Entrance polling indicates that Obama-wan's glorious victory in the nation's frozen-over breadbasket can be attributed to first-time caucus-goers and young'ns who are tired of more of the same and interested in trying a little more of something different.
But some pundits, after watching Obama's victory address, have concluded that Obama's Iowa win is actually derived from his inner divinity and unstoppable superpowers.
"Obama's finest speeches do not excite. They do not inform. They don't even really inspire. They elevate. They enmesh you in a grander moment, as if history has stopped flowing passively by, and, just for an instant, contracted around you, made you aware of its presence, and your role in it. He is not the Word made flesh, but the triumph of word over flesh, over color, over despair. The other great leaders I've heard guide us towards a better politics, but Obama is, at his best, able to call us back to our highest selves, to the place where America exists as a glittering ideal, and where we, its honored inhabitants, seem capable of achieving it, and thus of sharing in its meaning and transcendence."
Well, whoopti-squealing-doo, Mr. Klein. Who knew that just beneath that veneer of full-on wunderkind wonkery lies a secret penchant for throwing the high cheese?
Then there's David Brooks, arguably the least offensive of the growing stable of columnists hired by the NYT to apologize for America's failed conservativism:
"This is a huge moment. It's one of those times when a movement that seemed ethereal and idealistic became a reality and took on political substance.
"Iowa won't settle the race, but the rest of the primary season is going to be colored by the glow of this result. Whatever their political affiliations, Americans are going to feel good about the Obama victory, which is a story of youth, possibility and unity through diversity - the primordial themes of the American experience."
Got that? The entirety of American history, and perhaps the story of the human race, has all been but preparatory to some guy's speech in Des Moines.
Local scribe Patrick Coolican, stationed in New Hampshire and writing on the Las Vegas Sun's unimaginatively unnamed political blog, channeled Brooks and said "it's impossible to overstate how significant last night is to American politics" in one of the most charmingly self-contradictory statements of the fresh young year. Coolican recognized Obama-wan's speech as "grandiose," but again found himself confronting an impregnable possibility barrier, confessing that "hearing and seeing" Obama's address on the teevees, "it was impossible to question its raw power."
Patrick's right. It was a grand speech (video) — especially when compared to the post-Iowa address delivered by a shell-shocked former first lady (video), in which she seemed primarily interested in informing everyone that she's a Democrat, too.
Anyway, there's lots of talk that the Democratic contest is now essentially a two-person affair, and that's probably right. But given the tattered excuse for Clinton's candidacy at this point, there seems to be just as much likelihood that her campaign will implode even further as there is that it will make any sort of comeback between now and Tuesday's New Hampshire contest. There's still a chance, albeit slim, that the second person in the race will be Edwards.
Meantime, Nevada's little caucus remains a secret to the grown ups in the national mainstream media, garnering only scant mention in all the breathless what-happens-now speculation. An exception: During the course of delivering a eulogy on the Clinton campaign on the teevees with Keith Olbermann and Tweety Matthews Thursday night, Howie Fineman predicted that the Culinary would endorse Obama. Is it that obvious?
The nation now turns its eyeballs to New Hampshire, while Nevada's caucus is characterized by the same two questions that have engulfed it pretty much from the get-go: Who will the Culinary endorse? And will anybody outside Nevada care what happens here one way or the other?
Gee, no Edwards speech video link? Come on Hugh, don't be like the pathetic pundits and count him out yet!
Posted by: Johnathan L. Abbinett | 01/04/2008 at 08:26 AM
1 down; 49 to go so I wouldn't start ordering invitations to the inauguaral ball just yet. Joe, Chris, and Bill R. could still weigh heavily here.
But Iowa put on a good caucus. Whether the turnout can be attributed to voting 'for' someone or not letting '00 and '04 repeat is hard to determine just yet. I'd venture a guess that folks are fed up with status quo, and as Edwards succinctly pointed out, want real change in the chemistry of the Democratic Party instead of retreads.
Can the Nevada caucusux match it %wise? I'm still going for Edwards but could support BO if he wins the nomination. But HRC under no circumstances.
Nonetheless there's still 49 to go...
Posted by: texexnv@yahoo.com | 01/04/2008 at 08:39 AM
Uh, "Texex" guess you missed Joe Biden's and Chris Dodd's announcements - they dropped out after last night in Iowa...
...and that was just the first step, until we get past New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina and Super Duper Tuesday on February 5th no one will have a solid feel for where we're at...
...Edwards/Obama '08!
Posted by: Johnathan L. Abbinett | 01/04/2008 at 10:02 AM
Pollsters tend to under-sample college-age voters, which partly account for the surprising margin of Obama's win ... it was hiding in plain sight the whole time.
Posted by: David | 01/04/2008 at 10:45 AM
Pollsters tend to under-sample college-age voters, which partly account for the surprising margin of Obama's win ... it was hiding in plain sight the whole time.
Posted by: David | 01/04/2008 at 10:46 AM
Whoops! Now I'm just like those oafs on the R-J Web site (best Web site of the 19th century) who post everything twice, just to be safe.
Posted by: David | 01/04/2008 at 10:48 AM
JLA- Edwards/Obama???
Yup, Edwards' "triumphant victory" where he barely squeeked out a second place and then his all but endorsment of Barak Obama's message in his "victory" speech deffinetly makes him the most viable candidate.
What a Democrat you are, man. "Yay, second place!!!"
I think the Iowa results are more about dissatisfaction with Clinton and not about a how great people think Edwards is, and any other reading of that is probably wishful thinking.
Tex-Please, pretty please, caucus for Chris Dodd. It will be awesome when a story about one guy standing in a corner by himself supporting Dodd comes out, and we all know its you.
Posted by: CollegeStudent | 01/04/2008 at 10:59 AM
Dear "College Student" it seems you've done some work on your etiquette KUDOS - Hope you made it through your Freshman year and into the Sophmoric league...
...I'm absolutely elated that so many young people FINALLY started coming out in droves (this was very predictable given that more did start to participate in 2000 and 2004) - and hope our youth really ROCK THE VOTE in 2008 - better late than never!
There are some really big differences between Edwards and Obama...just listen closely to their messages and you'll hear clear difference between the fire to fight from John Edwards and the hope of helping by committee and compromise from Obama - and Obama obviosuly doesn't understand that dancing with these devils just won't work!
No body in their right mind wants to fight unless it's a last resort - and that's the case now. We must put the corporate citizens and their elitist, selfish, greedy owners back in their place quickly - they are nothing short of economic rapists!
Imagine 8 years with John Edwards as our next President and Barrack Obama as our Vice-President, then, another 8 years with Obama as President?
By then you should be done with your formal, post-secondary, graduate and doctoral education - and you'll find yourself in a far better society practicing compassionate capitalism that doesn't allow corporations to prey on our people for profit!
Posted by: Johnathan L. Abbinett | 01/04/2008 at 11:41 AM
CS was probably stil crapping in her diapers when Bill C. got 2.8% of the Iowa caucus in '92.
What I was referring to about Joe and Chris was that now they can get back to D.C. and lay the groundwork to get Majority Leader.
OF course, CS can't see that since her pacifier is obstructing her view. Sophomoronic is pretty close.
Posted by: texexnv@yahoo.com | 01/04/2008 at 11:43 AM
Obama's young camp is fired up. Just walking into the 7-11 two customers were excitedly talking about Obama. I reminded them if they wanted to keep the win going they had to go to the caucus. They immediately said they were going to participate. I think the Obama win will energize the Black vote here in Vegas and have some people reconsider any previous commitment. Now that my candidate has withdrawn I will go in uncommitted leaning towards Obama or Edwards.
Posted by: Kickboxermomma | 01/04/2008 at 11:59 AM
JLA- Edwards' "fight and fire" is probaly what's turning off young voters the most.
Sorry man, I can't imagine any years of an Edwards admin.
Tex- Despite missing terribly on my gender and age (I really hope you were out of diapers by 9) I am little confused by your response.
"Joe, Chris, and Bill R. could still weigh heavily here" has nothing to do with DC and majority leader. I thought we were talking about president?
Secondly, Clinton's '92 Iowa results are apropos of nothing.
He's not running again, is he?
(OK, well he kind of is)
Posted by: CollegeStudent | 01/04/2008 at 12:14 PM
Obama talks the talk, but can he walk the walk??????if he were to be so lucky??????
Posted by: dtjr | 01/04/2008 at 12:15 PM
"KBM" if you're looking for overwhelming attention in the form of dozens of phone calls everyday and a mailbox full of pol ads - stay uncommitted, and you'll be sorry you did because the amount of attention you (and other uncommitteds) will be getting is going to be relentless - and the longer you hold out the worse it going to get, and going into the Jan 19th Caucus "undecided" will be like throwing yourself to wolves!
Also, keep in mind, when you walk into your Caucus Precinct location you'll only be seeing a very small snap-shot of the big picture (and will be too busy to even gauge what is happening state-wide) - so, if you do the "American Idol" popularity thing you might end up backing another loser at the end of the day?
I'm Caucusing for John Edwards and my second choice is Elizabeth Edwards - that's my way of saying I'm standing my ground, standing on my principles, and not abandoning John & Elizabeth Edwards under any circumstances! Hey, call it DEDICATION, or, LOYALTY, or the DUTY to COMPLETE THE MISSION!
Edwards/Obama '08!
Posted by: Johnathan L. Abbinett | 01/04/2008 at 12:17 PM
KBM-Obama has energized a group never polled as "likely voters" and its nothing but good for the party as a whole. I am excited to see what will happen here.
Posted by: CollegeStudent | 01/04/2008 at 12:17 PM
"and then his all but endorsment of Barak Obama's message in his "victory" speech..."
I thought the same thing about Edwards speech CS. "Tonight was a vote against the status quo and a vote for change." Nothing implicit about that message. My first thought was, "oh shit, is he dropping out and endorsing Obama?"
I'm not sure how many people watched the post caucus speeches last night--but if many undecideds and independents in NH did, Clinton really missed an opportunity to persuade them. She was absolutely horrible. If the "comeback kid" routine and appeal was going to work in NH she absolutely killed her chances with that speech.
Edwards was great and Obama was amazing.
Posted by: Pedro | 01/04/2008 at 12:20 PM
"CS" I'm also very excited to see our Young Dems breaking out - and you're right, that's got to be good for the entire party!
There is a fine line between passion and anger - anger turns people off (and scares them) but passion is what politics is all about!
Edwards knows exactly what he's doing - watch and see the strategy unfold, and do listen very, very closely to the context of what the candidates say - don't be fooled by generalized, vague rhetoric about change and focus on how they frame their messages.
"Change?" Yeah, GENERALLY, that has a 50/50 chance of being really good or bad?
We all need to be asking specific questions about "HOW" and "WHAT" and "WHEN" and "WHERE" and for "WHO" will changes be made?
Posted by: Johnathan L. Abbinett | 01/04/2008 at 12:26 PM
Well, there's an excellent example of making the mistake of trying to read people's minds and reading between the lines, and how very important it is to listen specifically to the actual words the candidates use - Edwards was NOT endorsing Obama, he was making it very clear that "Change WON over the Status Quo!"
That was a direct hit on the Clinton "Borg" ONLY!
Posted by: Johnathan L. Abbinett | 01/04/2008 at 12:31 PM
I guess I'm getting old, hell I know I'm getting old
A poser for you all.
Agreed the entire government is corrupt?
Agreed that a freshman senator would need a year on the job training before he could produce and be effective?
Agreed the bureauocracy is so constiped that nothing moves?
Who can fix it?
Who do we want in the White House, a wet behind the ears kid with carisma or a tried and true old guard with 35 years of public service, who knows how to work the corrupt system and make it work?
Is our broken government fixable by a kid with an extremely big lack knowledge of how our corrupt system works?
I don't believe in the tooth fairy and I don't think Obama has a magic wand.
Now I'm really confused if Edwards doesn't win.
My first choice is Edwards, Obama is third.
Posted by: Rich S | 01/04/2008 at 01:13 PM
I'm young, and I like Edwards.
Also, I think if we get beyond tropes and personality politics, Edwards gave the speech.
I'm beginning to believe that this country is incapable of talking about policies. We are only capable of talking personalities. It certainly makes the work of journalists and pundits much easier.
Posted by: John Dark | 01/04/2008 at 02:13 PM
Can someone please explain to me how Edwards' one term in the senate and no other politcal experience other than being a trial lawyer is better than Obama's half a Senate term and ten years in the Illinois Senate, plus being a communtiy organizer?
Posted by: CollegeStudent | 01/04/2008 at 02:23 PM
That's an easy one, CS. It's because Obama is so green he would actually bring meaningful change, while Edwards is experienced enough to know how to pretend to be anti big business while dutifully sucking at the teat of the banking industry.
Posted by: anonyMOUSE | 01/04/2008 at 02:33 PM
After George Bush, white people shouldn't be allowed to be President.
Posted by: Goldy | 01/04/2008 at 02:40 PM
Sorry JLA, Edwards is done and no ones choice for VP. His only chance was IA and SC. It still looks like HRC for the long haul, but it would be terrific to have a floor fight in Denver, wouldn't it?
VP sweeps still has Richardson, Biden and maybe a gov or two, but right now, it's two person race and both have money...should be fun to watch.
Both parties voted for the youngest and what they viewed as freshest. 70% said no to her...stunning really.
In the words of Eryka Badu they're simply getting 'tired of their shit'
Posted by: MikeZ | 01/04/2008 at 02:42 PM
Is that the first ever erykah badu ref on the gleaner?
awesome
Posted by: CollegeStudent | 01/04/2008 at 02:49 PM
Obama's term as a community organizer does not impress me. I've been a rural organizer for years, and I don't think that qualifies me to be president. He appears to be running on his charm, but I am not impressed.
Edwards' experience as a trial lawyer brought him face-to-face with corporate greed at its worst. He learned to battle them and he won. I am one of those who think that corporate greed is destroying our nation. We need someone with extensive experience in that arena or we're in some sorry trouble.
However, Edwards has been more than a trial lawyer. He worked with/for the disadvantaged his entire adult life -- though that is largely ignored by the media. In addition to his work in the US, he has traveled abroad studying the effects of global poverty.
In addition, Edwards has written extensive policy statements on all the major issues. I have been very impressed with the depth of his understanding.
I am always ready to admire self-made people. John Edwards represents what's possible in America - to come from nothing and to rise up and become president.
I have to tell you, I don't think I can ever vote for Obama. We have such serious problems in this country, and I don't feel a sense that he's up to the challenge.
I think supporting Obama is the same thing as supporting Huckabee. Some folks think you should use your heart when you vote on Jan. 19. That's so stupid. You pick your spouse with your heart. With the War in Iraq, our ongoing issues with medical care/insurance agencies, and our educational system in some serious need for reform -- wherever you are on Jan 19 you had better use your head. Sentiments do not win elections.
Posted by: Dee Holzel | 01/04/2008 at 02:51 PM