"Startling setback for Clinton," the New York Times reports, but what struck this half-asleep listener was Hillary Clinton's gracious, smart acknowledgement of her party's win.
That poisonous promise of "inevitability," the last thing democratic voters want, plays a part in her defeat. "Inevitability" takes many of us back to election night 2000 when the cameras caught George W. Bush "knowing" he would win. That gave us the shivers even before bullies blocked doors to a recount in Florida. We've been waiting impatiently -- for seven years! -- for Al Barack to come along and knock down "inevitability."
As for Huckabee, what the heck. David Brooks writes, "My guess is Republicans will now swing behind McCain in order to stop Mike." In other words, they face a dinner of leftovers in November.
Edwards? He did pretty damn well. But the media have written him off.
NPR looks at the results this morning and doesn't see co-equal wins for the two parties but rather a huge win for Democrats with their huge energy and turn-out, and a sidebar win for Republicans. The majority of Republicans don't much like the slate they've been offered. Only the evangelicals want to continue to fight. As for Mitt Romney, the result may indicate that people don't like candidates who appear to be buying the nomination out of their own bank account.
More encouraging was one analyst's guess that Chris Dodd will return to Washington to become the new majority leader. Is that possible? Could we hope? And aren't we all delighted to see both the RNC and the DNC brought low? But the establishment isn't going to let change happen without a fight.
Iowa gave Americans a populist moment, a "change" moment. And that is a healthy development in our politics.
The status quo will now fight back. Power does not concede anything without a fight. So Clinton's campaign on the Democratic side will turn ugly, as will Mitt Romney's campaign on the Republican side.
Read Uncle Remus? How many repugs voted fro Obama?
Posted by: ken melvin | January 04, 2008 at 10:03 AM
The only horse race predictions I will make anywhere (promise!):
For the Dems, Hillary's support craters, Edwards stays strong, but Obama wins the nomination convincingly.
For the Republicans, McCain wins big in NH (Romney's Waterloo), Huck takes SC and goes on to win a tight nomination race. A week or so after Florida Rudy gives up and no one notices.
Thanks PW. Had to get that out of my system.
Posted by: Dan | January 04, 2008 at 02:24 PM
You're more than welcome! Just Rudy giving up would be lovely! I hope your predictions are right. You may be interested(as I was) in Scott Horton's comments about Ron Paul. Let me know what you think. http://harpers.org/archive/2008/01/hbc-90002087
Posted by: PW | January 04, 2008 at 03:26 PM
I'd read that already. In some ways Paul is a rorschach test because there's plenty of firmly expressed opinions in his record. It's fair to say his past comments on race are disqualifying. It's also fair to say he probably wouldn't have the chance to act on them as President. I tend to think he'd be able to roll back executive power abuses and that his other stuff would languish. In that sense I'm a supporter. Probably not a voter though. My best case scenario is for him to force the issue into the debate but then fade away. A Tancredo for the unitary executive, as it were.
One thing I haven't found an outlet for anywhere else is this: What's the big deal with the gold standard? Gold is no more a store of value than paper printed by the Treasury. Every single currency ever in history has relied exclusively upon widespread confidence and relative scarcity for its value. If everyone had enough confidence we could use baseballs for currency and if no one had confidence gold would be worthless. Once again: What's the big deal with the gold standard?
Posted by: Dan | January 04, 2008 at 06:16 PM
Who knows. I ascribe a lot of half-assitudes to late night radio and/or Alex Jones.
Not many come up with goodies like "a Tancredo for the unitary executive"!! That sets its own gold standard!
Posted by: PW | January 04, 2008 at 08:17 PM
I just want it on the record that I called the implosion before she got booed by the base.
Posted by: Dan | January 05, 2008 at 10:12 AM
I did enjoy speculating what our currency might more legitimately be based on. No! Don't ask!!
Posted by: PW | January 05, 2008 at 10:55 AM