I pointed out the other day how I don’t believe it is necessary by any means for a front-runner to take Iowa. I actually don’t think Iowa is necessary at all for a “strong” candidate. HOWEVER it has become important for the media and because of that the “second tier” candidates are increasingly looking at it as the potential last ditch for their campaigns as the NY Daily News and others are reporting.

How did we get here? Well since the early 1970’s Iowa was given the status as the “first caucus” in the nation. Because of that it is seen as a place where those in the second tier who give a strong performance can potentially win and use said win to raise money and influence in the coming primaries.

The problem? A candidate could potentially spend so much time and energy in Iowa (and New Hampshire really) that they aren’t battle ready anywhere else in the country. The support and financial boost they gain helps them move forward but not forward enough to win or if they do take some other high profile states by splitting the votes by a margin they face a general election with no real infrastructure to mount an effective national campaign.

You see, Iowa doesn’t send enough delegates to the convention or host enough electoral votes in the primary to honestly warrant the time and energy spent on it a year before the election. Sorry Iowa, but it is true. The Caucus is a media driven event. An Iowa win is not as important to the fundamentals of running a campaign as a win in NY, Texas, California, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania and a host of other states. Winning Iowa is a PR move.

The Obama & Edwards campaigns at the moment are trying to use Iowa as the wedge place where they see themselves picking up steam and breaking into Clinton’s lead. The problem? Edwards has basically only been running a campaign in Iowa (and doing it since 1999) and Obama who has been showing poll numbers as evidence that he is going to “surprise” the Clinton campaign, is now actually polling behind Clinton there, three months before the vote.

Obama is also courting South Carolina and was working on New Hampshire, this is true. However the campaign appears to expect that an Iowa win will gain them enough media attention that they can then take on Clinton in all other states. Not a good strategy, especially considering Obama beat Clinton in fundraising the first two quarters and because almost all of that was raised for the primary.

I don’t see how Obama is actually using that money for an effective primary effort. Iowa & new Hampshire is not where the campaign should be taking on Clinton. With that money Obama should be hitting Clinton in NY, California, Texas and normally I would say Florida but because of the scheduling mess lets say Ohio.

You hit a frontrunner not where they plan to lose (Iowa, New Hampshire was not necessarily where Clinton started, she got her support everywhere else and is now moving in) but where they expect to win. You force the candidate to move their resources into home turf where they did not expect to spend their money or focus. Remember in 2004 when George Bush convinced the media and the Kerry campaign New Jersey would go Red? It had no shot of doing that. I was jumping up and down screaming at the TV and newspapers when Kerry bought into it realizing then the campaign was probably in trouble.

At the last minute the Clinton camp could place a large amount of money and court their endorsements in Iowa to upset Obama or at the very least make him spend more of his own money there. This will put Obama on defense and let Clinton, who will loom over him with major states coming up a few weeks later in February play offense across the board.

Clinton at the moment has major endorsements throughout the country. Key influence builders. Obama has some too, not as many but some. Clinton has national name recognition as well. Obama has been trying to ward this off by saying that name recognition hurts her, people want change. If that were true though, we would see Obama gaining in polling three months out in Iowa and the rest of the country. That isn’t happening. People beyond the blogosphere and the NY Times editorial page don’t know who Obama is.

Both campaigns are pointing to Howard Dean’s 2004 front-runner status. The problem? Dean pretty much gained that status as a novelty and in an environment, much like the Republicans have now. One where no clear nationally known commodity who represents party values and experience is running. Dean filled the vacuum with Internet buzz but imploded. Again, no national infrastructure, no national campaigning experience and no monied interests, major endorsements (though he gained some at the last minute and had Al Gore pre-movie-makeover).

Dean didn’t lose the campaign because he lost Iowa. He lost because he had major weaknesses, many of which are shared today by Obama and Edwards. Dean also didn’t have a major contender to face early on. If he had, he probably wouldn’t have made it to where he did, which wasn’t really far as it was.

In the end my point is this. Edwards & Obama haven’t been running effective campaigns. They are running social movements. They have a bunch of people behind them who believe in an ideology and are giving money to see their agenda pushed forward. That is nobel and great and fun to watch. It won’t help them gain power though.

Bringing everything down to Iowa in a year when there is someone with an immense amount of energy, money, endorsements and national networking is not a good strategy.