So what did we learn from the Iowa Caucuses? Well, since they don't really mean anything -- no delegates were won -- then I think the answer is "very little." But they've started to shake things up, and let's face it, the campaign had grown boring already.
So here's my little assessment of what we know about these candidates now. I'm pleasantly surprised by John Edwards. While I consider myself a moderate, I like Edwards, who is clearly more on the liberal/progressive side of the fence. I just don't know whether Edwards can be elected president at this time. His performance in Iowa, while encouraging, doesn't come close to guaranteeing that. It doesn't guarantee anything. But it shows that his message has reached many people in a state better known -- at least nationally -- for conservative values.
I was shocked that Hillary came in third, but her showing was 29.5 percent of the vote as compared to 29.7 percent for Edwards. And considering the whole nonbinding aspect of the caucus, that's a completely negligible difference.
But Edwards needed to be closer to Barack Obama to be viable. They're targeting the same type of Democrat. So if they split the African Americans and liberals (do we agree that Hillary is not a liberal/progressive, she's a moderate?), then that suggests the majority of the party is still on the L/P side rather than the moderate side. In a national election, that's a different issue, but here in the primaries it's all about what kind of Democrat are you. (While I consider myself a moderate, I also believe that poverty relief -- a liberal concern to be sure -- is one of the most important issues facing this country and the world. Never forget what type of Muslims attacked us on 9/11; they were poor. That is the overriding issue throughout the world.)
There are still many important questions on the Republican side of the campaign, too. I was not surprised at all that Huckabee led the Republicans. He's a former governor, so he knows how to lead people and organizations, and he's a Baptist preacher, so he appeals to the evangelicals in Middle America. I was, however, surprised that Fred Thompson came in third. This guy has been talking about how he doesn't really care for campaigning. Does that work in Iowa? I wouldn't have thought so. But he placed third.
Thompson's showing is far more impressive than Hillary coming in third for the Democrats. I was more shocked that Rudy fared so poorly. How can anyone call this man a frontrunner if he can't even garner 5 percent of the caucus votes in Iowa? This may mean he's not a national candidate and is only viable as a VP nominee. He really needs New Hampshire or he may find himself out on his own on Super Tuesday. I'm kind of pleased, actually, that McCain fared as well as he did. He's a real candidate. I believe he's actually more conservative than he's generally considered, and I wouldn't vote for him for that reason, but I do think he is a noble politician who cares about the country. There are few that I hold in the same regard.
As for some of the other names that will one day not even warrant a mention on a Wikipedia entry about the 2008 election, I'm glad to see that Joe Biden (who I generally like, but isn't a viable presidential candidate at this point; he's a possible Sec. of Defense, perhaps, though that would rankle a lot of folks too.) has dropped out. I'd forgotten that Chris Dodd was still in.
And as for Republicans, will some Mexicans please take Tom Tancredo out and rake him over the coals... And while they're at it, do the same to Democratic governor of New Mexico, Bill Richardson, who should never, ever be elected to anything after letting the Los Alomos situation "blow up" on his watch.
That's a long answer to explain why I can only shrug my shoulders and say "I don't know" to the question of what I think about Iowa. What do you all think?
No comments:
Post a Comment