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.
Read the rest of this entry »

Sen. Barack Obama’s wife Michelle made the following statement yesterday:

“Iowa will make the difference,” Mrs. Obama said. “If Barack doesn’t win Iowa, it is just a dream. If we win Iowa, then we can move to the world as it should be.”

The campaign is now trying to downplay the comment.