Re: Iowa Caucuses

The Iowa caucuses results are now old news. New Hampshire's primary is tomorrow. If I'm going to make any insightful comments after the former, and before the latter, it better be today.

Being from the Midwest originally, I perhaps have a different perspective on Iowa than many Easterners.

Regarding Hickabee, I think he's just a flash in the pan who got lucky by tapping into the Iowan evangelical base. That isn't going to be happening twice.

Just last night, on Fox News' panel of the leading five Republican Presidential candidates (Giuliani, Thompson, Huckabee, McCain and Romney), Huckabee scored nearly the worst of the five with Fox's focus group. One of the group's members, when asked what she didn't like about Huckabee, promptly said,

"I am voting for a President, not a minister."

Apparently, though I missed the opening of the debate/panel, Huckabee fumbled the very first question badly. Several focus group respondents thought he 'waffled 3 or four times' on just this first question.

Romney, on the other hand, was the nearly-unanimous choice among the focus group for his responses, his experience, and his leadership-projecting demeanor.

Personally, I was moved by a Wall Street Journal editorial shortly before the Iowa caucuses by an Iowan. He noted that not since Jimmy Carter had Iowa's choice led the nation after the ensuing election.

Thus, I have even stronger feelings that Hickabee's 'win' in Iowa is an aberration.

Thompson, my personal, unelectable favorite, was the nearly-unanimously worst performer on the Fox panel last night. He was characterized by the focus group members as,

"an actor," and

"he has good ideas but communicates poorly."

That's pretty much where I am. If I could wave a wand to get my wish, I'd make him President. But the reality is that he is too thoughtful and slowish for today's media environment. He's likable, experienced in legislative government, but just not dynamic enough in a race that features Hickabee and Romney.

I'd like to believe that Thompson could be someone's running mate, but I'm not sure that would ever happen.

To me, the biggest question for the Republicans is whether Giuliani's 'wait for the South' strategy will work, or whether he'll be hopelessly behind and running short of funds after ceding Iowa and New Hampshire.

I expect either Romney, Giuliani or McCain to eventually be the party's nominee. Hopefully, one of the first two.

As to Iowa's results for the Democrats, I will admit that I could not be more pleased. Obama Bim Baden and John-boy Edwards both beat Hillary.

Confusion to our enemies! Can it get any better than this for a start?

Obama is long-term unelectable. As Kim Strassel wrote in a Journal editorial recently, Obama claims to want 'change,' but change to what?

He claims to want to 'unite,' but his real message, if you listent closely, is old-school American politics,

'Let's get the White House, and then use our control of Congress, too, to ram our 'changes' down everybody's throats!'

As Rudy Giuliani said last night on the Fox News panel, Democrats all want 'change,' and, in fact, in an election without an incumbent, everybody is for 'change.' The question is, change to what?

I don't believe many people will, once the voting booth curtains close, actually vote for Obama. He's just too green and inexperienced. Do you really want this guy at a table across from Putin's successor, the Iranian President, or the Chinese leader? I don't. He's a baby with literally no accomplishments to his name.

And, no, he's not like Abe Lincoln, also from Illinois. Lincoln was a combat-tested leader of militia in the Blackhawk Wars, a successful local trial attorney and noted state legislator at a time when states had comparatively more control and influence over its citizen's lives than they arguably do today.

And, despite Peggy Noonan's belief, Obama is playing the race card, hard, by implicitly daring people to not be for him, thus being racist.

Edwards may have tapped into some disaffected Iowans, but his message of doom and corporate greed doesn't have legs. People vote for positive visions, not vengeful agendas. Edwards continues to stump for demonizing and crippling the US private sector, according to John-boy's own personal opinions.

But the fact that each of these two inept Democratic Presidential candidates beat Hillary shows she is now damaged. She can't make people like her.

Her shrill, braying plea the next day in New Hampshire,

'Ask us anything you want to know about us!' conveys her newly-desperate condition. And who's this 'us,' anyway? The legendary Team Billary?

I believe her loss in Iowa will push Hillary further into the sort of panic mode that will reveal her true, innate, unlikable and untrustworthy self. Her armor is cracked, blood has been drawn.

Though I'm not a Democrat, I believe Hillary will, eventually, beat Obama for the nomination. Her funding and organization may well finally edge the babe out, but at the cost of a deeply flawed and weakened candidate who lacks passion and an impassioned voter base.

For what it's worth, the Fox News New Hampshire focus group last night felt that Romney, their favorite, could beat the Democrat they believe will win the nomination, Obama Bim Baden.

I think the important aspect of Iowa, though, is that Hillary was caught looking ahead to see Edwards and Obama both in front of her. Panic must now be truly setting in. How many early contests can Hillary afford to lose?

Wouldn't it be wild if, with all the front-loaded primaries this year, the Democrats, and/or, for that matter, the Republicans, ended up with one of these two dilemmas:

-a genuinely 'open' convention in which no one candidate has yet achieved the necessary votes to win their party's nomination?

or

-a 'winner' with whom the party is actually not happy, by the time they get to the convention?

The early packing of delegate selections could well hand someone unqualified, such as Obama or Hickabee, a victory that their party knows can't be sustained in the general election.

Perhaps an important outcome from the 2008 elections will be another trip to the drawing board to attempt to arrange state primary schedules so that they neither disenfranchise late states, nor unduly hurry the process. Perhaps either a later, one-day primary date for all states, or a carefully crafted grouping of several states together on one day in each of several consecutive months.

Whatever it is, I think this year's primary scramble will leave both parties seeking a better way in 2012.