Iowa

So the caucuses have finally come and gone, conveniently while I was asleep thanks to the time difference. Seeing all the clips on CNN really takes me back. I was especially pleased to see the various reps from the Iowa Democratic Party who were interviewed. Not a single familiar face, and that's a good thing. I worked for the IDP a few lifetimes ago and the entire operation was an absolute disgrace. There's a reason why the Republicans won almost everything in the state throughout the '90s. Be that as it may, I do love being on the ground in the thick of a campaign, and I miss that life somewhat. Not much, but a bit. Seeing all the excitement was a nice reminder.

And the results?

First, I'm glad to hear Dodd is dropping out and going back to DC to continue the fight on FISA. Word on the blogosphere has been that the leadership of both parties expected him to stop "grandstanding" on the whole thing once the wheels came off his campaign, but he at least says that's not going to happen. Here's hoping he sticks to that.

Second, I'm very pleased with Edwards' second-place finish, even if it's completely symbolic. Clinton actually won one more pledged delegate than he did, but that's really not what matters. Perhaps it should be, but it isn't. What does matter is that he beat expectations, and in absolute numbers he also beat Clinton. So he gets a ticket to New Hampshire that it was looking an awful lot like he might not get. It'll be interesting to see if the big three all do well enough there to stay in. I'm still thinking it'll be a two person race after next week - but it's not yet.

Third, I have to admire Richardson's spirit, claiming he made the top tier by grabbing fourth place. That's one pleasant way of rephrasing "I got 2% and no delegates," I concede. I wonder if he'll hang in there through the convention with that attitude; somebody usually does in one party or the other.

Fourth, while you know where my sympathies lie, the Republicans had the more fascinating contest this time. I had a feeling all the talk about McCain's big comeback was just cheerleading from his friends in the media, and it looks like that's just what it was. He almost beat Thompson, which would be impressive if not for the fact that Thompson has tossed out every clue imaginable that he doesn't really care about running at all. It's got to hurt to run that hard for that long and then lose - even if it is just by 200 votes - to a guy who doesn't even want the job.

Fifth, I'm also surprised but, to put it bluntly, pleased to see the two most controversial candidates come out on top. Huckabee and Romney have been getting more bad press from fellow Republicans than from Democrats lately...so of course they get almost 60% of the caucus votes together! Unbelievable.

Sixth, while I'm tremendously relieved to see Giuliani go down in flames (oops, I guess it's in bad taste to use that phrase about a guy who's been running on being the Mayor Of 9/11), I'm very surprised too. I really thought that whole stern father figure motif would go over better with the party that lionized Reagan. But then, he's pro-choice and pro-gay rights, which means a lot of wingnuts will chortle about the diversity of the field relative to the Democrats but then vote en masse against him. While Iowa is a fairly purple state, its Republicans are very conservative socially. I thought that might sink Saint Rudy.

Final thoughts...I would really love to see a Romney vs. Clinton race in the fall. Neither is my first choice for their respective nominations, of course. I don't really have a favorite on the Republican side, but if I had to choose one, well, they're not all as slimy as Romney is. As for Clinton, I probably would support her if she really were as left-wing as the right likes to pretend, but that's not even close to the truth. So why would I like to see them go head to head? Because of the past fifteen years of screaming about how Clinton lacks any convictions and cares only about getting power. Of course I don't think too many Republicans really believe that about her. I think it's just something they settled on after Whitewater and the Vince Foster issue proved not to hold any water, and they woke up to the fact that "she's a b***h" would serve only to alienate suburban Republican women without gaining any votes they didn't already have. But that's beside the point. They've been howling about her lack of convictions for all this time, so I'd love to see how they'd react to having a nominee of whom anybody can see that really is the case - not to mention that he's from a state many hardcore Republicans don't even think is really part of the USA*.

Think about it - it would be almost like if they ranted for eight years about Bill Clinton being a draft-dodger, dishonest businessman, playboy, etc...and then nominated a guy who really was all those things. How do you think they'd have reacted if that happened?! The inconsistency would probably make their heads explode, don't you think?

Oh, wait a minute...never mind.





*I've run into that attitude occasionally over here, too. When a group of Europeans asks what state I'm from and I say New Hampshire, typically they don't all know where that is. One of them will then explain that "it's one of those little states up in the corner that aren't really American." But then, since they're French, they probably mean it as a compliment.