President Obama

Barack Obama can start taking drape measurements at the White House. It's hard to see how, and by whom, he can be stopped now -- and by that I mean all the way, not just in the primaries.

John Edwards vowed to continue the fight, of course, but he's broke and his troops are dispirited, with the emphasis on broke. Iowa was a must-win for the former senator and vice-presidential candidate, who's been campaigning there virtually since the caucus doors closed in 2004.

What little money Edwards did have coming in will now dry up. So his supply lines are severed, his forces are dazed and scattered, and he's sandwiched between two behemoths loaded with cash. A reprisal of his v.p.-candidate role is the best he can do.

And things look nearly as bleak for Hillary Clinton, that behemoth #2 who managed no better than third. Early on in this already truncated nominating process the Clinton campaign thought it might be best to skip Iowa, and this morning I imagine there are a lot of "gut-instinct" references being dropped on the geniuses who overruled that strategy.

Naturally the height of Obama's Iowa bounce in New Hampshire is impossible to yet predict, but bounce he undoubtedly will. And he didn't need much of one. He was already making serious inroads into Clinton's N.H. numbers -- and now the inevitability worm has turned. Plus, her future money will start seeking safer harbor.

You can also add to Obama's column the assorted and presently wandering Biden and Dodd voters, who, having originally been in search of change, are unlikely to align at this late hour with third-place experience.

Hence Clinton's firewall is moved once again -- this time, Giuliani-like, to Feb. 5; next time to 2012 or '16.

As for the Dark Side, it would seem that Mike Huckabee managed merely to open the road for John McCain. With the possible exception of upcoming South Carolina, the Huck staged his finest hour last night, as his hordes of religiously bigoted evangelicals marched with torches lit to the cavernous caucuses, whereupon they eviscerated and exorcised the Evil One of differing faith.

You gotta love it: sectarian war in Ottumwa. My guess? By 2011, Mitt will have converted to Pentecostalism.

In the much shorter term, however, Republicans are still left in search of a candidate, and the pickings are growing slimmer by the hour.

Romney wasn't just beaten last night; he was bloodied and humiliated. His N.H. numbers are now likely to plummet like a spinning altimeter in a nosedive, and he's already seen the future in South Carolina. By Feb. 5, he'll be but a memory.

Rudy Giuliani hasn't been seen since he bivouacked in Miami, where his firewall hopes are going up in flames. Fred Who squeaked out the narrowest of thirds last night, but I doubt he has bothered to notice. If he has, he's probably only depressed by the necessity of now having to prolong the agony another week or so. As for Ron Paul, I imagine he's occupied this morning by researching third-party state-ballot requirements.

So Republicans are left with Mr. McCain, unless they opt for an "Animal House"-like act of insane futility and go with the Huck. Such kamikaze missions are not unknown in American politics, but this one's unlikely. The non-evangelical Establishment will dig in, hunker down, and hit back.

But although the Arkansas governor parted the sea for McCain's nomination, and although McCain is no doubt bathing himself in celestial rays of sunlight and angelic choral singing this morning, the water is destined to flood in again. The electorate is heavily trending Democratic (as last night's caucus attendance numbers confirmed); rank-and-file conservatives are still cranked at McCain; the war he ballyhoos will intensify in the coming months; the economy will continue its southerly path; more people will lose their health care, which McCain's wholly market-driven cure won't cure; Americans are just plain sick of the GOP ... and so on, and so on.

The only thing that could really upset all other things considered is Mayor Bloomberg's billion-dollar hat in the ring. That decision awaits us.

Otherwise, and excluding that, you may pre-order your Obama Inaugural Ball tickets today.

Unless of course I'm wrong.

Comments

[quousque]

You're wrong. Iowa is an political aberration, and as it becomes clearer to voters in real primaries that Obama has just as much substance and spine to take America where it needs to go as Hillary [i.e. none], those who apparently desire 'change' will see that only Edwards offers us any. At a minimum, virtually every Kucinich supporter will migrate over to him, now that Dennis has shown how small-thinking and unsuited for President he can be by endorsing someone so obviously an un-Progressive instead of the only viable candidate who actually is one.

[roooth]

Oh, for Pete's Sake! Bill Clinton lost the first FIVE primaries!

Are you speculating or, like Chris Matthews, David Broder, Andrea Mitchell, and the rest of the corporate media shills, trying to create the story you want to see?

For weeks now, Chris Matthews has done nothing but tear Hillary down, every single show has at least one anti-Hillary rant. And this is from a guy who spouts really odd man-crush statements about totally unworthy candidates, (Fred Thompson is comforting because he smells like an old man, Aqua Velva and cigar! Yeah, that's the qualifications that I'm looking for!)

Last night they all got positively misty about Huckabee's speech, how he 'looked' good. So, Hillary - bad, Huckabee - good? Only if you never look at what Huck says or has done - which they won't.

Fox is even worse, of course, and God spare us all from MSNBC's Joe Scarborough's inane "political analysis", which is nothing more than his nostalgia for the good ole' Contract on America days.

I'm so sick of this crap. It isn't even whether or not Hillary would be a good president, because you guys aren't even talking about that. All you're obsessing over is the package and the presentation - substance would require actual work, and that ain't gona happen, is it?

You and your peers and this kind of mindless fluff reporting is why we ended up with Bush, the worst president in our history, instead of Gore, the man who actually could have done the job well.

[NCBlueneck]

I think that Iowans speak for Iowa, not the nation. But there are trends afoot that clearly bode ill for Sen. Clinton. I think voters will see her as "the old way" and a "Washington insider". People clearly want a clean break from the past.

[Geelove]

While I am an Edwards supporter and will continue to be, it doesn't look good for him or Hillary. The GOP is as divided as it's ever been, so barring massive and obvious voting fraud (wouldn't be the first time) they have no shot. Even the pathetic corporate media couldn't spin that one.
Hillary still has a shot in my opinion, but we will have to see how Obama does in NH to really have an idea, it's been a Clinton lock for so long.
While I would love to agree with quousque, Edwards is so far back in NH that he without an Iowa bounce, I think the independents and even Republicans flocking to the Obama camp spells doom for Edwards, but hopefully for Hillary also.
My fear is that Obama is not battle tested and has been as foggy as possible on policy and has been much more corporate friendly than Hillary. Could he be Hillary in a different package?
It appears we will find out next year.

[Geelove]

...exscuse me I meant Obama has been much more corporate friendly than Edwards, railing about lobbyists but not corporatism.

[Waukesha Dem]

What nonsense! Without Kucinich throwing his supporters to Obama, he would have ended up a distant third -- which is where he deserves to be. Furthermore, how many of those 41% of alleged independents were actually Republican crossovers hoping to get the Dems to nominate the weakest candidate? I am a lifelong Democrat and I contributed both my money and many hours of time to the Gore and Kerry campaigns, but if the choices in November come down to Obama or Huckabee, I will write in Donald Duck.

[Roci Stone]

*YAWN* I can't believe the torrential flood of DRIVEL going on here.
346,000 people got together last night and participated in a wonderful example of grass-roots democracy.

That's wonderful, it really is.

But it does VERY LITTLE to pick a president, let alone a nominee for a major party. Brooklyn, New York has more than 346,000 voters, and it's only one of five Burroughs that make up ONE CITY in the US.

Let's get some scale in here. All of you who are already electing Barak, Or Hillary or someone else *President* are doing a huge disservice to the Democratic Party, as well as Democracy.

It begins with the drive for ratings and readership. Tons of money have been spent by, for, and on huge media outlets. They have been chopping at the bit for a year and a half for this process to begin. They have so little to work with, after one small state caucus, and another in a few days time, it all becomes an echo chamber. All of this much ado about so little takes Democrats away from what is still Job Number One.

Democrats still need to present alternatives to the other Party. Change is good, but when people and media begin asking nuts and bolts questions about *what* and *How* Democrats propose to change, the odds for Democrats get a lot longer, especially in the face of a well-tuned media run Noise Machine that is owned by the other Party.
Democrats can shout "Change" from the rooftop of every (soon to be) foreclosed home in the USA. But when the opposition starts asking how, and why, and they begin their standard scare tactics, Democrats have to do more this election cycle than stand around, look pretty, and get themselves whipped again because they don't know how (or are unprepared) to fight back. Democrats must give people real choices and answers that prove Democrats not only have the real answers, but the *best* answers. Answers than not only sound good, but answers that give people at large hope that *change* is a real prospect, and not just a media sound byte.

Roci

[Dana Hatch]

All the commenters here have good points but as a long-time Kucinich supporter, I'm gonna trust Dennis on Obama. I think Obama should play his cards close to his vest rather than giving the GOP-favoring media more ammunition against him. As president, he would do as he pleased regardless of what he said in the campaign so the question is "Is he a good man?" His refusal to wear a flag pin on his lapel or explain why he won't impressed me. He seems to want to communicate with voters on a higher level. Imagine an intelligent, law-abiding president! I just hope he doesn't get shot.

[quousque]

To my earlier comment, add the thought that if Edwards can clearly come out now for ending our Iraq Occupation ASAP, which appears to be both Hillary's and Obama's Achilles Heel, then he will easily win in New Hampshire.

[banjobailey]

This isn't over by a long shot. Except for the Republicans who have lost before the election begins.
The results in Iowa were actually very close. And since this is not a sporting event where one team wins by one point, there remains a great deal of fluidity and anything can still happen.
I always suspected that the mainstream press's
annointing of Hillary early on was driven by their
inevitable drive to tear her down later on. Now, we
will hear the inevitable drumbeat of: she can't win, she can't win, she can't win.
As for Obama, his lack of political experience really does worry me. Will he even know what hit him if he gets the Presidency? Will he know who he can trust in the Washington political establishment? Will he get spun like a top by Republicans AND Democrats? Will the Dems do to him what they did to Jimmy Carter?

[Waukesha Dem]

Earlier today Buzzflash had posted an excellent article by Norman Solomon, a Kucinich supporter, questioning Kucinich's motives for throwing his support to Obama, when Edwards is by far the more progressive candidate. I strongly agree with his assessment, and I don't know why that article was taken down so quickly, but it is well worth reading.

Personally, I think the media and the right in general are pushing Obama on us because they know that of the top three Democrats he will be the easiest to defeat, or if elected, the easiest to control. And I'd bet big time that a large percentage of the so-called "independents" who turned out for Obama, were Republicans trying to skew the primary results.

[nyc]

I was an early skeptic on Obama, because of his relative inexperience, but I could easily vote for him now. The experience crowd hasn't brought us the change we want - Clinton was a neglible senator for 6 years, except for the Anti-Flag Burning Amendment vote (an early sign of craven politicking), Pelosi & Reid haven't done much, and only Dodd has stirred the pot and stood up to power. Experience just = never rocking the boat because you want to keep that job forever.

Obama is like JFK and Clinton #1 and RFK - once in a generation charisma. I think he's going all the way too. Hillary will throw up roadblocks, but she can't possibly compete where it counts.

[Mike Bloombeg for President]

I say throw all of the bums out. There is only one candidate that can truly clean up this country and his name is Mike Bloomberg. Noone else comes close.

[Harmon Danger]

Wrong? Sure. Romney will convert by Jan. 11, not 2011.

[beamer]

it ain't over til the fat cats cringe