(Via RuggerJoe at Flickr.)

Across the blogiverse on this first day of voting for the Democratic presidential nomination, there's been a good deal of discussion of Chris Hayes' musings on undecided voters, in which he assesses their lack of interest in issues and concludes:

As far as I can tell, this leaves Democrats with two options: either abandon "issues" as the lynchpin of political campaigns and adopt the language of values, morals, and character as many have suggested; or begin the long-term and arduous task of rebuilding a popular, accessible political vocabulary--of convincing undecided voters to believe once again in the importance of issues.

Actually, having gone through similar mental contortions in wrestling with this problem more than a year ago, I'm happy to report that these aren't separate options -- the solution is to make valuing issues a moral/character issue, as I wrote here in October 2006:

Where the jujitsu -- and the genuine reframing -- of the opportunity lies is in Democrats' ability to portray their unique values of pursuing real solutions to real problems, for the common good and with genuine accountability, as being the morally grounded source of security that sanctimonious Republican posturing promises to be, but isn't.

. . . If you think of Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, you've got exactly the kind of identity that Democrats should be projecting -- not ideologues wanting to revolutionize the world with grandiose schemes, but honest, morally centered men and women who want to do the right thing and are smart and determined enough to get it done.

That's the Democratic version of morality.

What does this have to do with tonight's Iowa caucuses? Well, a couple of months ago, I got my ass kicked in comments ruffled some feathers here by suggesting that a similar, personality-rooted commitment to solving problems (or "true grit," for short) was the essence of what Democratic primary voters would be looking for, and thus far Hillary Clinton was doing the best job of fitting that profile.

What's happened since? Even if Clinton should win tonight, she will have certainly lost her perceived dominance. The problem is that, to quote myself from November, "her rationale is her experience, combined with her ability to take a punch" -- and she never fully regained her stride from the first punch she took from Obama and Edwards, the charges that she was too close to the current power structure to change it effectively.

The specifics of the attacks aside, Hillary's underwhelming response was inconsistent with the character her side was seeking to project. (And it's not like the GOP won't launch similar criticisms of her in the fall.) As Christy noted a little while ago, even her closing statement to Iowans "needs an infusion of some kick ass 'take action' ideas."

For most politicians, throwing out some passionate true-believer rhetoric to reassure the base would be child's play. But Clinton seems determined to live up to her overcautious stereotype, and you can see "microtargeting"-obsessed pollster/campaign guru Mark Penn checking off the notes she's supposed to hit (e.g., strong with women, people who liked Bill Clinton, and those who value experience) in her messaging.

Because people tend to prefer an impractical plan for doing the right thing versus a practical plan for doing the wrong thing, Clinton's failure to silence the doubts about her passion and commitment has left the door open to her challengers. But as Jane wrote today, Edwards seems to have made the opposite mistake -- focusing entirely on his willingness to fight, and leaving audiences uncertain about his ability to deliver. Although I tend to agree with Edwards the most on the issues, I'm struck by how he almost seems more caught up in his personal drama of challenging a corrupt system than in persuading voters he's the best person to change it.

All of which leaves Barack Obama happily perched in between, more rhetorically opposed to the status quo than Clinton, but without Edwards' jarring notes of confrontation almost for its own sake. I've criticized Obama more than any other candidate these past few months, but look at his closing ad and tell me if it doesn't aim for that Jimmy Stewart-like tone I was mentioning above, with lines like "I'm running to finally solve problems we talk about year after year after year" and "I've spent my life working for change that's made a real difference in the lives of real people."

If prospective Iowa caucusers sit still long enough to hear Obama make his case, making excellent use of his deep, confident voice (and if they ignore his hyperactive hand gestures), that ad strikes me as the most effective appeal he's made yet.

There are a lot of variables at play tonight besides messaging -- such as on-the-ground organizing, effectiveness in turning out supporters, and the quirks of caucusing -- and Clinton and Edwards' closing messages certainly offer their share of reality-based commitment to solving problems as well (the campaigns seem to understand what I've been preaching, even if it took awhile for them to learn!). But for the moment, in large part due to the choices made by his opponents, Obama appears to have found himself on the inside track. If Clinton or Edwards are able to overtake him, tonight or in the next few weeks, it'll be because they found a better way to merge the pragmatism and passion that Democratic voters are looking for.

(P.S. This post was completed by 5:00 PM Pacific Time, before results started coming in.)