by Mike Tackett
DES MOINES--In the end, Iowans voted for a smile.
They chose conciliation over combat, personality over pedigree, hope over fear. They voted for the new, with fervor.
Whether that sets a tone for the campaign to come is far from certain--in fact things could get harsh in a hurry. But at least on this cold night, there was a powerful suggestion that voters were intrigued by a different kind of politics, particularly independents who increasingly say they are weary of the old partisan fights.
It can be a mistake to make too much about the candidate anointed "President of Iowa" by the quaint and quirky precinct caucuses. Ask George H.W. Bush in 1980 or Bob Dole or Richard Gephardt in 1988.
In the case of Barack Obama, though, it also could be a mistake to make too little of it. History isn't always apparent in the moment. No other figure in modern American politics has had such a swift rise, built on such thin experience, who at the same time could inspire such a sense of the possible. The country had never seen the serious prospect of a non-white president, or watched such a powerful portrait as Obama and his wife, Michelle, as a potential First Couple.
Now it has.
His stunning triumph Thursday came in Iowa, where less than 3 percent of the population is African-American, and it came against the most formidable political machine in Democratic politics--the Clintons.
Hillary Clinton's inevitability long has been overstated, and she was wounded--though not mortally--by this surprisingly large defeat.
For John Edwards, who had almost lived in Iowa for four years, his neck-and-neck race with Clinton gives him an argument to continue, but not a strong one. Voters did not see him as the anti-Clinton. That might well have been due in large part to the fact that the buoyant optimism of his 2004 campaign was replaced by an angry populism that clearly has its limits.
Even less viable now are the three candidates with the most lengthy political resumes--Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut.
That's not Mike Huckabee's new lot. The genial former governor of Arkansas' strong pull with religious conservatives overwhelmed the monied structure of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney to win the Republican caucus. Now Huckabee faces a considerable challenge in New Hampshire on Tuesday from Sen. John McCain of Arizona, who did surprisingly well with a minimalist campaign in Iowa
Huckabee's finish was notable for other reasons. It was a triumph of message over money, having been outspent at least ten-fold by Romney. It also was a clear demonstration as well of the continued power of religious conservatives in his party.
McCain, who famously spurned Iowa when he ran in 2000, is ascendant again in New Hampshire, a state where religious conservatives don't play as significant a role. The results call into serious question the candidacy of Fred Thompson, the actor and former Tennessee senator, who never seemed to take running for president seriously.
The Republican race, other than Huckabee's 11th hour conversion to all-positive campaigning, promises to be much rougher than the Democrats with clear attack lines drawn between Romney and McCain, and Romney and Huckabee. The curious near-bystander in the process, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, has banked on the unprecedented strategy of nearly forgoing the early contests in favor of large states beginning with Florida on Jan. 29. It is a strategy that many analysts see as more flawed by the day.
Change is a powerful animating force in politics, particularly when folks are so fed up with the status quo. The politics of the last 16 years--so riven with animus--may be undergoing its own form of climate change. Obama would be a clear beneficiary. It was not easy. He was encouraged repeatedly to attack Clinton lest he be seen as weak. He resisted the urge and Iowa rewarded him Thursday.
The increased turnout was almost entirely among the group of potential voters who had been hardest to reach, namely the young and those who had never participated before.
Obama entered the race with the belief that the time was right for a post Baby Boom generation candidate who was not shaped by the defining struggles of the 1960s. It was almost post racial, even post-political. It's working for him so far.
Still, Obama has many hurdles to clear. And a wounded Clinton is potentially even more dangerous politically to him as they now travel to New Hampshire, the state that gave Bill Clinton his first real chance at winning the Democratic nomination in 1992 when he proclaimed himself "The Comeback Kid." For some reason, both Hillary and Bill Clinton seem to be at their best when they have been knocked down.
That's a place Obama has never been since his electrifying speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He was called a phenomenon then. The results in Iowa marked the end of that phase of his career.
Now his chances are real.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Have questions about the results of last night's Iowa caucuses, what's next in the race for the White House or anything related to Election 2008? E-mail them to us and we'll answer as many as possible during our live video chat from Iowa scheduled for 12:30 pm central time today.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Comments
I'ld like to think they voted for change...but...
It would seem to me that the republicans voted for their religion once again. I suggest that the republican party kick the rightious right to the curb and let them start a third party (sunni,Shia). I'm not sure what this was....a vote for the evangelicals or a vote against mormons, but it had little to do about what mainstream America cares about.
Posted by: bill r. | January 4, 2008 7:47 AM
Who wins as presidential candidates? The last seated sentator was Richard Nixon and before that John F. Kennedy. Since then, the past several decades, the winner has always been a southern or western govenor, or a seated vice president. No one sees a senator in washington as an agent of change.
As for kicking the religious right out. They represent 23% of the republican vote, while the far left, i.e. moveon.org represent 14% of the democratic vote. So which group should be kicked out?
Posted by: daveyo | January 4, 2008 8:23 AM
All that means Obama goes into this state's compressed contest with a target on his back a situation he has managed to avoid due to media bias against Clinton. "Obama, through an unprecedented convergence of luck has never before faced serious attack yet, now he's earned the right to be mercilessly scrubbed and scrutinized. Will show he is something of a phony, someone whose lofty rhetoric isn't born out in his own public record. His lack of foreign policy experience and showing he isn’t ready to lead in a dangerous world. His votes in the Senate to fund the Iraq war even as he tried to position himself as the strongest anti-war candidate will finally come into play nationally; facts show he always supports the war, voted twice in 2006 against bringing America's troops back home. Votes for war appropriations giving our money to Halliburton and Blackwater. Voted with Bush on posturing S 433 which allows the Bush Admin to suspend any troop withdrawal! keeps our troops in Iraq for a long time to come? Record also shows Obama faced with tough choices always gave in to pressure from Bush admin and corporate lobbyists. Obama voted for Bush's energy bill, sending more than $13 billion in subsidies and tax breaks to oil, coal, and nuclear companies. Obama voted with Republicans to allow credit card companies to raise interest rates over 30 percent, increasing hardship for families. "He talks about change but has no real record of making change. Lastly his use of the race card will not play well nationally…
Posted by: Sherri | January 4, 2008 8:41 AM
Bill, your comment is a goofy bunch of nonsense. Why would republicans kick out a big part of their constituency...? And who are you to declare what Mainstream America cares about? I like to think that at least a good portion of America is looking forward to having a sharp, normal, intelligent guy as president, which is something we haven't had in a while. Huck isn't the most politically knowledgeable candidate, but he certainly is the most normal and quick-witted republican.
Posted by: Jason | January 4, 2008 8:54 AM
And who are you to declare what Mainstream America cares about?
Posted by: Jason | January 4, 2008 8:54 AM
I am an American who is also part of a large % of people who want to know where the rightious right gets the right to declare what is mainstream. Gay hate, abortion, stem cell research, Terry Schiavo, etc....
Posted by: Anonymous | January 4, 2008 10:11 AM
Dear Senator Obama,
Congratulations on your outstanding victory in Iowa last night!
I spent Christmas 2005 reading your first book, Dreams from my Father, and Christmas 2006 reading your second book, The Audacity of Hope. I have also seen you speak and shaken your hand. As a person who feels like an informed citizen, I can honestly say you would make a better President than anyone running and we would be so blessed to have you as our President. I hope people across America wake up and realize that we have a rare opportunity to have an inspiring, decent leader in the White House, one who can unite this country and show the world, once again that we are a great nation that can work with other nations to solve the problems of the world.
I have supported you and I will continue to support you.
As Senator Clinton so aptly reminded us with her alliterative slogan, "People, it's time to pick a president." We will, and that president will be Barack Obama.
God bless you, your Family, and your Team!
Regards,
William F. Slater, III
P.S.
http://www.billslater.com/wfs_with_OBAMA_tag_02.jpg
http://www.billslater.com/who_is_barack_obama.htm
Posted by: William Slater | January 4, 2008 10:16 AM
Obama definately is a change, but not Huckabee, this is typical Republican politics, what is their hang up with forcing Religion down eveyones throat ? the only Republican change would be Ron Paul.
Posted by: Gary H. | January 4, 2008 10:17 AM
Sherri - way to copy someone elses post. Your post is exactly duplicated nearly word for word in the previous swamp posting by a Jay Monroe.
I got an idea, lets not think for oursleves and write the exact same thing under different names - yeah that's it - that'll make them vote Republican.
Posted by: Gus | January 4, 2008 10:28 AM
daveyo;
The difference between the religious right and the far left is that the religious right wants a theocracy, while the far left is not concerned with imposing any religious views on the rest of the country.
The religious right is not just religious, but is specifically Evangelical Christian, which is to say they only support one very narrow religious philosophy.
While most of the far left also have their theologies, they respect other beliefs and the right of each individual to believe as he or she sees fit.
The Evangelical Christians could have just as easily have taken over the Democratic Party, had the chosen to do so.
If the Republican Party ever wants to truly represent America again, it will have to stop catering to the Evangelicals just to get that large voting block.
Not easy for them to give that up though, it's a lot of votes which are influenced by the preachers who tell them how to vote.
I have always tended to be a conservative, but I am not an Evangelical. I cannot bring myself to vote Republican, which I have done many many times in my life, until the party rids itself of those who wish to impose their theology on the rest of the country.
Posted by: San Miguel | January 4, 2008 11:22 AM
Huck isn't the most politically knowledgeable candidate, but he certainly is the most normal and quick-witted republican.
Posted by: Jason | January 4, 2008 8:54 AM
As said by another southerner that I believe was out of touch. “What we have here is a failure to communicate”. Don’t any of you wing nuts pay attention, first of all a southern Baptist minister has no place in national politics, (separation of church and state). Second we don’t need another head of state that doesn’t seem to care what’s in the NIE, or releases murderers back into society without a care for public safety.
Posted by: Rory M | January 4, 2008 11:38 AM
"first of all a southern Baptist minister has no place in national politics, (separation of church and state). Second we don’t need another head of state that doesn’t seem to care what’s in the NIE, or releases murderers back into society without a care for public safety. "
First of all, any US Born Citizen over 35 years old can run. Glorious, that constitution of ours. Maybe you forgot about it. Second, Yes, you have legit points, which are good reasons why I won't be voting for him. (Why do you wingnuts think I'm a backer when all I'm doing is defending Huckabee's right to exist?)
Posted by: Jason | January 4, 2008 11:50 AM
Gary, How is a man like Huckabee being honest with us about who he is "forcing religion down our throats?"
Posted by: Jason | January 4, 2008 11:55 AM
Sherri and Jay Monroe are none other than Bruce.
Bruce, did your "father", a "respected" "journalism"
"teacher" teach you how to make up names and post under different alter-egos on on-line blogs? Where are Sierra and Damen? You haven't trotted them out in a while.
Posted by: john | January 4, 2008 12:18 PM
Who was that linebacker in the brown dress standing to the side of Huckster just out of site of the camera? I noticed the Huckster positioned Chuck Norris' arm candy behind him so that her pretty face could be seen during his speech. Was that Amazon linebacker in the brown dress Huckster's wife? What a slob.
Posted by: Paul | January 4, 2008 12:28 PM
Gary, How is a man like Huckabee being honest with us about who he is "forcing religion down our throats?"
Posted by: Jason | January 4, 2008 11:55 AM
Well he said his is better prepared than even John McCain to fight the war on terror because of his religious background so I think his not-too-subtle message is we cannot win if we don't all convert to his brand of religion.
Posted by: janet | January 4, 2008 1:09 PM
Kudus to the Iowa Republics for voting for a real wingnut and not a fake version. Yeah, Huckabee is a religious nut, but he's also a populist, and for that, I give him credit. Combined w/Edwards strong showing, I'm happy to see some puckering by the corporate powers that be. Corporate Amerika must be reigned in, and defeats to Clinton and Romney are good news.
Posted by: weinerdog43 | January 4, 2008 1:31 PM
Separation of church and state prohibits people of faith from holding office? Or is it just licensed clergy? Can I make up my own Constitution, too?
Posted by: JB | January 4, 2008 3:40 PM
JANET THANK YOU, COULD NOT HAVE SAID IT BETTER MYSELF
Posted by: Gary H. | January 4, 2008 4:23 PM
"Separation of church and state prohibits people of faith from holding office? Or is it just licensed clergy? Can I make up my own Constitution, too?
Posted by: JB | January 4, 2008 3:40 PM"
You are so far behind the curve on this issue you can't even be seen. It's NOTHING to do with what you implied. Not one person anywhere is saying a person of faith and or of the cloth can't be president.
Posted by: The Lenin Sisters | January 4, 2008 5:41 PM