No two ways about it. Tonight is a huge, huge night for Barack Obama, and a terrible, terrible night for Hillary Clinton (who it appears will finish third by a whisker) and — especially — John Edwards (who really needed a win or at least a close second, but who got neither). They all had a shot to win, and they all tried hard. Obama did it; the others didn’t. Now Obama rides a big wave into NH, where he’s already polling neck-and-neck with Clinton in the state that was supposed to be Clinton’s fail-safe. If he wins NH, and I’m guessing he does, what then? He probably wins South Carolina, and even if Clinton wins Nevada, Obama is then three-for-four going into super-duper Tuesday. (Michigan and Florida, which Clinton will win, don’t count, because they’ve been disqualified and the candidates aren’t campaigning there; IIRC only Clinton is on the ballot in Michigan.)
Major kudos are due to the Obama campaign, which performed brilliantly, to Obama himself, who did the same, and perhaps to Oprah Winfrey, who may have moved votes into Obama’s column and who certainly caused the media spotlights to shine brightly on Obama for several critical days.
Hard to see where Edwards goes from here. Clinton has plenty of money and organization left, so she lives to fight another day, but she may consider a modified Giuliani strategy at this point — don’t abandon NH, of course, but start looking hard for wins in big states on Feb. 5; don’t sweat too much about the small stuff between now and then. We’ll see.
UPDATE: CNN is reporting that Senator Chris Dodd will drop out of the race in light of his very poor (0.02%) showing tonight. Drat — now I have to figure out who I’m voting for all over again!
I’m glad there was a serious youth vote, but I’m quickly coming to the point where I just can’t stand Obama & I wish the youth vote voted a little bit more critically. Here’s hoping Obama grows on me, but that probably won’t happen until/if he wins everything and does a good job in office. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt if he wins the general, and I’ll support him if he’s the eventual nominee, but I’m not so sure I’d trust him in POTUS over even Hillary – and that’s saying a lot, because I can barely stand Hill.
<
p>I’m glad at least Edwards finished in a solid second, so it seems, because at least he’s not completely dead in the race. Given that he’s the only one I can stand of the three, I’ll still be rooting for him.
<
p>Ironically, I feel the exact same way about Edwards at this point…
I don’t have that feeling with any pride: I hate this part of the primaries, the irrational attitude that the other candidates are not just “not as good” but instead thinking that they’re “bad”, and I know it’s not true. I remember blowing up minor disagreements with Kerry, with Dean, with Clark, into major fatal flaws that could at various times lead me to “never” support them”.
<
p>Rationally I know that we have an amazing field, and though I think Obama is the best of the bunch, but they’re all great people. Can’t wait for silliness to end, but for now, I’m fired up and ready to go.
I agree with Edwards being the best of the big three, but he’s got a major albatross around his neck: his wife is battling cancer, and he’s still out campaigning. A lot of folks I’ve spoken with (including my wife, a die-hard liberal) point to that as making him seem callous, and it’s hard to disagree. That’s not going to play well.
<
p>Admittedly, it’d be a hard thing to point to openly (it’d be Ă¼ber-callous to use this against him in an ad or speech), but I’d expect a significant whisper campaign against him on this if he won the nomination.
Not a valid point of criticism at all: Elizabeth is out campaigning too, just as much. The Edwards campiagn has problems, but the fact they’re not letting her cancer bring them down is boost.
Most of which is well to my left. Seems a little bit career-first. I suppose that one does not run for President (at least not successfully) without the ambition necessary to impose crippling burdens on one’s spouse and children for the sake of one’s career. I guess in politics (as opposed to business) this is OK since the careerist is perceived to be so noble as to be serving the people.
I’m on the fence in regards to how I feel about him running for POTUS while his wife has cancer.
<
p>–Good for them for continuing to be dedicated to what they feel is important work. How often to the stars align that allow you to make a run for President?
<
p>–His wife has cancer and will probably die. And this is what he wants to do during this period of their life together? Spend it shaking hands in front of diners in Manchester while it’s 15 degrees?
<
p>–What do I expect them to do, sit at home and wait for her to die? Is she Patty Hearst or some battered wife who is just going along, even though she wants him to stay home and take care of her?
<
p>The sacrifices any of these people make to get to and stay at this level are unfathomable to me. They are a different species. And that goes for their children and spouses. So no matter where they are from, what party they belong to or any other factors, I know they’re dealing with a different value perspective than I am when it comes to sacrificing for a career.
<
p>He’s my chosen candidate for personality, resume and on issues. But her illness is something that makes me feel like, if he lost, I’d feel good knowing he could spend more time with her.
<
p>I don’t think it would be a deciding factor in whether he wins or loses the nomination. But it’s there. Saying it’s not valid is pointless.
will depend in part on the Republicans. And Romney.
<
p>If Willard throws lots of bombs and makes the Republican race in NH hot and exciting, that action will woo independents who would otherwise vote for Obama.
nattering on about it ad nauseam.
David, CNN just interviewed the dude who voted for Dodd. He said he’d been leaning Gravel but was persuaded by your endorsement! đŸ™‚
Dodd has one delegate from Iowa, not just one vote.
Does anyone leave after this? Granted, Kucinich and Gravel stay in because they are running vanity campaigns, but what about the other three? After all the talk, the fact that the media — including almost all bloggers — can’t count past three doomed most of the Democrats in the race. (Funny how in the last two weeks almost everyone online gave up even acknowledging their existence, just like the mass media they claim to hate. I know there are exceptions, but that’s just what they are.)
<
p>Anyway, Richardson, Dodd, and Biden combined barely broke 3% of the delegates. Granted, they added up to 15% in the entrance polls, but that still isn’t a whole lot for several lifetimes worth of experience. I thought Richardson would hang on through NV (his legislature goes in session on the 15th), Dodd through NH, Biden through SC, but what’s really the point? Especially for Dodd — what is there for him now, aside from what must be a great story about how that single delegate came his way?
The previous comment was submitted 2 minutes before the announcement came over CNN that Dodd was out. I swear — check the timestamps.
according to CNN
<
p>no endorsement yet…
Red rover, red rover, let DAVID come over (to Obama, of course đŸ˜‰
according to MSNBC.
<
p>His hair, however, pledged to fight for victory in NH.
<
p>38 + 30 + 29 = 97. What’s left to count?
…because the caucuses aren’t like normal voting. It sounds like entrance polls showed much more support for the other candidates than the official results, but since in most cases none of them reached the required 15%, their supporters either left, moved to “Uncommitted,” or switched to another candidate, before the final tally. If the news media hadn’t refused to touch Richardson with a ten foot pole for no particularly good reason, I think he still wouldn’t have broken the top three, but he would have made a more significant showing.
Your math doesn’t mean it was right for the media to focus on those three almost to the exclusion of all others over the course of the last six months. Your math merely illustrates the end symptom of what sabutai was talking about, not the cause.
<
p>The voters focussed on the Big Three because that’s all the media talked about. If the media had given more airtime to Richardson, I guarantee we’d have seen at least 10% from him — just as an example.
<
p>That’s the kind of advertising you just can’t buy, and it’s where our electoral system remains severely hobbled…
Big boost for Obama. But with the compressed schedule this year, it might not matter as much. Iowa only lasts five days this year. But yes, important validation for his campaign tonight.
<
p>I think you underestimate the result for Edwards. True he wanted a win, but the Dem race has been covered as Hillary and Obama. He beat Hillary and that will matter. If he shows numbers in NH, he’ll get more ink. Can he take advantage of it? Dunno.
<
p>Hillary seems in a spot of trouble. She can turn it around, but she needs to grab some traction, overcome the lost inevitability the way W did vs McCain.
Money and troops will be her strength, but that can only buy so many votes, and twist so many arms.
<
p>In listening to each speech, I thought Hillary relied on her presumptive experience, where Edwards touched on the issues that have raised our ire, and the Obama trumped them both by looking forward.
<
p>New Hampshire will be interesting!
He says the “country came together around a common purpose” after splitting the vote equally with two other candidates? A group of completely random voters choosing among the viable candidates would produce this result.
<
p>What did he see going forward? Ending the war (duh), restoring moral standing of America (how?) , “to make people’s lives just a little bit better” (big cheers for that one!), “more families can afford to see a doctor” (gee!), “a planet that is a little cleaner” (phew!).
<
p>But he finally explained “what it means to hope”:
<
p>”Hope is not blind optimism. It’s not ignoring the enormity of the task ahead or the roadblocks that stand in our path”, “hope is that thing inside us that insists, despite all evidence to the contrary, that something better awaits us if we have the courage to reach for it, to work for it and to fight for it!” (big cheers for “fight for it” – is his campaign about hope or hate? Those cheers for “fighting” belie the claim that this campaign is about bringing the country together.)
<
p>”Hope is what I saw in the eyes of the young woman who works the night shift after a full day of college and still can’t afford health care for a sister who’s ill. A young woman who still believes that this country will giver her a chance to live out her dreams.” (is hope just about taking advantage of pissed off people?)
<
p>Then more mentions of how hope led to the American Revolution, and the Civil War and the (ok, this one isn’t violent, but it still a very polarized fight) lunch counter sit-ins.
<
p>I think Obama’s supporters are a mob of rabid haters who are this close to physically stomping everyone they believe is over 30.
<
p>”Thank you America?” His support was exclusively hungover naked college students who hate ninety percent of America.
Which made for a very depressing evening for those of us who were out there for our local guy. He had been ahead in some polls and just about the entire state of Massachusetts was out there, and to finish behind Dick Gephardt and Paul Simon (another Illinois Senator) sent people back home disappointed, but not finished by a long shot ….
<
p>Note: Simon, like Obama, did very well in the eastern part of Iowa, where Illinois media carries into the state. Not that Obama didn’t win a solid victory across the state, but this was one of the factors the media has not highlighted.
<
p>So the challenge is now there for Senator Clinton to raise her game and New Hampshire is the place to do it. Lose the frontrunner attitude (not her, but her consultants, etc), and fight for the leadership of the Democratic Party. A lot is at stake for all of us.
<
p>Wonder what they’re thinking in the Bloomberg camp tonight ….
Serves her right. The whole point of the absurd Iowa caucuses, as I wrote before, is to give an insiders spin to the candidate preferred by the Party bosses. That worked perfectly in 2004. The one flaw in the otherwise perfect plan, however, is if the insider strikes out despite the rigged game. Clinton just did that. Look for her campaign to act with desperation in New Hampshire. If she doesn’t win there, she’s probably finished, I think.
Obama did exactly the same thing that Deval Patrick did here in MA’s little caucuses. He powered up the grassroots, and they showed up for him. Did you hear the Iowa turnout numbers? Well over 200,000 — nearly double the 2004 numbers. Extraordinary. Obama (like Deval) proved that a good campaign and an inspiring message can bring a lot of new people into the process, and that good results can follow from doing that. I don’t like the caucus system either (especially the absurd 15% rule, which IA shares with MA and which is particularly unfair in a first-in-the-nation contest like this one). But it does have the effect of allowing real grassroots efforts — like Deval’s, and Obama’s, and Mike Huckabee’s — to defy conventional wisdom.
The best-laid schemes o’ mice an ‘men/ Gang aft agley,/ An’lea’e us nought but grief an’ pain,/ For promis’d joy!
<
p>Of course. The Powers That Be can be done in. Hurray for Governor Patrick. Take heed, Lords of the Legislature.
<
p>My point is that the Iowa absurdity was expressly designed with the 2004 script in mind. The fact that it didn’t work out that way is a stunning defeat for Clinton. In fact, one thing tonight’s result shows is that David Plouffe is a much better campaign manager than Dean’s Joe Trippi, and that Patti Solis Doyle could learn a lot from Mary Beth Cahill and Michael Whouley.
There’s still a lot of voting to do in this race.
He is described by Time magazine as a, “Field General,” and simultaneously a, “conscript in her Army.” Thank goodness that blog readers can always turn to the sober, measured coverage of the MSM for … journalism.
<
p>Could The Wizard’s magic bag of newts and frogs be empty? Seems impossible.
<
p>I guess Clinton’s defeat was even more stunning than I initially realized.
Remember her husband was the Comeback Kid and they know how to turn things around. Battling for a respectable second is hardly a terrible night. After all, only one person can win, but that doesn’t mean everybody else failed. We knew for awhile that Clinton, Obama, and Edwards all had a chance to win and tonight happened to be Obama’s night. Others have already pointed Iowa winners who were not nominees and I’m still skeptical Huckabee will be the GOP nominee. As I write this Channel 5 is reporting Dodd and Biden dropping out.
<
p>BTW, GOP numbers were reported in terms of several thousand votes per candidate while each Democratic candidate was reported as less than 1000. Does anybody know what’s really being measured and why the discrepancy?
The figures show the number of delegates won by Democratic candidates. A limited number were available, regardless of turnout. A caucus cannot have more than 9 delegates, even with 200 people.
AS CNN explained it, the R’s count raw votes, the D’s count delegates elected to the next stage of caucuses, county level? Dems also get two bites of the apple — if their candidate doesn’t make 15%, they can move to another camp that did get 15%.
<
p>Somehow, HRC’s campaign has to get back to basics, the NH campaign did the right thing when she went door to door in Manchester recently. People I know from Mass. who worked for her in the White House and on her advance team love her and would run through walls for her. She has to find a way to get that Hillary across to average people.
Hillary’s campaign never expected to win Iowa. Mike Henry, on the campaign, wrote a memo in May suggesting Iowa wasn’t worth the expense for Hillary. 9 months ago, Hillary probably expected to finish strong, but maybe lose to Edwards there, and beat Edwards in NH and SC, and the Feb 5th states. There might have been a few weeks when Hillary was ahead in the polls in Iowa, but it’s not like this state was ever expected to be a lock for her.
<
p>This is not to take away the accomplishment of the Obama campaign.
<
p>But what really should be noticed is that 3 Democrats got about a third each of 220,000 votes in Iowa.
<
p>One Republican, Huckabee got one-third of 100,000 votes in Iowa. Romney got one-fourth.
<
p>Whoever wins the nomination, that state is in the blue column in November.
Anyway, I’m just talking about my own opinion, which has been for more than a year that Clinton would win in Iowa because she was the favorite of the Powers That Be.
Just a quick thought on the speeches tonight:
<
p>Obama’s was eerily similar to Deval’s November speech. The guy just has great oratorical timing, knowing when to start with the next sentence. He didn’t say anything typical, but gave a different speech than the others.
<
p>But most importantly, he mentioned New Hampshire within minutes of starting, and the first 3-5 minutes were ALL about NH, which was brilliant.
<
p>Hillary’s speech was so pro forma. Even the visual was lame-assed, with all the losers, and even someone crying, in the shot in the background!?!
<
p>Edwards: fired up, much better visual than Hillary’s.
<
p>
I watched all the speeches tonight — Obama’s blew everybody else away. I watched with a housemate of mine who is pretty well informed, but hardly a political geek or a partisan, and the choice was clear to him too. Obama just was the tops oratorically.
My hopes and prayers have been answered, I really regret not betting on my hunches like my friend did (and earn some extra Christmas money) but I didnt feel like jinxing the guy I liked.
<
p>Anyway onto NH. I think tommorrows polls will be significant, and now that he has won a primary every voter in NH will take a second look at Obama. The loss of Dodd, Biden, and in my view Richardson quite shortly will likely give a boost to Obama more so than Clinton as clearly he was the universal second choice in IA as well. Also Clinton might get desperate and go real negative, which has backfired for Romney who has attacked McCain and LOST ground because McCain is so well respected there.
<
p>That said The Big Bill Blitz could really shake things up a bit, though perhaps taint a victory by making it seem like she can’t win on her own, or perhaps reinforce that she is living off of his legacy rather than her own.
<
p>Also I think Edwards could still be viable in other areas, but were he to side with Obama now that could easily make this a two person race and I think the majority of the party would then be sided against Clinton.
‘
Itll be an exciting few days and hopefully I can make a trip to NH this weekend.
Wow, that seems like a plant to create sympathy for the poor woman.
CNN’s entrance polls show lots of interesting stuff. I was surprised that Obama won Union households.
…John Edwards was continuing his campaign largely because Elizabeth wanted him to. Isn’t that what she said at their joint press conference?
<
p>Three observations regarding His wife has cancer and will probably die. And this is what he wants to do during this period of their life together? from a comment above.
<
p>One, the sad fact is that everyone will die at some point. That is a fact that many Americans seem to wish to ignore.
<
p>Two, I suppose that they could sit around their house feeling sorry for themselves. But they chose not to. Who am I to quibble with their choice?
<
p>Three, I’ve known several women who are not only long term breast cancer survivors (my mother in law is one and a lady down the street here in Wellesley is another) and they remained in active life. It is the case that breast cancer is a serious ailment, but it is not insurmountable, particularly if diagnosed early. Putting your life on hold to feel sorry for yourself is probably far worse than remaining in active life.