Post-Iowa
What better way to re-enter after my hiatus then with comments on the Iowa presidential wannabe results?
First things first: Biden and Dodd are out; even though they have their own share of pluses and minuses, they ran good campaigns. Sadly, it wasn't enough.
Over at Crooks and Liars, they have a pretty good breakdown of each candidate, and whether the fans or critics were right.
Unfortunately, the spin has already started, because Mitt Romney is implying that Americans want change in "Washington" (read: Congress) more so than in the White House. Which is just about the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Congress changed in the fall of 2006, when the Republican-lead Congress that couldn't care less about preforming their checks and balances gave way to the Democrats. Of course, the Democrats haven't addressed the biggest concerns of their base, but I don't see how Iowa choosing Obama (or Huckabee, for that matter) translates into frustration with Congress (Dodd was vowing to filibuster the FISA bill, and Kucinich is the one moving to impeach Cheney). If anything, the outcome speaks to the exact opposite of what Romney said: it's the White House (ie, the Bush Administration) that people want changed.
Also, only the media would call Hillary Clinton's third-place finish a virtual failure but see John "Negative Ads" McCain's fourth-place finish as an overwhelming victory. Anything for a story, I guess.
As for Obama and Huckabee? Well as long as Obama doesn't act black, and Huckabee doesn't have to debate the likes of Ron Paul, the political bobbleheads think all will be well.
My take? This is all just the beginning; so let's sit back, chill and see how the winners handle the win and the losers deal with the loss. New Hampshire is four days away.
Meanwhile: there's at least one good theory as to what the next wedge issue may be.
First things first: Biden and Dodd are out; even though they have their own share of pluses and minuses, they ran good campaigns. Sadly, it wasn't enough.
Over at Crooks and Liars, they have a pretty good breakdown of each candidate, and whether the fans or critics were right.
Unfortunately, the spin has already started, because Mitt Romney is implying that Americans want change in "Washington" (read: Congress) more so than in the White House. Which is just about the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Congress changed in the fall of 2006, when the Republican-lead Congress that couldn't care less about preforming their checks and balances gave way to the Democrats. Of course, the Democrats haven't addressed the biggest concerns of their base, but I don't see how Iowa choosing Obama (or Huckabee, for that matter) translates into frustration with Congress (Dodd was vowing to filibuster the FISA bill, and Kucinich is the one moving to impeach Cheney). If anything, the outcome speaks to the exact opposite of what Romney said: it's the White House (ie, the Bush Administration) that people want changed.
Also, only the media would call Hillary Clinton's third-place finish a virtual failure but see John "Negative Ads" McCain's fourth-place finish as an overwhelming victory. Anything for a story, I guess.
As for Obama and Huckabee? Well as long as Obama doesn't act black, and Huckabee doesn't have to debate the likes of Ron Paul, the political bobbleheads think all will be well.
My take? This is all just the beginning; so let's sit back, chill and see how the winners handle the win and the losers deal with the loss. New Hampshire is four days away.
Meanwhile: there's at least one good theory as to what the next wedge issue may be.
Comments