Clinton came in third (neck and neck with Edwards). I would rather Clinton got destroyed — she’s really the worst of the three major candidates, from a progressive point of view — but a solid loss is good, too. Her biggest advantage has been her air of inevitability; now she’s lost that.
Although Obama has many flaws, on foreign policy I think he’s the best of the three Dem frontrunners, and for that reason I’m hoping he wins. He’ll bring in people who weren’t part of the “invade Iraq” consensus into the Washington establishment, and — considering the appalling tragedy our invasion of Iraq has been, and how willing the hubristic clowns who are our “serious” foreign policy establishment are to repeat their mistakes — bringing in people who haven’t been horribly, tragically wrong about foreign policy is arguably the single most important thing a new president can do.
As for Huckabee, I’d hate him as president, but that’s what I think about all the Republican hopefuls. Meanwhile, I’m delighted by how horrified the Republican establishment is of Huckabee’s climb. Plus, he can produce zingers; asked why he thinks he’s beating Romney, he quipped “I think it’s because people want to vote for someone who reminds them of the guy they work with rather than the guy who laid them off.”
A lot of smart people are now predicting that Huckabee won’t be able to win the primary — but how many thought he had even an outside chance of winning Iowa, if you asked them six weeks ago? I’m going to continue smugly making no prediction.
Anyhow: Iowa. Elections. Discuss.
The most awesome moment of doublethink during the coverage last night was John McCain’s speech in New Hampshire following announcement of the Iowa results. In what I believe were consecutive sentences, he:
1. Congratulated Huckabee, and said that his victory proved that ideas could triumph over money.
2. Downplayed his own fourth place finish, claiming that he didn’t have the money to compete in Iowa.
Put the two sentences together, and he was essentially saying that Iowans voted for ideas of money, but unfortunately he had neither. Which led right to sentence 3. “Onward to victory in New Hampshire!”
I think Giuliani’s loss has to be counted as the second-best result of the night. Even given the rather appalling Republican field, he’s way way worse.
Obama!
Interesting. A Baptist preacher against a do-nothing Junior senator (I say this as a constituent of his) who’s never held an executive position in his life. If these are our choices in November 2008, then God save the United States.
Can anyone point me to a link that might give an exit poll where people explain why they voted for one candidate or another? Given that Sen. Obama has a minimal legislative record and Sen. Clinton has one much more extensive, I’m wondering if this is a case of people voting for Obama or against Clinton? Do people just like Obama more on a personal/personality level?
The other thing is, how much should be read into this one result? Iowa isn’t exactly a microcosm of the country.
RonF:
The NY Times’ coverage has information about exit polls.
@RonF
I think you’re overstating the public’s interest in the experience of the candidates. Now, the lack of any voting record during his tenure as a senator is more suspicious, but his lack of experience is, I think, just a result of the modern thinking about politicians.
Now, as for why people vote for him, I think it’s threefold:
1) as you said, not Clinton.
2) the war. Kunichich is unelectable, so Obama is the only “The war in Iraq was wrong – no ands ifs or buts, and I am ashamed for not seeing it sooner” or something to that effect.
3) he’s charismatic. Now, that’s not to say that people are being hoodwinked by his charisma, I think they’re actively aware of it and considering it as a realistic asset. Remember that this is a primary – people aren’t voting for who they want as president, they’re voting for who they want to run. And milquetoast drab business-men like Kerry and Gore already lost elections to the most mediocre thing the Republicans ever fielded.
Random thoughts on the Iowa results:
1. Apparently caucuses are quite amusing. My sister, who lives in Iowa, went to one and had a blast. People have pointed out various flaws in the caucus system and I agree that it is far from perfect, that Iowa is unpredictable and the results aren’t necessarily representative, etc. However, I do like the idea of something that puts some fun into democracy. Everyone seems to have been looking at it as such a grim duty lately.
2. I’m moderately pleased with Obama’s win, but still skeptical of him. He’s a bit hawkish for my taste. Edwards might be better for foreign policy: he’s at least been willing to say that he thought that we should pull out of Iraq soon.
3. Giuliani is hellspawn, but Huckabee scares the fecal matter out of me and I hope he tanks soon. Even if he had no better chance in the general election than, say, Mondale in 1980 or McGovern in 1968 (? year), I’d rather not get that close.
McGovern was ’72. The first election of my majority, and the first time I got my heart broken by politics.
’68 was Humphrey, McCarthy and blood in the streets of Chicago. Not a high point in the Dems’ history.
I don’t count out John Edwards yet. Obama and Clinton are riffing off of his health care plan, after all. And Edwards brings the most passion to serving the interests of the poor and working class. His speech last night was powerful in its criticism of corporations and health insurance companies, in its anger at the suffering for the poor and ridiculous privileges for the rich, and in its commitment to redressing the systemic disparities that create these problems. Granted, his proposals are more tepid than his rhetoric, yet they are the most progressive this side of Kucinich or Dodd.
My worry is this: The Democrat most needed is one with in-depth knowledge of foreign policy and the world. As President, any Democrat would do the necessary job of repairing the damage the BushAdmin has created in relationships with old allies (although Iraq remains a possible exception here). But as candidates against a hawkish foreign policy Republican (like, say, McCain), Dems really need a Biden, who just dropped out, and a Richardson, who’s gonna drop out whether he knows it or not.
Obama is smart, but he is going to need to be better prepared to defend himself against the oncoming fusillade from the right wing. So far they have tried to make something of his middle name, his brief exposure to moderate Islam (in the rightie view, there is no such thing), and his refusal to wear a stupid flag pin. He needs to develop rhetorical armor, defensive and offensive.
And FTR I don’t buy that Clinton’s time as First Lady counts as foreign policy experience. Talking “tough” doesn’t cut it either.
Oh, hey – nice illustration, Barry. You got the cheekbones and the jaw down solid. One quibble: I don’t think his teeth are that prominent.
One thing I noticed when drawing him last night was how skeletal he is. He’s all skull, neck and joints. Also, as this photo shows (and this, too), his lips were purple. Maybe it was the lighting or the Iowa cold.
I drew Huckabee, too, but didn’t post it, because I made his ears look like Bat Boy.
Can someone point me in the direction of the evils of Guiliani? I’m simply ill informed about him in general. I know his personal life is atrocious, but I don’t vote based on personal life issues… It will be a cold, snowy day in hell before I’d vote for ANY republican in the upcoming election (or possibly ever), but it’s good to be informed…
As an aside… how did Ron Paul fare? I’m really tired of people who think he’s so fabulous. I don’t know that anyone scares me more than he does.
The people in my precinct last night were definitely voting for Obama, not against Clinton – people kept coming up to me and asking “oh, but have you heard him speak?” with this wild look in their eyes. In another life, I think he could’ve been a very successful cult leader.
Kate L.,
Here’s a scathing look at Guiliani by Elizabeth Kolbert, in the Jan. 7th issue of the NewYorker –
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/01/07/080107fa_fact_kolbert
Ron Paul beat Giuliani.
Giuliani’s greatest hits:
The ferret rant (accusing someone arguing against the NYC ban on ferrets of needing a psychologist)
Locating the emergency command center in the WTC complex
The radios–police couldn’t talk to firefighters–cost hundreds of lives at WTC
Extremely aggressive prosecutor (lots of extortion and legal shake-downs, much like Spitzer)
On Obama and rhetorical armor–somehow, Obama’s attackers seem to spend a lot of time hitting themselves; after awhile, I start to think it might be non-accidental.
Not to mention his micromanagement of the NYPD when he was mayor during its era of Abner Louima and Amadou Diallo.
As far as Guliani goes, I keep having to remind myself that he’s a Democrat, not a Republican. He’s a bit of a Johnny-one-note too. No way he gets my vote.
I just read a story that says that only one non-incumbent has ever become President after winning the Iowa caucuses, so I’m breathing easier.
BTW, Diana, when you note the flaws in the Iowa caucus process, remember that there’s a difference between the Democratic caucuses and the Republican ones. The Republicans run a secret single-ballot process and release the numbers. The Democrats have a non-secret selection system, cull out the lower-polling candidates and ask them to realign with other candidates, and then release the resultant delegate numbers without releasing the actual vote totals.
Silenced is foo:
I think you’re overstating the public’s interest in the experience of the candidates.
I don’t think so, given that I didn’t actually make a statement about the public’s interest in the experience of the candidates. As far as that goes, I have little enough faith in the general public to expect that a majority of them are actually going to judge a candidate on his or her experience, abilities or other such qualities that would be indicative of whether or not the candidate can be reasonably expected to be able to do the job. Most people will vote on things like race, ethnic background, charisma, ability to deliver a sound bite and (secondarily) their effectiveness in making a fine sounding speech without actually taking a definite stand on anything controversial in either the campaign or in any legislative post they’ve held. P. T. Barnum has been proven right again and again in modern American politics.
I sort of hope Huckabee gets the republican nomination. I don’t want him to be president and I don’t think he’d stand a chance in a general election, but I really like how he scares the crap out of the Republican establishment.
Interesting. What is this progressive point of view, and what does it have to say about health care or Social Security?
“As far as Guliani goes, I keep having to remind myself that he’s a Democrat, not a Republican.”
Democrats disagree.
True enough, Mandolin; I noticed I’d swapped those too late to edit them. It’s the reverse sense I meant; although he’s running as a Republican, he seems much closer to the Democratic platform, although certainly not enough to run as a Democrat.
Wow! You are dead on in your assessment of Barack Obama’s chances and how Hillary Clinton’s air of invincibility has been deflated. The next two primaries will be crucial to putting a dagger in the heart of Hillary’s chances to win the presidency. If she rebounds in New Hampshire and South Carolina, then she probably will win. If she has a poor showing, then her chances will be slim to none.
I spoke about some of this on my own blog: http://learningbyheart.blogspot.com
Kate,
One of the key issues with Guiliani is that he’s very dictatorial and authoritarian. He even wanted to suspend the mayoral election after 911. While that’s partly personality, it affects his policy views.