Comments on Edwards Leads In Iowa
Iowa's a socioculturally conservative state, even the Democrats. It's not surprising that more people sided with the popular white guy than the woman and the black guy. It's also encouraging, however, that Obama and Hillary got the support they did in such a locale. That's not exactly a discouraging gap.
So are we ever going to get rid of this system wherein two particular tiny states, and their respective special interests, more or less decide who wins the party nominations? Or are we going to have to watch prospective nominees stand in cornfields and ramble on about the joys of ethanol every four years?
No, it's not that discouraging.
Obama will however need as much momentum built between now and Super Primary day as possible if he's going to try to make it. Losing to Hillary here and there and Edwards here and there: no bueno.
Actually, Iowa is one of the more liberal states in the Midwest: Gore narrowly defeated Bush there in 2000, and Bush narrowly defeated Kerry there in 2004 (the margin of victory was less than 1% in both elections):
2. That 'system' is actually a product of the mass media, who takes these relatively trivial results and blows them up as if they indicate the will of the nation at large, and then the nation at large follows suit.
So don't get mad at New Hampshire and Iowa. Get mad at CNN, MSNBC, and the political blogs who take it seriously in suit.
Bill Clinton lost both Iowa and New Hampshire in 1992. He was 3rd in Iowa. They're both pretty meaningless. It just happens that whoever's popular in those states is usually popular everywhere.
If it's a case where Iowa and New Hampshire are obvious anomalies -- Iowa and New Hampshire are both 97% white and 98% misogynist -- they're even less meaningful.
Erica,
Why dont you just write what you want to write and lose the snarky attitude? Obama is a star and Edwards is a has-been. DONT HATE.
Vomit. If Edwards is the nomination I will lose all enthusiasm about replacing Bush. I'd rather vote 3rd party than for him.
Gimme a break. Edwards is a vacuous prettyboy, Obama is an earnest intelligent black guy, and Hillary is Hillary.
Nominating -any- of the above is another 4 or 8 years of Republican horror. Guaranteed.
Why? oh Why? Argggggghhhhhhhhhh!
Awesome. If Edwards wins Iowa and Obama wins New Hampshire, those wins will effectively cancel each other out and there won't be an "annointed winner" until February 5th when 18 states vote. Hillary, who is leading in national polls, should easily win Super Duper Tuesday.
GOP_is_Thrilled - I AGREE. Richardson is the only one who can really destroy any Republican in the general.
County doesn't like war (for now): How about the guy with FOUR Nobel Peace Prize Nominations??? And I am SOOO tired of hearing about Obama's blackness. Richardson is a minority too dammit.
@ 6
Iowa didn't matter in '92 because Sen. Tom Harkin (Democrat from Iowa) was running for president.
Clinton came in 2nd in New Hampshire in '92. Who came in first? For Massachusetts Gov. and Sen. Paul Tsongas. Tsongas was EXPECTED to win NH, while Clinton BEAT EXPECTATIONS to come in 2nd in NH. Therefore, Clinton was the real "winner", even though he didn't win.
IA and NH always matter, just differently sometimes.
Obama is black?
Iowa voted for Dukakis in '88 people it's not THAT conservative. Edwards leads because he has had shock troops on the ground there since early '96 and spends a great deal of time there. Also the hawkeye state is very farm/labor heavy and Edwards has gone to great lenghts to pander to that crowd. He also finished in second place there in 2004 so he remains popular.
wonder how IA and NH will react to Obama' saying he would send military forces into Pakistan to get OBL.
@11: I can nominate my dog for a Nobel Peace Prize. Seriously, it's an open nomination process; anyone can be nominated.
@13 - well, now I'd call him multi-racial, but yeah, he's as black as most African-Americans.
Easy way to tell - go to Africa, see the skin tones there, and then compare to here.
Guess I'm the only one here who LIKES Edwards more than the other candidates (ok, my top choice is Kucinich, but we know where that's going to go). I will happily vote for Obama, less happily vote for Clinton, but I think Edwards is the only candidate who seems to have any balls whatsoever. I disagree with his stance on gay marriage, but he might actually fight for change if elected. I just hope he survives long enough so I get to vote for him!
I am with you, Dianna. Here's an interesting article about Edwards from The Economist (via The Montreal Gazette)
It's nice to get an outsider's perspective.
I'm actually visiting in Iowa right now, and I'd have to say it's got some pretty liberal pockets. I'm on the eastern side of the state, and Obama is very popular there. A lot of people here have family, friends, or have lived in neighboring Illinois, and support him. I don't think the polls will actually reflect the outcome.
Edwards is the only candidate who seems to have any balls whatsoever. I disagree with his stance on gay marriage, but he might actually fight for change if elected.
What change? Social change so that gays, women, and racial minorities have equal rights to evangelical heterosexual white men? Maybe John Edwards can make it so they might one day be president?
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).