited too long to give it."
The Washington Post's Ruth Marcus doesn't quite give Obama the Gore-Kerry J-J treatment, "But Obama's impressive turnout and impassioned oratory offered the closing highlight of a long night.”
NBC/NJ’s Carrie Dann asks: Will going negative -- even it was subtle -- hurt Obama in Iowa? Since 2004, it's been a commandment of caucus politics that Iowans are NICE people who don't like brawling candidates. Clinton advisor Terry McAuliffe invoked the 2004 fallout on Friday when he told reporters that camps that go negative “do it at your peril here in Iowa."
Dann adds that although the speeches on Saturday had their fair share of sound-bitable moments, the real story of the Jefferson Jackson dinner is who brought in the most organizational muscle. Team Obama won the night, hands down, as far as the energy and coordination of their attendees, with the thunder-stick armed Clinton fans a distant second. The massive organizational effort that went into JJ also underscored the ever-growing divide between moneyed first-tierers and the Bidens and Dodds of the campaign. Their cheering sections were peppy but almost unnoticeable in the sea of red-shirted Obama fans and yellow-clad Clinton supporters.
On Friday night, in fact, when a sign-decorating competition between all the campaigns turned into an impromptu Obama rally, Dann saw a staffer from a second-tier campaign watching helplessly as the hollering red-shirted throng grew louder. She had tears in her eyes.
