MB-Civic Original Opinion: (Un)convention-al Wisdom?
Some Thoughts On the Iowa Caucuses
by Rev. Ian Alterman
Editor, MB-Civic
January 4, 2008
It is, of course, far too soon to make any firm predictions about who will be the nominee for each party, despite the strong showings of Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee in the Iowa Caucuses. As today’s New York Times editorial points out, Hillary still has plenty of money (and the best political machine out there), and Edwards actually got a boost by beating Hillary, despite coming in second.
As for Mitt Romney, don’t cry too much for him; Mike Huckabee is as likely to win the nomination as I am to become quarterback for the New England Patriots. And if Romney does well in New Hampshire, Hucakbee will be yesterday’s news, and Romney will still be in the game.
That said, there may be a couple of interesting lessons to learn from Iowa, even though it is only one state – and a largely rural one at that.
The most obvious lesson is that, even in politics, money isn’t everything. Clinton outspent both Obama and Edwards, yet lost to both (though her loss to Edwards was by tenths of a percent). And Romney outspent Huckabee by an exponential amount, yet lost to him. However, the races were much closer than they look at first glance: Obama’s lead over Edwards, and Huckabee’s lead over Romney, were only 8% and 9%, respectively. If this were a general election, one could hardly call that a “mandate.”
The second lesson is that the Republican Party is in greater disarray than even the media and top political pundits suspected. Setting aside the “Huckabee/Romney Show,” there is more to the remainder of the field than the media has suggested. True, Rudy Giuliani did little campaigning in Iowa, preferring to focus on later states. However, his 6th place showing does not bode well for him; given that Iowa is the kind of state that would naturally “buy into” his “post-9/11 world” mindset, it is nothing less than stunning that both Fred Thompson AND Ron Paul beat him out – the former by 10% and the latter by 7% (Thompson had 13.4%, Paul had 10%, and Giuliani had 3.5%). While Giuliani may still do well in future caucuses, my guess is that the so-called “Giuliani juggernaut” is all but finished.
The third, and perhaps most shocking, lesson is that, if the Iowa vote serves as a legitimate barometer (and that is admittedly questionable), it seems that the country is more prepared for a “black man” to be president than a “white woman.” If this is true – and without discounting the many other factors involved – it would be a blow to both racism and feminism (of a sort) at the same time, and turn conventional wisdom on its ear.
This entry was posted on Friday, January 4th, 2008 at 8:53 PM and filed under Articles, Politics. Follow comments here with the RSS 2.0 feed. Skip to the end and leave a response. Trackbacks are closed.
5 Responses to “MB-Civic Original Opinion: (Un)convention-al Wisdom?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
The ultimate paragraph is an insult (perhaps deseved) to American voters. It assumes that they are indeed biased by race and/or sex and that no consideration should be given to the possibility that even in ‘Rural Iowa’ they could possibly be open minded.
Posted on 05-Jan-08 at 2:10 am | PermalinkFurthermore, by not considering such a possibility, one is actualy perpetuating that position.
In this case Obama comes across as an American, not a ‘black’ American, and we all know (or think we know) Hillary so well that her sex hardly enters into it.
‘The shocking lesson’ may be that at least in Iowa, rural or not, being black or a woman counted for nothing and the candidates were judged on their personalities and policies.
Ben:
You will note my qualifying comment: “and without discounting the many other factors involved.” This was added for the very purpose of allowing for the possibility that I am (hopefully) wrong; that it was the “personalities and policies” that were the deciding factors.
Still, on a personal note, I cannot help but think that, for all her faults and triangulations, Hillary is, in fact, more “prepared” to “hit the ground running” as president than Obama. In fact, even before we get to that possibility, I can’t help but also agree that Hillary is much better equipped to handle what will almost certainly be the most vicious and mean-spirited campaign the Republicans are ever likely to run against a Democratic candidate for president. As one pundit pointed out (and I have actually been saying this for some time), there are unlikely to be any skeletons in Hillary’s closet that have not already been dragged through the mud heavily and publicly. So they will be hard-pressed to smear her in that regard. Obama, on the other hand, is a “newbie” and, for all his seeming innocence, we simply do not know what the G.O.P. might drag up and use against him – successfully.
Peace.
Posted on 05-Jan-08 at 7:46 am | PermalinkSome good points Ian. I agree with Ben that race and gender didn’t have too much to do with how people voted, which is a good thing – I think Hillary was too conservative for a lot of voters and Obama has the rock star thing going on. If Hillary was saying the same things that Edwards is saying I’d vote for her in a heartbeat.
Posted on 05-Jan-08 at 10:24 am | PermalinkI agree with Ian that you have to think about more than just policies when you consider who to vote for. In addition to possible skeletons in the cupboard, there is the effectivness factor. We all saw what happened to Jimi Carter. Through no fault of his own, he was simply ineffective.
Posted on 05-Jan-08 at 11:00 am | PermalinkThe same could easily apply to Obama. Hillary is conservative enough and with connections enough for the long run, not only in terms of the election, but in terms of governing after.
On the other hand, Obama could be the new Kennedy and sweep all before him, before the bullet in the head, perhaps.
Personally, I would go for Hillary, but with all the best intentions in the world, what do I or any of us know?
What is truely refreshing is to see the democratic process working in a dynamic, civilized fashion. A wonderful example to the rest of the world – so far.
Mike and Ben:
Thanks for your continued comments.
I think both of you point to important, and potentially negative, aspects re Obama.
First, the “rock star thing” is not likely to last forever, especially when the GOP gets going with their attacks. As well, the “shine” will begin to wear off in any case as the blistering attacks begin. As well, based on some of his “reactions” to INTRA-party campaign tactics, I truly worry that he will not be able to stand up to a 24/7 negative campaign from the GOP; he “bristles” easily, and may actually be too “nice” to be able to deal with it. Hillary, on the other hand, has dealt with everything they’ve thrown at her, and she knows how to let it roll off her back, reply with subtly biting humor, or respond in kind.
More importantly, although I don’t think Obama would be “ineffective,” I think that in the “rock star” moment, people are forgetting that a president does not – cannot – “change everything” simply by force of will or personality; there is a Congress to deal with, among other things. (Just look at what is happening to Elliot Spitzer, whose slogan was “On Day 1, everything changes.”)
In this regard, Hillary’s experience gives her two legs up on Obama. First, she has been a senator longer, and has actually been one of the most “bipartisan” senators during her tenure: even the GOP UNgrudgingly admits that she has a way of “reaching across the aisle” that was unexpected of her when she got there.
Second, Hillary already knows all the major leaders in the world; Obama would have to start from scratch creating relationships with them.
These are just two reasons why I believe she really is the candidate who can “hit the ground running” if elected.
Peace.
Posted on 05-Jan-08 at 1:33 pm | Permalink