One hesitates to predict anything in a race this mercurial. But I think it's Obama's to lose at this point.
Hillary's pitch was always "experience" and (left unstated) inevitability. It was never the experience that made her inevitable, though. It was something more like Dem voters' loss aversion. She has always been the Establishment Dem -- the known quantity. She didn't inspire people, but she was a safe pick, a model voters understand. She could get to 51%. In a sense, Edwards is in the same position, in the same familiar battle, just promising to fight harder.
Obama was always a gamble. Despite his missteps, there was always that faint hint of transcendence. The possibility of greatness, but also the possibility of horrible, cynicism-enforcing failure. The risk of a broken heart.
After tonight, though, the Obama phenomenon is real. He really did attract tons of new young voters. He really did sway tons of Independents and Republicans. It really does feel like a movement. A black candidate won big in a 95 percent white state. Something genuinely new seems to be happening.
I can't see how you put that genie back in the bottle.
I've always understood how a Dem voter could cling to Hillary. And I've always understood how a Dem voter could leave Hillary and take a chance on Obama. What I can't imagine, especially after tonight, is a Dem voter leaving Obama's camp and going back to Hillary. What would motivate that? Once you've gotten a taste of history unfolding, of real excitement, you're likely addicted.
From where I'm sitting, there's nowhere to go but up for Obama.
Video of his victory speech below the fold:
Chuck Norris on Copenhagen
The U.S.-India climate ‘partnership’
Comments
View as Flat
caniscandida Posted 8:36 pm
03 Jan 2008
But let us not underestimate the "Clinton machine." Nobody really knows how this strange, front-loaded primary season is going to play out. There is still a month to February 5; Hillary has great support in NY and CA, and if that holds, she may yet win.
Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
justlou Posted 11:09 pm
03 Jan 2008
Trust and hope, but verify.
Permalink
Sean Casten Posted 12:37 am
04 Jan 2008
I'm not making a prediction - but I am remembering Al Franken's comment going into the 2000 election when he noted that the biggest problem with the Clinton years was that he made governing look easy, and could make people think "hell, if you can run a rising economy, peaceful times and still have enough time left to manage thousands of real estate investigations, suicide investigations and sexual pecadillos, this job can't be that hard." His concern seems rather prescient in retrospect as we ended up with 8 years of incompetence - and a pretty obvious sense of the importance of competetence, smarts and experience in the Oval Office.
Obama is clearly smart, and clearly competent. What remains to be seen is whether his inexperience translates into a thirst to learn and surround himself with smart (experienced) people who can guide him, or if he instead surrounds himself by exciting, young idealists. The latter is often tempting in Washington, especially for a candidate who campaigns on the message of change, since those old experienced folks tend to be the ones who will say no more often than yes. But they're also the ones who help ensure that you don't save your political capital for the important battles rather than squandering it on principle.
As is so often the case, H.L. Mencken said it best: "An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup." I'm hopeful - but still waiting - to see that Obama will also recognize the value of the odd bit of cabbage...
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 1:29 am
04 Jan 2008
Edwards 29.7%
Clinton 29.5%
From:
This does not mean the race is Obama's to loose. I interpret this as a victory for Edwards. Once people start looking for more than charisma, Obama will become history.
Permalink
DarthPetrol Posted 1:36 am
04 Jan 2008
Who is the better and more popular politician, President Bill Clinton, or Senator Hillary Clinton?
Did more people vote AGAINST Bill Clinton in 1992 & 1996 than voted for him? (Hint: Bill Clinton won with only 43% in 1992 and 49% in 1996 with a strong 3rd party candidate in the race).
If you answer honestly questions 1 & 2, please tell me how Senator Clinton hopes to get 271 electoral votes?
John Kerry won 19 states plus DC. Which states does Senator Clinton flip from red to blue (Florida, Ohio?)? With very high negatives, which states might flip from blue to red BECAUSE of Senator Clinton and her high negatives?
Clinton could win, but I don't see her energizing new voters. If she goes negative on Obama she reminds everyone of the worst tendancies of the Clinton political machine. Republicans might cross over to vote for Obama, but I don't see many voting for Senator Clinton.
Permalink
Green Granny Posted 2:24 am
04 Jan 2008
If Iowa is a sample of how she'd run a national campaign -- and the country if elected -- well, I just hope she isn't nominated.
None of the contenders is perfect on the environment (or health care or education or economy or international relations or national security).
Whoever wins, I am thrilled to see the record turn out in Iowa -- especially among young voters. It's time to take back OUR democracy. A vote for Hillary(or any of the Repug candidates) is another vote for big business aristocrats ruling our sheeple butts and shoving it down our throats with a cup of Monsanto supplied chemicals to wash it down.
I am impressed that Obama is campaigning without contributions from PACs. He is inspiring regular folk to participate and contribute. I'd love to see a study showing how many of Obama's campaign contributions come from people who have never given money to any political campaign before. I bet its a sizable number.
Edwards would make an OK VP. How about an Obama/Edwards ticket?
"We must be the change we wish to see in the world." -- Mahatma Ghandi
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 2:38 am
04 Jan 2008
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 2:43 am
04 Jan 2008
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 3:25 am
04 Jan 2008
the idea seems to have occurred to more than a few Democrats, including in Iowa, that those two names together would be very very good. Given Obama's age and his inspiring presence, he would make a great vice-presidential candidate, and perhaps best of all on a ticket headed by Edwards. And had his campaign lost momentum, and Edwards emerged as more obviously a leader, that would have been a smart move for Obama.
As things now stand, however, it looks like it may be Obama who is in the position of asking around for a running mate. And given Edwards' past, both in 2004 (where the Kerry people complain that he was uncooperative and self-seeking) and in this campaign, it is hard to see him accepting the VP slot.
Anyway, I think they complement each other very nicely.
Green Granny,
I join you in feeling happy about the effective political activism of so many young people. But who is this candidate of theirs? I agree with JustLou and Sean Casten that Obama is certainly intelligent, and admirable in a number of ways; as an academic type, I rather like his professorial background and manner. But does all that really add up to another RFK? Sorry, I may be a clueless old fart, but I just do not see what is driving the enthusiasm.
Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
Kit Stolz Posted 3:32 am
04 Jan 2008
Obama took 38% of 239,000 votes cast on the Democratic side: 91,000
Huckabee took 34% of 120,000 votes cast on the Republican side, for about 40,000 votes.
Were this the national, this would be a virtually unprecedented landslide for Obama. And (as George Stephanopoulous said last night) a complete repudiation of the Bush/Cheney administration.
Even if you add together the votes from the top three GOP candidates, Obama all by himself would still win by about 5%.
This is the real news from Iowa.
Obama often hints in his stump speech of a desire to win big. He's been attacked by lefty bloggers lately for bringing right-wing framing into some discussions (such as Social Security). But clearly, his blend of charisma and strategy is working -- and to truly remake the politics in this country, isn't he right? Don't we need a landslide? A progressive Democratic landslide?
Get ready, folks. I hear a rumbling now...
Permalink
DarthPetrol Posted 3:51 am
04 Jan 2008
Senator Clinton can't knock Obama on experience, because she has very little experience herself.
Clinton, 7 years in Senate. Edwards, 6 years in Senate. Obama 3 years in Senate. That is 16 years total.
John McCain, 21 years in the Senate. If Senate experience is your qualification then one republican has more than the entire Democratic field - combined.
Can you name 1 piece of major legislation that Senator Clinton has sponsored in her 7 years? What exactly has she done?
Someone here said they were impressed with the Democratic field. Really? Compared to the Republicans?
Giuliani - Mayor of NY for 8 years, credited for revitalizing the city. As federal prosecutor succesfull prosection of the "Five Families" an white collar criminals.
McCain - War hero and 24 year veteran of both Congress and Senate. Major sponsor of McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform. Took on big tobacco companies, served on select POW/MIA committee chaired by John Kerry and co sponsored legislation to formally recognize Vietnam.
Romney - 1 term governor of the bluest of states, turned a $3 billion deficit into a $.7 billion surplus at the end of his term. Impressive business career and CEO of Bain Capital. CEO of the Salt Lake Olympic Organizing committee credited with turning around a scandal tainted Olympics into a well run event that made a $100 million profit.
Huckabee - 10 year governor of Arkansas, compelling personal story. Led campaign for state amendments to equalize school funding. Cut welfare roles in 1/2 during tenure, Arkansas economy grew faster than national average. In 2005 named by Time magazine as one of the 5 best Governors in the US.
Thompson - succeeded Al Gore as Senator for Tennessee (8 years - about the same as Obama & Edwards combined). Popular TV and film actor. Minority counsel during Watergate (Ok we'll give Clinton some credit here too), Chairman of International Security Advisory Board, advising the Sec of State and POTUS on emerging threats.
If someone would like to compile a similar list of the Dems, I'd listen.
I would suggest the Democrats make the election about ideas, because they don't measure up in experience. In an nomination process about ideas, Obama wins. If Clinton goes negative to get the nomination she exposes her own weaknesses and turns people off for the general election.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 4:55 am
04 Jan 2008
As Jon Meacham said to Charlie Rose, though, for many of us, Obama is still just a symbol, a vessel which we are filling with our own ideals. I think those true-blue Democratic opinionators are right to suspect that his new way forward, his brand of change, will amount to precisely the kind of Democratic weakness and cowardice that have been deplored in the 2006 Congress. Paul Krugman is right: style-wise, Edwards is far preferable to Obama.
As for experience, the value of it is so hard to assess. Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Dennis Kucinich and Bill Richardson all have terrific experience, including executive experience in the cases of the last two. For various reasons, we have largely chosen not to go with them for president. But I think most of us have great respect for them, even affection, and would like to know that they will be available to play a significant part in the next Democratic administration.
Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
Greta Posted 5:31 am
04 Jan 2008
I would much rather be voting for a team.
www.NoPunProductions.com ~ AmericaTheGreen.org
Permalink
Greta Posted 5:34 am
04 Jan 2008
www.NoPunProductions.com ~ AmericaTheGreen.org
Permalink
DarthPetrol Posted 6:03 am
04 Jan 2008
As for Senators Clinton and Obama, they have another problem. Neither has won a heavily contested election.
Clinton has been elected twice in a very blue state against token opposition. She had no primary competion. Rep. Lazio was finished when he challenged Mrs. Clinton with signing a campaign pledge and appeared to invade her personal space at a televised debate, making him look like a bully. Senator Clinton's handlers have always sheltered her from the press and tough questions. She never gets asked tough questions, and the one time she did - about drivers licenses for illegal aliens, she totally botched the answer.
Obama was a state senator running for US Senate, also in a very relibly blue state. He trailed Blair Hull, a wealthy businessman, until somehow sealed divorce records revealed allegations of spousal abuse. Obama won the primary. He then trailed the wealthy republican Jack Ryan, when again, an LA judge unsealed divorce records that contained allegations that Ryan asked his ex-wife, the actress Jerri Ryan, to engage in public sex at some private clubs. Ryan withdrew. Republicans drafted Alan Keyes, a Maryland resident to move to Illinois to unsuccesfully oppose Obama.
John Edwards won exactly one election. In 2004 he retired from the senate after a single term when it was widely believed that he would lose re-election to Richard Burr.
Compare and contrast to:
Romney - elected Gov. in a blue state
Huckabee - elected 2 times in a purple state
Giuliani - elected mayor of New York, perhaps the bluest city in the nation.
Senator Clinton made her first trip to Iowa more than 3 years ago. Iowans got to know her - and put her in third place.
Watch for the Clinton smear machine to go after Obama, in a big way. Again, that will turn off voter including working class Democrats who would cross over to vote for a Republican.
Permalink
Green Granny Posted 7:14 am
04 Jan 2008
Also, I think many Republicans are switching (and not just acting in a conspiracy to get the least electable Dem nominated). One co-worker of mine who is a life-long Republican referred to himself today as a "former" Republican. He said he's disappointed that the Republican front runners haven't done enough to distance themselves from Bush and neocon ideologies. He rightly pointed out that government is bigger and more invasive now than 8 years ago. The debt has swelled. The economy is suffering. Global warming is only just now getting acknowledged. We've been misled into a prolonged war. Our international reputation is shot. . . . He says he plans to vote for either Edwards or Obama.
Whatever the issues and the stances, I think we are seeing a populist demand for something different. People are simply fed up.
"We must be the change we wish to see in the world." -- Mahatma Ghandi
Permalink
DarthPetrol Posted 10:07 am
04 Jan 2008
You are correct in that many Republicans are dissatisfied with both the president and congress over the swelling of government. Republicans (and many Democrats) are also upset over illegal immigration. I was doing some focus group testing in a very blue northeastern state. I didn't think it was a big problem, but in almost every meeting people were upset about illegals in their state.
It will be difficult for Senator Clinton to distance herself from the war when both she and President Clinton both made very passionate pleas for regime change in Iraq prior to 2003. When they try to reinvent the facts to fit the current political winds they remind us of the meaning of "Clintonesque".
I won't vote for him, but I got to tell you that Obama's speech last night was very good. Clinton was awful, she tried to latch on to Obama and Edwards victories as if it was an endorsement of her. Edwards "neo-populist" speach was just bizarre.
Permalink
Natural Patriot Posted 12:19 pm
04 Jan 2008
But can anyone imagine a realistic scenario that would end up with her winning the general election? Consider this: 1) She is possibly the most polarizing figure in American politics of the last few decades. We can be reasonably confident that not a single Republican would vote for her in the general election, possibly with the exception of a handful of New Yorkers. That means she has to get literally every Democratic vote in the country to win (since a Hillary candidacy would probably be a more effective get-out-the-vote weapon for the GOP than anything they themselves could muster). 2) Then there is the news from Iowa that she led only among the over-65 crowd (I think I remember that correctly). That doesn't bode well with an electorate seething for change. That she is the ultimate insider also doesn't help in that respect. 3) I still can't shake the suspicion that, in the final moments alone in the voting booth, too many of our fellow Americans will blink before they can vote for a woman President. They will vote for a black man first. Just a hunch.
Despite her many merits, I just can't see her winning. I'm with Obama. Or whoever the other Dem will be.
The Natural Patriot
Permalink
DarthPetrol Posted 5:06 pm
04 Jan 2008
Maybe I'm not alone, but I just don't think I could take listening to that voice for 4 or 8 years. Sounds like an ex-wife or mother-in-law.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 7:34 pm
04 Jan 2008
That will help save social security, all those hate filled, bush/rush fan retirees getting off the government checks and into heaven, where they will be a lot happier. It will enrich the lives of those left behind too.
No need to point out the ones here in this thread, hehey.
Of course Obama is JFK-esque. President as sex symbol, that will not happen with Hillary. Will women vote on sex appeal or their own best interests? That's the question. Oprah says sex appeal will rule, maybe she's right.
DR, "new, young voters" participated in caucuses, but that won't translate into votes in the general election. Relying on the youth vote does not work. Caucuses only attract commited political junkies. That's a very small percentage of younger voters.
Howard Dean got the new, younger voter change effect. It didn't last. Baby boomers concerned about losing their homes (their life savings) due to a sudden uninsured medical emergency will actually vote in the election that counts.
Obama has caved to corporate lobbying in nearly every aspect of policy decision. He is in awe of corporate power. The Clintons are not nearly as impressed with corporate power.
Obama as VP will be a strong contender in 2016, he will have the experience to protect us from the corporatists.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Natural Patriot Posted 12:50 am
05 Jan 2008
We've already spent eight years listening to the voice of George Bush and, more painfully, the "thinking" behind it. How much worse could Hillary's voice be . . .?!
The Natural Patriot
Permalink
DarthPetrol Posted 4:36 am
05 Jan 2008
The top 3 Dems for President have very little political experience, weak resumes, ran in largely uncontested elections, and have some very deep personal flaws. Those are the facts.
No amount of Republican name calling will change that.
Permalink
Steven T Posted 5:56 am
05 Jan 2008
As for Guiliani, his political stock was sinking in NYC before 9/11. Recent stories about graft in his administration pretty much destroy his credibility as a decent executive. I also wouldn't make too much of his being a mayor, even of such a large city. Where, for example, is the substantive foreign policy experience? Pretty much zero -- and it shows in his remarkably inept policy proposals. He would have been creamed in the general election.
You give Thompson too much credit. He was widely known as a lazy, do-nothing senator.
McCain? Sure he has lots of experience, but in his case his age could turn out to be a real disadvantage, particularly in comparison to an energetic Democratic opponent. The Republicans' biggest challenge this election cycle is to revitalize a rather tired and beat up agenda. McCain may literally be too old to be an effective salesman.
Huckabee arguably has the strongest executive experience, but look at his record of ethics issues and religious nut rhetoric. Because of these dynamics he strikes me as being at a disadvantage to GW Bush (who had an uninspired but uneventful stint as Texas governor) or Bill Clinton, who was well regarding in national policy wonk circles for his managerial savvy.
I don't mean to suggest that we should ignore the experience issue. Personally, I am disappointed that the more seasoned Democratic candidates have done so poorly. Folks seem to be gravitating to orators rather than proven executives -- even though presidents must run the largest and most complex organization on the planet. As we saw with JFK's less than stellar stint as president, charisma will only get you so far.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 6:45 am
05 Jan 2008
The choice to affiliate oneself with the GOP seems in far too many cases to bespeak some grave moral deficiency or blindness. Sure, there are some intelligent Republicans (e.g. Senator Hagel, Senator Lugar), and some good-hearted Republicans (e.g. my father, and my mother-in-law). But they are Republican in spite of their intelligence and their good-heartedness, not because of those virtues.
(Senators Collins and Snow of Maine I also like. But I do not understand why they do not switch parties.)
(By contrast, Senators Coleman of MN and Sununu of NH are fine examples of intelligence misused -- the category of sinfulness which is punished most severely in Dante's Inferno.)
On the other side, no, Democrats are far from perfect. The obvious example of that is Bill Clinton: were it not for his intermittent failure of judgment, and his personal corruption, the party would not even now be facing certain serious political woes.
Natural Patriot,
you are absolutely right about the voice thing. It is totally subjective, and usually irrelevant. Many of us had a hard time with Bush 41's slurred nasality; many more of us have to change channels whenever W. appears on TV. My weirdly prejudiced mother dislikes Southern accents, and so, though she is basically a Democrat, she has always held Bill Clinton and John Edwards in contempt.
I for my part could gladly listen to my man, my fading star, John Edwards from sunrise to sunset; Hillary is tolerable, and my dislike of her is based on other things; my biggest challenge now is getting used to Barack Obama, whose speaking voice I do not find at all pleasant.
And very ironically, I find Rudy Giuliani immensely entertaining, and love to watch him on TV, as much as I despise him.
Steven T,
I quite agree with you about our more experienced candidates. In fact it seems that many Iowans did indeed like Joe Biden and Christopher Dodd. I criticize those Iowans for not caucusing responsibly. They ought not so much to have tried to create momentum for one candidate and be king-makers; they ought to have done their best to keep as many of the candidates whom they sincerely liked in the race.
Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
GreenMom Posted 7:24 am
05 Jan 2008
While substantively I'm with Edwards hands down, at least in his current incarnation, I really don't believe substance is ever what wills out.
Especially now, when people are so (justifiably) jaded and angry -- you'd think Edwards' anger at the system would resonate more than all the kumbaya from Obama. But Obama makes people feel good simply by dint of star power and lofty rhetoric, and people really, really want to feel good again.
That said, I did feel better about Obama after seeing him at the Yearly Kos debate in August. In front of an unusually knowledgeable crowd, he let his inner wonk out. I was reassured -- there really is a there, there. He just doesn't show that side in his regular politicking. It seems clear he's made a very savvy choice.
I can live with that.
Permalink
Green Granny Posted 12:51 pm
05 Jan 2008
People hope Obama represents such a major change in players that is has to be good. Edwards makes a great case for change and fixing what's broken -- but he's been on the Washington scene for a while and people think that means he's tainted or part of the same game. . . To win, he's going to have to convince the people that he really is different, as different as Obama.
"We must be the change we wish to see in the world." -- Mahatma Ghandi
Permalink
GreenMom Posted 1:26 pm
05 Jan 2008
It's going to be a long year -- but an interesting one. Maybe even hopeful. :-)
Permalink
bookerly Posted 3:29 pm
05 Jan 2008
Earlier I had predicted Hillary would get the nomination and win the election (I am too far away, it looked like nostalgia would triumph from here, and I haven't seen Obama speak).
Now I am not sure, the media seems to have anointed Obama as the nominee. From my seat, he and Clinton are almost identical on the issues. Both seem to be center right Democrats with different spins. "Experience" vs "Change" is not an issues based election, and we are worse off if that becomes the message and choice.
I have never been a Clinton fan (though I voted for one twice, reluctantly). Obama talks too much of unity for me (unity about what? on what issues?), another meaningless slogan.
Of the three, I am inclined to vote for Edwards, because he has talked so much about poverty, the only candidate to do so (Dennis lost it a while back, he is naderizing himself (self-caricaturing)).
None of the big three are very good on the environment or immigration (american politicians are such snivelling little cowards when faced with racism and xenophobia). If anyone can make a case otherwise, I would love to see it.
But they are marginally better than the Rethugs (except McCain).
Progressive???? It seems to be a meaningless term in America.
Golly, I hope I'm wrong!
patrick in Beijing
Permalink
indvoter Posted 2:28 am
08 Jan 2008
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 3:49 am
08 Jan 2008
What about Roland G. Aranjo...
http://www.vote-smart.org/npat.php?can_id=82672#11180
Looks like most Grist folks would approve of his environmental positions.
I'm not sure about the other stuff...
http://www.vote-smart.org/npat.php?can_id=82672
Anyway, I was a bit surprised to see 51 Democrats are actually competing to be the Democratic candidate for President...
http://www.vote-smart.org/election_president_search.php?t ...
And folks say we don't have very many candidate to choose from! I didn't even look at the lists of Republican, Independent, and other parties.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 9:14 am
08 Jan 2008
(Among the Republicans, none of the leading candidates answered the questions.)
I can't vote for someone not willing to participate in this project....
http://votesmart.org/index.ht
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 9:16 am
08 Jan 2008
I messed up their address. Sorry for the extra post.
Permalink