<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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.”<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
Anyhow: Iowa. Elections. Discuss.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
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 … Continue reading