Lynn Sweet reports a number of interesting assumption from Obama’s campaign manager David Plouff. They include that there is a “hidden vote” for Barack Obama not captured in polling (presumably young people and people who haven’t voted before), that Clinton is a “quasi-incumbent” who presides over a “political machine” (which seems bad for Obama if you ask me) and that if Clinton doesn’t take Iowa she will pay a heavy price.

“Clinton will pay a severe price for not winning Iowa — national front runners always do,” Plouff is quoted as saying.

So is the Iowa idea true? Lets look.

In 2004 John Kerry successfully used Iowa to ward of Howard Dean. That much is true though Kerry then went on to lose the election. In 2000 Al Gore (who was the frontrunner at the time) defeated Bill Bradley in Iowa and went on to win the nomination. Of course Al Gore also took New Hampshire, Delaware, Washington and well, pretty much everything. He was a sitting Vice President so his winning Iowa wasn’t a major triumph. He also went on to lose the general election.

In 1988 Dick Gephardt won the Iowa Caucus but lost the primary.

In 1992 Tom Harkin (who was the frontrunner at the time) took Iowa with 76% of the vote. Bill Clinton received 3% though he went on to win the nomination and the presidency. In 1984 Walter Mondale (frontrunner) won Iowa, won the Democratic nomination and then was defeated for the presidency. Same for 1980 when sitting president Jimmy Carter (frontrunner and sitting president) won Iowa, won the nomination and then lost the presidency. In 1976 the people of Iowa were uncommitted to any candidate and therefore Jimmy Carter came in second. He went on to win the nomination and the presidency proving he did not need Iowa.

Finally in 1972 Ed Muskie won Iowa though he lost the nomination.

So since 1972, when Iowa took its place as the nations first caucus only once has it gone for the candidate who would win the nomination and then the presidency. That was in 1996 when Bill Clinton ran unopposed. The people had almost no choice but to nominate him, no one was running.

I have to confess I am an Iowa skeptic. I don’t see how a candidate needs Iowa to win either the nomination or the presidency and frankly the evidence on the Democratic side shows that you are almost better off not winning the primary. Since it took its coveted title its been a bust for Democrats who spend months there and ignore the much larger and more influential states, like Florida and Ohio that could help them in a general election.

Obviously Plouff knows this, he would have to if he has ever looked at past election results. So I am kind of surprised by his statement that “frontrunners always pay a price”. I have no idea what that price is.

“Meet the Press,” “This Week with George Stephanopoulos,” “Fox News Sunday,” “Face the Nation” and “Late Edition.

Florida was given until September 29th to move or change the way it holds its primary or lose all its delegates to the Democratic National Convention (and half its delegates to the Republican convention). The verdict is in and the state will make no accommodations.

This now puts the Democratic candidates in a tuff position. They have pledged not to campaign in states the violate the party rules, however Florida holding its primary so close to Iowa and just before the onslaught of states on February 5th holds a potential PR problem. Clinton is currently ahead in Florida polling and is likely to take major states on February 5th. She seems less likely at this moment to take Iowa and her opponents had hoped to capitalize on an Iowa and/or New Hampshire loss for fundraising and as a symbol that she can be taken down further along in the primary process. With that time shortened and with a win in such a heavy general election battleground state, even with no delegate representations it could remove any “steam” gained from an Iowa win.

Florida has now put the ball squarely in the court of the candidates unless the DNC accepts the new date and allows the state to send delegates.

Rudy Giuliani will speak to the National Rife Association to “clarify” his position on gun rights. He said of the meeting:

“There are certain agreements and disagreements with every single group,” noted Giuliani, talking about the event with reporters in Reston, Va. “When I go before the NRA, I’m going to try to emphasize areas I think in which there is a great deal of agreement. And as I have said many, many times, my 80 percent friend is not my 20 percent enemy.”

Giuliani has been under attack for his previous actions and positions on guns for which the former mayor hasn’t always been seen as a ‘80% friend’ by the NRA. As mayor and a federal prosecutor Giuliani enacted legislations that put restrictions on gun purchasing. His initiatives were seen as important steps in curbing violence in NYC but were vehemently opposed by the NRA.

Last week Mitt Romney made the following joke as reported by CNN:

Romney said his wife would make a “prettier first lady” than former president Bill Clinton.

Today Drudge has the following:

At NRA, Fred Thompson introduced wife and said: ‘She would make a much better first lady than Bill Clinton’… Crowd fell to pieces…. Developing…