January 4, 2008
After Iowa
Well, it seems to me that the Iowa caucus has done two big things. It has narrowed the Democratic field for the White House down to two candidates - Hillary and Obama. And it has broadened the Republican field, giving both Mike Huckabee and John McCain a real shot at the nomination, and reviving the campaign of Rudy Giuliani.
Like the candidates, I am now poised to head for New Hampshire - although since the stakes are rather lower for me - I intend to pursue a slightly more leisurely schedule than John Edwards, who is apparently addressing a breakfast meeting there at 6.15 on Friday morning.
Watching the apres-Iowa speeches of the leading candidates was instructive. Edwards, who came second on the Democratic side, was impassioned, moving - and surely deluded in his insistence that he still has a chance. He staked everything on winning in Iowa and he is running out of money. Hillary was dignified, controlled, generous - but inescapably melancholy. Third in Iowa is a pretty terrible result for her. The momentum is clearly with Obama - and with the New Hampshire primary just five days away, she has precious little time to recover. Against any of the other Democrats, Hillary could still rely on her superior organisation and finance to rescue her in the bigger states. But Obama has raised even more money than her.
Obama himself was particularly energetic and euphoric - "pumped" is the term, I think. But I’m afraid - much as I would have loved to have loved him - his speech left me pretty cold. Perhaps I am a cynical European; perhaps I am jet-lagged. But all that "only in America", "unity not division", "politics of hope" stuff doesn’t get me out of my seat. Still, Obama is clearly bright, charismatic and the man to beat.
The Republican field is still wide open, largely because two of the leading candidates - McCain and Giuliani - in effect chose to sit Iowa out. Tellingly, Giuliani gave his post-Iowa interview from Florida and McCain was already in New Hampshire. Both men seemed genuinely relaxed about their weak showings in Iowa. That left it to Huckabee, the Republican winner in Iowa, to whoop it up.
Given that Huckabee’s image overseas is of a Bible-bashing hillbilly, I was pleasantly surprised. He is articulate, self-deprecating and quite funny. He also plays the plucky underdog with conviction. But the exit polls showed that he relied very heavily on the support of evangelical Christians. And there will probably not be enough of them to carry him to victory in the Republican primary in New Hampshire, let alone in New York or California. In New Hampshire, it is McCain who seems to be edging ahead in the polls. Giuliani, meanwhile, is pursuing a big state strategy which suddenly looks quite plausible.
The big Republican loser last night was Mitt Romney, whose whole stategy revolved around winning Iowa and New Hampshire. I didn’t get to see his post-Iowa speech. CNN were about to show him, when they decided instead to fade him down in favour of Huckabee - which says it all, really.
To say that the results of the Iowa caucuses re-invigorate the campaigns of Giuliani and McCain makes little sense. For whatever reason, perhaps the lack of enthusiasm for Huckabee, Giuliani or Romney in New Hampshire, McCain’s candidacy seems to be gaining support there. McCain - although still in the nut-case Republican fringe, if not in the middle of extreme Republican right-wingism - has some appeal to moderate voters because of his “maverick” status. Giuliani’s candidacy has certainly faded from the limelight. In fact, pundits now say that Huckabee’s appeal could take him to wins in the South including the proximate South Carolina and Florida primaries, thereby demolishing Giuliani’s candidacy as he has Romney’s.
Regarding the lack of enthusiasm for Obama’s generic “let’s all get along”, I frankly think there is nothing wrong with that. Obama is exceptionally bright and has gone through the school of hard knocks multiple times. He is likely - unlike a George Bush - to seek out a wide array of informed opinions to fill in his gaps of knowledge and experience. I personally think his proposed healthcare plan is poor fro example (I have some expertise on that topic), but I think that reflects a reliance on advice that is right-of-center, don’t-disturb-the-status-quo based on caution on the part of his advisors at this stage of the campaign. Moving forward into a general election or if elected, as President, I suspect he would listen to experts on that and other subjects (including foreign policy) who are not trying to pander to a particular group (as the plan does now) or who have no particular ax to grind. We’ll see. Get some rest.
Posted by: Wendell Murray | January 4th, 2008 at 8:59 am | Report this commentUp to now, probably like many other Americans, I have tended to think of Barack Obama as just another candidate. However, seeing Obama with his family standing in front of his supporters after the Iowa caucus, I realize that it is impossible to escape the fact of how much America has changed.
This may sound trite, but I remember as a child the sense of excitement throughout the country when Jackie Robinson became the first African-American baseball player to break into the major leagues in 1947. Now, an African-American has a real chance to become the president of the US, not because of any kind of political “affirmative action”, but because of his intelligence, sense of hope, and ability to reach out to rpeople of every description.
If Obama goes on to win the nomination, as I believe is probable, and is able to withstand what is sure to be one of the worst Republican smear and fear campaigns in history - which is saying a lot - to become president, America will have changed profoundly and unimaginably.
Obama’s nomination, let alone election, would also have a tremendous effect on the status of other minorities in America. Even though African-Americans have hardly been big supporters of more liberal immigration laws, largely because of a perceived economic threat from low wage Latinos, nomination of any minority candidate for president is likely to unleash a reservoir of good will, or at least tolerance, toward other minorities as well. This could signal the beginning of the end of the persecution of Latino immigrants which has already reached manic proportions (witness the new vindictive and possibly unconstitutional “workplace enforcement” law that just took effect in Arizona). It could also end the TV career of Lou Dobbs, though this is probably too much to hope for.
Beyond this, the main message from Iowa is that Americans are tired of machine politics. This is bad news for Hillary Clinton, whose candidacy, I believe is over, probably to the chagrin of the Republicans who were looking forward to running against “Lady Macbeth” in November. They will, however, rely even more heavily on their own machine to do everything possible to crush Huckabee as quickly as possible, just as they did with McCain in 2000. The Republicans simply cannot afford to have a candidate who disparages his own ancestors merely because, through no fault of their own, they happened to be apes like the rest of ours. Even less can they afford to have a candidate who (like Edwards) speaks to the economic anxieties of the average person.
Posted by: Roger Algase | January 4th, 2008 at 10:26 am | Report this commentCan someone please chastise all the journalists who were so set on the “inevitability” of Hilary just a few short months ago? Do you people ever hold yourselve to account? I suspect not–rather like economic forecasters and equity analysts.
Anyway, this is an exciting race, and will hopefully help purge the recurring notion from your editorial pages that American democracy has little to teach the rest of the world. American democracy is unkempt, ugly, and can be unintelligent, even embarrassing. It is, I’ve learned, unpalatable to many on this side of the pond. But it is anyone’s game at this point, and genuinely exciting. Don’t be such a pessimist, Gideon–even someone as painfully sophisticated as you can be engaged by the “politics of hope”.
Posted by: David | January 4th, 2008 at 1:57 pm | Report this commentIts far too early to say any of the top contenders in this race on either side of the divide are out. How many times has a candidate won the first caucus/primary and gone on to win the nomination.
It ain’t over ’til the fat lady sings!
Posted by: Akin M | January 4th, 2008 at 2:17 pm | Report this commentIn my opinion,Obama and McCain are the two “quality” candidates. After the fall from grace of US standing in the world during the miserable years of the Bush presidency, it is reassuring that the American electorate may be becoming more discriminating again.
Posted by: John Harnett | January 4th, 2008 at 3:02 pm | Report this commentWhat impresses me about the Huckabee win is that the Huckabee campaign has come out of nowhere with no money. This is not the American Way (version - 2008).
Hillary and Romney really have no message, only money and organization. Hillary, Obama and Romney are all bankrolled to the max, they are basically representing the money that grooms them. Money and organization have taken them this far. They have had to share the limelight with Huckabee, who up till now had nothing but message and personality.
Obama himself is his own message, a mixture of skin color and classy optimism: brown, upper middle-class. Both class and color could be winning advantages or crippling disadvantages; class could hurt him more than color if the economy continues to slide. Also, there is something not quite real about him, too perfect, too Sidney Poitier, and in a long campaign, reality has a nasty way of intruding.
Huckabee has come this far without money, only on message and personality. Having won Iowa this convincingly, Huckabee should start seeing some serious money. His campaign is being managed by the legendary Ed Rollins, National Campaign Director to Ronald Reagan in the 1984 presidential election where Reagan won 49 states, so that means that when he gets the money it will be well spent and the — up till now — activist based organization will get professionalized in a flash.
Many Democrats think that Huckabee would be a pushover in the final run for President. They are dead wrong. These are people that thought Kerry was “electable”. In fact, they are living in a country that has repeatedly voted Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush into office.
Short of of something cosmic and message destroying like marital infidelity or a pedophilia scandal, Huckabee, with a bit more momentum and a lot more money, would be practically impossible to stop. People are really that fed up with the status quo.
A lot of commentators have fun making up new words, riffing on “Huckabee”, like “Huckenfreud” and “Huckaboom, etc. How about “Huckaf*cked” for a neologism?
Posted by: David Seaton | January 4th, 2008 at 3:07 pm | Report this commenthttp://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com/
It would be interesting to see how many votes from each gender the candidates received. Edwards being in the race is taking away voters from Hilary and perhaps a fall back choice for white male democrats.
Posted by: Carrie Li | January 4th, 2008 at 3:15 pm | Report this commentObama’s win deservedly injects some excitement into the race. However, he is far from being an outsider, but rather probably more of an “establishment” candidate than Hillary. It is interesting to note in Philip Caldwell’s article (FT, 28 Dec) that he is actually a COUSIN of Vice-President Cheney, whose foreign policy views he seems to a great extent to share.
It would be very interesting if these results were to provoke the two “non-candidates”, Michael Bloomberg and Al Gore, to show their hands, as they would inject some greatly needed substantive discourse and policies into the campaign.
Posted by: Posto6 | January 4th, 2008 at 3:26 pm | Report this commentExplain again how Iowa revives Guiliani’s sinking campaign. He has been trending down, down, down in national polls and Huckabee’s momentum will likely drive RG down to FOURTH NH, accelerating this trend.
On the other hand, you are spot on regarding McCain, who I believe has a great shot at the nomination.
Posted by: Allen | January 4th, 2008 at 3:36 pm | Report this commentIm surprised that you discount Edwards so quickly. It seems that your main argument is that he didn’t win Iowa and he is running out of money, so his one chance at gaining some momentum is lost. You also argue that even while Hillary did worse, her large purse can keep her campaign viable.
I do not believe that just because Edwards does not have as much money as Hilary, he cannot be successful in later dates. Its true he wont be discussed much in New Hampshire, but when we move on to to states like South Carolina, Florida or Nevada, as long as Edwards has remained in the picture, he will still be a viable force in primaries. Huckabee doesn’t have any money compared to everybody, yet no one is discounting his staying power very much, even though despite his Iowa victory he will still have to campaign into February.
Even if Edwards doesn’t win any states, which I find unlikely, he can still push either Obama or Hillary into an embarrassing and possibly catastrophic third place, which would certainly indicate that he still has a role to play. An example: In south Carolina, I do not believe it will be a Hillary v. Obama fight, it will be an Edwards v. Obama fight, which Edwards could just win.
Posted by: C.L.D. | January 5th, 2008 at 11:19 am | Report this commentFrom a foreign policy perspective, I think few were sad to see the backs of the Clintons in January 2001. I was not alone in thinking that a seemingly inept George W Bush could do no worse. In fact, I was angry at the bungling of the Mideast peace process that began little more three months before the US elections in 2000, and were unabashedly a last-minute effort for Mr Clinton to pull a legacy out of his pocket. For readers here nothing more need be said about policy failures in the Balkans (the stability obtained then remains fragile) and the Wag-the-Dog bombings of Sudan and Afghanistan. As one has read in the past ten days, Clinton policies vis-à-vis Pakistan and Afghanistan remain open to question. Iraq: Saddam was able to look Clinton down at each turn. Africa: talk and some well-televised tours. Asia: it led the US through its checkbook.
So why the surprise that the other half of Team Clinton failed to muster an overwhelming win in the first caucus? Caucuses are arguably reflective of more thoughtful voters with longer memories than perhaps Obama can expect in New Hampshire, where I have never been, but suspect is home to a larger number of feminists than Iowa. It certainly does not look like a Silicon Valley in images that are broadcast.
I would suggest the media would serve the US voters well by not playing Mrs Clinton’s revisionist strategy that all that is relevant in foreign policy began on 11 September 2001. I would suggest it is also imperative to expose who her foreign policy cabinet is and to note where certain individuals have served both Bush and Clinton administrations.
As for Obama, he has brought an established contrarion on board: Zbigniew Brzezinski. He is not unknown. His mistakes are legend, and begin most clearly with his determined, singular and grievously wrong counsel to President Carter in the 1980 attempted (pre-election) rescue of the Iran hostages that led to the angered resignation of a respected Secretary of State.
Brzezinski is a discontented 20th-century hawk who has embraced some dubious projects in his time. In-depth reviews of his record and present role would be worthwhile. Mr Brzezinski is a grand blogger and sparring partner, but he lacks the institutional sensibilities required to be the lead advisor to Mr Obama, who is quite well advised on economic affairs.
Question to the readers of this thread: Will you feel the world will see benefits beyond perhaps a cyclical improvement in the global climate if the US hands its voters a choice between John McCain and Team Clinton?
Posted by: WCM | January 5th, 2008 at 11:21 am | Report this commentFollowing on the other posts in this thread, all of which are interesting and appear to be from Americans, I tend to agree that the Huckabee candidacy seems to have momentum, although I discount how long he can claim to be the man with no financial backing.
Two visits to the States in the past six months revealed to me how deep the Atlantic is in terms of the perception of what the US is “trying” to do to make the world “safer and better”. Republican or Democrat, the vast middle that looks down a bit embarrasingly if faced by someone with a foreign accent, is profoundly at a loss to understand the world they are in. Americans have long believed as no other people that their government means right, even if it makes “mistakes”.
McCain appeals to the older generation of those I am attemtping to describe. Huckabee appeals to the “good” kids who were moved by “Bowling at Columbine”, but angered by Mr Moore’s “Fahrenheit: 911″. (For a Democrat to have a shot at a win, he/she should let the other candidates lunch more often with Mr Moore. His now-predictable and tiresome vitriol will prove a liability.)
Posted by: WCM | January 5th, 2008 at 11:57 am | Report this commentMcCain is riding the wave; he has been sticking to his guns on Iraq, on pork barrel spending and on immigration, he has championed his causes without regard to populist appeal, and people are starting to see that in this field he is the only one cured to presidential material. He also has caught the endorsement of a great variety of senior politicians including Sen. Lieberman who might be his running mate. If that ticket materializes things will be very difficult for any Democrat.
Having said that I’m not sure who I would vote for in the end, McCain or, if he gets that far, Obama, who could become a transformative president. Hard to predict what the US an the world needs most but both will be an order of magnitude better than the current administration.
Posted by: felix drost | January 5th, 2008 at 12:21 pm | Report this commentI was on a train to Oxford when I read The Times endorsement of Obama and they nailed it!
“For this newspaper, as for many Americans, the head says Clinton but the heart hails Obama. In ordinary circumstances, the heart would be stroked sympathetically but the head would ultimately be deferred to for leadership. If the bookmakers and most calculating observers are correct, this will transpire and Mrs Clinton will be duly chosen.
But there is a strong and unsentimental argument for this to be the year of the heart. If the Democrats are to take back the White House � and history suggests that they will � they have to provide the United States and the world beyond with a nominee who is the personification of acceptable change. Anyone who is less than that could lose when compared with John McCain or possibly Rudy Giuliani. For all her robust qualities, Mrs Clinton’s quest seems to be about moving back to the 1990s rather than moving on to something different. She is fighting another round in an American version of the War of the Roses. Dynasty runs the danger of crowding out fresh ideas. She seems to be about the restoration of the deposed rather than the renewal of a superpower. Her husband recently praised Mr Obama but gave a warning that selecting him constituted a “roll of the dice”. In 2008, Democrats would do best by breathing deeply and calmly deciding to roll the dice.” (The Times Jan 2)
I am a DTS (decline to state and can’t imagine ever in my lifetime again registering as a Dem or a Reep (and I have registered as both in the past)) The Reeps will elect Huckabee as their nominee…Hillary cannot beat Huckabee…Obama can…
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | January 5th, 2008 at 2:48 pm | Report this commentLHL’s citation from the times well captures the current sentiments and would suffice to support a few bets. Mr Drost’s comments prompted me to recall early concerns I have had about Mr Obama’s stand on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (he seems to have courted the Likudites and AIPAC with little interest in having his ear bent by more centrist voices in Israel. He seems as one sided and determined to shut out Hamas as US policymakers have long been.
Was his AIPAC speech last Spring merely political? Is it not time to try to nail him down on specifics. Perhaps I have missed a clip or two, but has he commented yet on the situations in Pakistan or Kenya (a place he should know and one that offers him an exceptional policy opportunity)?
It would be good to see the heart win, as the head(s), in this case, have offered little that is encouraging.
Mr Obama may, indeed, be the most “patriotic” of the lot, or, worse, he may be long conditioned to thinking “America first”, etc. The 21st-century does/will not look like that, so let us help him turn to a new page before he overcommits to tired and failed agendas.
Posted by: WCM | January 5th, 2008 at 4:00 pm | Report this commentWCM, I can’t determine what part of what I wrote made you recall the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But since you did, I’d like to argue that in shutting out Hamas, Obama is following the only course of action open to him. How could the next US administration, seeking to restore the primacy of the US as the international mediator, ever lend credence to an organization which supports terrorism? What message would that send about 9/11?
Almost every day rockets are being launched at Israel with the intent to kill Israeli civilians and Hamas condones and supports this by allowing weapons smuggling operations to persist between Gaza and Egypt. No US President could condone that. Hamas must play by the rules or remain a pariah.
Even countries like Norway which have attempted to open a dialogue with Hamas understand this. You can’t assume political responsibility and still try to kill your neighbour without suffering the consequences. As long as Hamas doesn’t wake up to this they don’t get to play the game. That’s why I wouldn’t mind Obama in the White House, he’s a player. He understands the rules.
Posted by: felix drost | January 6th, 2008 at 1:06 am | Report this commentFinally Matured
The Obama victory in Iowa is, in my opinion, earth shattering. It is a testament not only to the most attractive of all the candidates, whether democrat or republican, but also to a brillantly conceived strategy that appears to be on track to topple the establishment candidate.
This is a strategy that uses entreprenurial inno- vation to raise amazing amounts of money over the
internet, as well as to train and deploy organi-
zers who identify the unheralded community lea-
ders who alone have the capacity to turn out new
voters. This is mostly a missed story by the MSM
but nothing less than genius in its conception
and execution.
The candidate who can plan,develop and execute
Posted by: Lawrence Vincent Walker | January 7th, 2008 at 8:28 pm | Report this commentsuch an initiative would likely be one of the United State’s greatest presidents.
Finally Matured
The Obama victory in Iowa is, in my opinion, earth shattering. It is a testament not only to the most attractive of all the candidates, whether democrat or republican, but also to a brillantly conceived strategy that appears to be on track to topple the establishment candidate.
This is a strategy that uses entreprenurial inno- vation to raise amazing amounts of money over the
internet, as well as to train and deploy organi-
zers who identify the unheralded community lea-
ders who alone have the capacity to turn out new
voters. This is mostly a missed story by the MSM
but nothing less than genius in its conception
and execution.
The candidate who can plan,develop and execute
Posted by: Lawrence Vincent Walker | January 7th, 2008 at 8:29 pm | Report this commentsuch an initiative would likely be one of the United State’s greatest presidents.
If the contest comes down to an Obama/McCain choice, I’m not yet clear whether the US voters will go for what you describe as “the much bigger break with the Bush years”. My hunch currently (as a resident alien without a vote) is that the mood is too nervous and fretful and that a majority may not have the appetite to reach out for all that “hope, unity and change”. Still there’s almost a year to go.
Posted by: CHAL | January 8th, 2008 at 3:27 pm | Report this comment