Friday, January 04, 2008

Wow.

Killer numbers out of the Iowa caucus tonight. Game changing:

Good Guys:

1,781 of 1,781 districts reporting

Obama 37.58
Edwards 29.75
Clinton 29.47
Richardson 2.11
Biden 0.93
Uncommitted 0.14
Dodd 0.02

Bad guys:

1,546 of 1,781 districts reporting

Huckabee 34
Romney 25
Thompson 13
McCain 13
Paul 10
Giuliani 3


How weird that the Dems have the more complex caucus system, but they had all precincts reporting while the GOP can't seem to do anything right -- even without George or Dick at the helm.

Gotta say my sentiments are here, and it's this landmark speech that's sending shivers down my spine just thinking about it.

Congrats to Mike Huckabee, but here's a damning set of numbers -- you can see the Republican turnout vs. the Dems in sharp relief:

Total Voter Turnout (approximate)

356,000

Percentage of total vote

24.5% Obama
20.5% Edwards
19.8% Clinton
11.4% Huckabee (R)

That's the GOP ending up with only 1/3 the vote between six candidates -- that's at best a 6% average each.

Can I be the first to say I actually thought Hillary was actually cruising to do a lot worse? I expect the story to be all the second choice votes (under 15% first rounders) flipping from Edwards to Obama in just the past five days. Kucinich led the way, then all those rumors about Biden and Richardson doing the same (more surreptitiously).

She lucked out and maybe her panicked drones can spin it for her as "not third place" although I doubt they'll want to say it's a tie for second. She needs to fashion an underdog/fight back persona, and maybe it'll work. But I expect if she does it plays as the last straw, like Rudy's maximum fear TV ad that he vomited out yesterday.

As Nettertainment readers may already know, I fear only Mike Huckabee and John McCain, in that order.

The two candidates I did endorse, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani, are dogmeat, saying more than you might think about the intelligence of the Republican rank & file. I'd love to have dinner with Huckabee, funny, smart, maybe get him to jam on bass after dessert, but I don't want him for my President. And neither does the hardcore conservative GOP activist core.

For the first time in my life, I agree with about 85% of what David Brooks writes in a column. On Obama:

This is a huge moment. It’s one of those times when a movement that seemed ethereal and idealistic became a reality and took on political substance.

Iowa won’t settle the race, but the rest of the primary season is going to be colored by the glow of this result. Whatever their political affiliations, Americans are going to feel good about the Obama victory, which is a story of youth, possibility and unity through diversity — the primordial themes of the American experience.

And Americans are not going to want to see this stopped. When an African-American man is leading a juggernaut to the White House, do you want to be the one to stand up and say No?

On Mike:

Huckabee won because he tapped into realities that other Republicans have been slow to recognize. First, evangelicals have changed. Huckabee is the first ironic evangelical on the national stage. He’s funny, campy (see his Chuck Norris fixation) and he’s not at war with modern culture.

Second, Huckabee understands much better than Mitt Romney that we have a crisis of authority in this country. People have lost faith in their leaders’ ability to respond to problems. While Romney embodies the leadership class, Huckabee went after it. He criticized Wall Street and K Street. Most importantly, he sensed that conservatives do not believe their own movement is well led. He took on Rush Limbaugh, the Club for Growth and even President Bush. The old guard threw everything they had at him, and their diminished power is now exposed.

Third, Huckabee understands how middle-class anxiety is really lived. Democrats talk about wages. But real middle-class families have more to fear economically from divorce than from a free trade pact. A person’s lifetime prospects will be threatened more by single parenting than by outsourcing. Huckabee understands that economic well-being is fused with social and moral well-being, and he talks about the inter-relationship in a way no other candidate has.


Here's the scoop. If McCain vanquishes Romney for good in New Hampshire and becomes the anti-Huckabee establishment candidate (McCain does, after all, think it acceptable to stay in Iraq for 100 years) we have an epic match-up on our hands, at on three different levels.

There's the maximum generational level. A clear choice between two men twenty-five years apart in age.

There's the straight-talk face-off. The GOP will try to smear Obama, but he's not a serial flip-flopper. Meanwhile, for all the Chris Matthews adoration, McCain supported Bush from starting all the way through the Iraq War, aside from the Bush/Cheney policy of U.S. torture. Aiding and abetting the very guys who smeared his family in South Carolina after he won New Hampshire and ruined his chance to be President in 2000 with their dirty, dirty tricks.

That's feet of clay.

The third and potential most fascinating level is one of payback.

Back two years ago, in February 2006, Obama reached out to fellow Senator John McCain on ethics and lobbyist reform, and got slapped down in in letter form, by what could be read as a pique of that famed McCain temper or maybe brutal political posturing with an eye to 2008, or maybe just putting the young'un in his place.

McCain calls Obama a liar more than once in the letter for wanting to do the legislation a different way. Obama's response, however, is profoundly consistent with the tone of his campaign:
For this reason, I am puzzled by your response to my recent letter. Last Wednesday morning, you called to invite me to your meeting that afternoon. I changed my schedule so I could attend the meeting. Afterwards, you thanked me several times for attending the meeting, and we left pledging to work together.

As you will recall, I told everyone present at the meeting that my caucus insisted that the consideration of any ethics reform proposal go through the regular committee process. You didn't indicate any opposition to this position at the time, and I wrote the letter to reiterate this point, as well as the fact that I thought S. 2180 should be the basis for a bipartisan solution.

I confess that I have no idea what has prompted your response. But let me assure you that I am not interested in typical partisan rhetoric or posturing. The fact that you have now questioned my sincerity and my desire to put aside politics for the public interest is regrettable but does not in any way diminish my deep respect for you nor my willingness to find a bipartisan solution to this problem.

I've heard it described as Obama taking conservatives at their word, and then hanging them by it if they play a trick. It's very above board, very good lawyerly style, and may work better than an Edwards-type us vs. them approach. Hopefully more effective, if Obama wins the big job.

But imagine this letter exchange in the context of a potential November victory for Obama head-to-head against McCain.

Shakespearean?

It's been a long time since I remember a moment like this in politics, maybe back to when I was a kid, or when Corazon Aquino delivered the Philippines from longtime dictator Ferdinand Marcos, real investment in a new political leader who appears both good and smart, a best hope.

Best of all for Obama, winning by such a definitive margin (imagine the margins if Edwards drops out of the race) and proving he can not only create such an effective organization, but harness the long-mythical youth power, he finally seems completely viable as a Democratic Presidential nominee...

...or President himself.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Forget about the Huckster. If David Brooks thinks a repub will flourish nationally by "taking on Wall Street, K Street....Rush Limbaugh, & the Club for Growth", he's smoking crack. When the cherry blossoms bloom Huck will be back in Arkansas wondering what went wrong.

As for McCain, he'll get massive media fluffing, but if I'm the Dem in the general i run only one ad: a still photo of his awkward man-hug of GWB. No voiceover or motion necessary. That's it, over and over and over, my entire $100 million ad budget. (Besides all the other implications, he looks like an octogenarian drunk mauling a $5 hooker in an alleyway.)

ps: don't underestimate the desperate savagery you're going to see from Rudy & Mitt over the next 3 weeks.