Because I believe that issues and substance should drive elections instead of style and strategy, I don’t usually write about politics for politics sake.  But, I keep going back to a single moment in the Democratic Presidential primary campaign.  A decision was made, probably as long ago as last fall, when Clinton was significantly ahead in the national polls, and it seemed her race to lose.  Barack Obama went one way and Hillary Clinton went the other way, and the result of the entire election was determined by their choices.

Barack Obama decided to target Iowa, believing that he could win the first state to hold a contest.  Obama and his troops devised a system of grass roots, feet-on-the-ground, door-to-door campaign tactics.  This Time article does a great job of detailing Obama’s strategy and supreme effort in Iowa.  Their campaign actually called me a few times and offered a meal and a trip on a bus to Iowa to canvass for the day.

Hillary Clinton just didn’t put forth the same type of effort in Iowa; here is a Boston Globe article that criticizes her early campaign strategy.  Even after all of the work by Obama and the lack of interest from Clinton, the Iowa Caucus was nearly a three-way dead heat between Obama, Clinton, and Edwards.  The delegate count was virtually even, with sixteen for Obama, fifteen for Clinton, and fourteen for Edwards.  The vote totals were a bit more lopsided, with 38% for Obama, 30% for Edwards, and 29% for Clinton.

But, the point is that with minimal effort and organization, Clinton could have achieved an Iowa victory in delegates and maybe even in votes as well.  She had money, and she had supporters.  If she had merely edged out Obama, instead of the other way around, then the entire succeeding set of election results probably would have been much different.

Instead, Obama made a truly inspiring victory speech that night, and the rest is history.