Before the ink hardens on journalists’ first draft of history, let’s examine what really happened in Iowa. (Note: I’m writing before any New Hampshire votes have been cast.)

Much of the commentary suggests Barack Obama’s victory was based on turnout – he expanded the electorate in unique ways, bringing into the process new voters who gave him the Iowa win. While some of the facts bear a passing resemblance to reality, Obama owes his Iowa victory much more to message and personal appeal than to turnout.

Until the very end, Hillary Clinton chose to communicate an “experience” message, while Obama had seamlessly transitioned his appeal from “hope” to “hope and change.”

Based on public polls, we had every reason to expect change would triumph – at least as a message. In August, Democrats nationally preferred a candidate who “has a strong desire to change the system