Following a week of "Hardball" encomia to Barack Obama coming off the Washington Post/ABC News November 20 Iowa poll, this morning's NBC "Chris Matthews Show" had the rat-tat-tat commentator declaring Obama "ahead" in that state.
Culminating in an eye-widening leading question to his panelists -- did the Illinois Senator have his best chance ever to beat Sen. Clinton in Hawkeye-land -- the network show exposed Chris Matthews as ballistic on Barack Obama. Perhaps escaping the chance to be invited back, Elizabeth Bumiller and David Brooks demurred and refused to catch Matthews' Obama bouquet. Bumiller said she didn't know; Brooks said there was an improvement over six months ago.
What are the facts about this poll?
First, the "ahead" moniker is false. The poll shows Obama ahead within the margin of error. In fact, the poll shows that Clinton, Edwards and Obama are each commanding so substantial a part of the caucus voters that a victor is unpredictable. And all polling in Iowa is suspect because diehard supporters can change their minds through the caucus process; many are undecided until the end; and supporters of candidates bringing up the rear (who may get less than the 15% of those present required to be considered) can throw their support to a front-runner, a result no poll can anticipate.
Second, some of the poll was done in the two days prior to the Nevada CNN debate. In that debate, both Obama and Edwards were booed when attempting to knock Hillary. She showed strength and leadership in deflecting their attacks, something that some poll respondents did not know or see.
Third, it depends who shows up at the caucuses. If caucus-goers are predominantly from the group of Iowans who think strength and experience are most important, Hillary Clinton wins running away. The fact that those polled are "likely voters" does not disclose whether they are "strength and experience" voters or "change" voters or, indeed, whether such arbitrary designations are mutually exclusive (they are not).
It is indeed unfortunate that Matthews has attached himself to this poll like a barnacle to a hull. Most commentators would cite the results with at least the caveat regarding the margin of error. Not he. And he hardly ever mentions Edwards, a formidable player is Iowa with an experienced and dedicated cadre of caucus voters.
The fluid situation in Iowa deserves a more balanced account than that being broadcast by Chris Matthews.