The Iowa caucus results are in. Mike Huckabee won the Republican caucus vote, besting Mitt Romney handily. Barack Obama won the Democratic caucus vote, besting John Edwards and Hillary Clinton handily. But what exactly does all this mean?
On the Democratic side, Edwards is out, say many. He had to win in Iowa as he lacks the finances and organizational support elsewhere. These observers conclude that the contest is now strictly between Obama and Clinton. Many believe that if Obama is able to translate his win in Iowa into victory in New Hampshire, whose primary is next Tuesday, only five days from the caucuses, he may well deliver a knockout blow to Clinton from which she will not be able to recover.
On the Republican side, Romney is seen by most as the biggest loser. His strategy was to spend his fortune early to win in Iowa and New Hampshire. He has now lost in Iowa and many feel that McCain is gaining in New Hampshire and will benefit from Romney’s Iowa defeat.
As for my views, first, I believe that Huckabee is emerging as more than simply the candidate of the evangelicals. First, while I haven’t heard anyone else draw the parallel, I see in Huckabee some shades of George Wallace. Not Wallace’s racism but Wallace’s interesting mix of Southern conservatism, hostility toward pointy-headed government bureaucrats, and economic populism. Huckabee in many respects wears his religion on his sleeve, and purposely so, but at the same time he seeks to leaven it with homespun humor and down to earth remarks. His hostility to Washington bureaucrats manifests itself in his strong opposition to the income tax. While a Republican, Huckabee has shown a more flexible and populist approach to economic and tax policies than that of the other Republican candidates. Further, Huckabee’s response to Romney at one of the debates about Huckabee’s approach to education and the children of illegal immigrants showed a certain humanity on a very difficult issue. While Huckabee’s views on immigration may have alienated many Republicans, they also may have helped portray him to others as a caring man not locked into an ideological straight jacket.
I don’t believe Huckabee will win in New Hampshire. But he may fare better than many currently expect. If he is able to finish in the top three, that will likely be considered a victory, when victory is often somewhat cynically defined as having done better than expectations and when those who get to shape the expectations are the candidate’s staff and the media. We should know by South Carolina whether Huckabee is still in the race or had his fifteen minutes of fame in Iowa.
As for Obama, my own sense is that he may well win in New Hampshire. The Granite State, like Iowa, permits independents to vote in its party primaries. Obama’s triumph in Iowa will not only inspire his New Hampshire supporters to work even more tirelessly in his support and to be sure to vote but will also inspire independent voters to vote in the Democratic primary for Obama. Interestingly, to the extent this occurs it will hurt McCain, who is relying in part on independents in his contest with Romney.
But what should we make of the Obama phenomenon? This evening more than one commentator compared Barack Obama to Bobby Kennedy. I was 25 years old in 1968 and I remember Bobby Kennedy and his campaign well. Perhaps Obama can be compared to Kennedy in terms of the emotional outpouring of support from young people, voters and those too young to vote. But Kennedy was, well, a Kennedy. I do not recall feeling that he transcended or sought to transcend party lines. In contrast, Obama seems to be making a very conscious effort to do just that. In contrast to Edwards’ class-based rhetoric and Hillary’s frequent reminders that she has been a target of and successfully taken on Republicans for more than a decade, Obama has attempted to rise above the fray. In his victory speech tonight he once again appealed for an end to divisions and conflict within the country and offered himself as the candidate who could transcend differences between red and blue states.
Many states have rescheduled their primaries very early in the year in an attempt to give their citizens a meaningful say in the selection of a presidential nominee. By February 5, key states, including California, New York and Florida, will have held their Democratic primaries. This means that if Hillary Clinton loses to Obama in New Hampshire and even in South Carolina she still need only wait until February 5 to quell an Obama surge by scoring victories in New York and California, delegate rich states. In New York only registered Democrats may vote in the Democratic primaries. In California, independents may vote in the Democratic primary but they constitute a much smaller percentage of the vote than in New Hampshire. To be sure, by then Obama may himself have donned the cloak of inevitability once worn by Clinton, but none among us has such a clear crystal ball.
As for my own personal perspective on the candidates and the political contests, as I am still a Democrat I will comment first on them after an initial observation. I have remarked to many friends that when you reach the age where you are older than our presidents, and I have reached that age, your perspective on presidents, candidates, other politicians and political life, if not life in general, undergoes a change. No longer does the president or any other political or social leader stand on a pedestal. That doesn’t mean that you lose respect for the President or other leaders but you tend to see them as far more human than you did when you were younger. You see them with all the flaws and blemishes that we all have and usually not as super heroes or even as supreme villains.
I’m impressed by Barack Obama but at the same time seriously concerned about his youthfulness and lack of executive experience. Then, too, while I enjoy his rhetorical skill and ability to inspire, I was less than impressed by his performance a month or so ago on Meet the Press with Tim Russert in providing answers on substantive issues. His victory speech tonight that was greeted with such praise by commentators on MsNBC and CNN was filled with references to hope and change, but I’ve heard those buzz words and others before. Didn’t the current President market himself in 2000 as a candidate from outside the Beltway who was committed to overcoming the gridlock in Washington and who had worked successfully with the other political party, Democrats, in his home state of Texas to address knotty issues? The trouble with getting older is that you really do experience what I believe Yogi Berra called déjà vu all over again.
This is not to say that I am enamored of Hillary Clinton. One year ago I vowed that I would never vote for Hillary, having been completely repulsed by her personality and behavior as I experienced them during the Clinton presidency. I admit I no longer hold that view. Perhaps she has artfully orchestrated only a cosmetic change in her public persona but I am now more willing to consider her as a possible Democratic Party standard bearer. Nonetheless, I remain hesitant. I was a strong admirer and supporter of Bill Clinton. But after watching him introduce her the other night in Iowa on a C-Span rebroadcast, I now feel he has begun to stifle her candidacy and that he must move to the sidelines, particularly after the Iowa defeat, and give her a chance to win, or lose, the race.
As for Edwards, in all candor his move to the left has completely alienated me. It is as if the cheerful, positive, optimistic candidate of 2004 has suddenly revealed his true self, and it’s a self that I do not find attractive.
More to follow on the Republican candidates, the New Hampshire party primaries, and the developing political campaign.
