EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Iowa Caucuses: Five Not-So-Unlikely Surprises
The smart money - not to mention the latest polls - gives an edge to Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee in tonight's Iowa caucuses.But take a couple hundred thousand Midwesterners, pack them into gyms and libraries and town halls on a frigid Iowa night, add a heaping measure of peer pressure to the equation, and, well, anything can happen.
Here are five unlikely results you that shouldn't be shocked to see when the final precinct tallies come in:
1) John Edwards Wins Going Away
No one in presidential campaign history has ever worked a state like John Edwards has worked Iowa. No one. But for a brief hiatus for the 2004 general election, Edwards has been campaigning there non-stop since early 2003. He's answered more questions from more voters at more diners and summer cookouts - in every last corner of the state - than Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama combined.
(Hillary Clinton recently tried to barnstorm some of the state's far-flung counties by helicopter. Edwards, by contrast, has worked the backroads - having personally visited each of the state's 99 counties - not once but twice!)
For a process wherein your average caucus goers expect to have shaken the hand of the candidate they support, Edwards has simply reached out to more Iowans than his competitors. There's an intangibility to that personal connection. And it will likely pay off for Edwards in precincts in rural Western Iowa where he invested much of his time in 2003 - and where he again outdid his opponents this cycle.
Then there's the Bill Richardson factor. The New Mexico governor is polling at 6 percent in the Hawkeye State - largely on the strength of his Get-Out-ASAP prescription for ending the Iraq war. When Richardson fails to pull in the requisite 15 percent support needed to be considered "viable," his supporters will be forced to caucus in another corner, and guess who just endorsed a plan to pull all combat troops out within 10 months of taking office?
Finally, there's Edwards' unspeakable advantage - shhh! - he's the last white guy standing. As one prominent Democratic strategist told me earlier this cycle: "Obama and Clinton are terrific candidates, but they each represent an untested threshold in American politics. You have to entertain the idea that when Democrats really think about who is going to ensure that the party wins in 2008, a lot of people might get nervous and say, 'Damn it, we need a good-looking, charismatic white guy.' I hate to be crass. But that's baldfaced politics."
These folks are hiding in plain sight in the polls: Some are in Chris Dodd's camp. Others are backing Joe Biden. Others show up among the six percent of undecideds. As the Other White Guys become "non-viable" it shouldn't be a shock if their backers break, predominately, for Edwards.
All told, according to the latest Des Moines Register poll, 19 percent of likely caucus goers are uncommitted to a viable candidate. If even half of those folks find their way to Edwards, they'll call his victory a landslide.
2) Hillary Clinton Comes in Third
It's entirely possible that the top three Democratic candidates will emerge from Iowa as deadlocked as they entered it. And barring the kind of self-inflicted wound Dean caused with his infamous scream, all of this ado about Iowa may be moot, with the caucuses merely serving to kick the can to New Hampshire... where Edwards will fade, and Obama and Clinton can duke it out for real.
But Iowa will truly be a difference maker if the national front-runner takes only the bronze. And that could easily be Hillary's fate. It's easy to see how Edwards finishes stronger than he's polled. Ditto for Obama, who is counting on unprecedented turnout to goose his precinct tallies. But where are Hillary's hidden backers? I can't see them.
And neither, apparently, can the Clinton camp. Surrogate Tom Vilsack, Iowa's former governor, is already lowering expectations, spinning that a third-place finish would be just dandy.
But let's get real: If Obama wins, Edwards places, and Hillary tumbles into third by any notable margin, her candidacy could be toast. Inevitable candidates don't finish last.
3) Mitt Romney Springboards Toward Inevitability
Tomorrow night, Mike Huckabee could well get his shoestring clipped - and his clock cleaned - by Mitt Romney. Huckabee's a grassroots, movement candidate, and his Jesus-fearing faithful may still propel him to victory. But Romney's got the money, the organization, and the plan.
His strong suit is supposed to be as an executive, and here's his chance to prove it. He rescued an Olympiad that seemed to be sunk in Salt Lake City, and he's got a chance to pull a similar rabbit out of his hat tomorrow night.
And if he can pull off a win in Iowa, Romney will emerge all the stronger for having fended off the Huckabee surge. Before Huck, it was hard to say Iowa mattered very much on the GOP side. But now, for Romney, this would have been a real victory against a formidable opponent - and a huge momentum boost heading into his (vacation) home turf of New Hampshire.
They say Democrats fall in love with their candidates; Republicans fall in line. An Iowa-anointed Romney should have little trouble regaining his footing in the Granite State. And that one-two early-state punch would give him all the Big Mo he needs to tackle South Carolina.
If Romney takes Iowa, he could. go. all. the. way.
4) Ron Paul Clips McCain
Iowa is time for the Paul patrol to put up or shut up.
Everybody's favorite anti-war libertarian is in fourth, tied with Fred Thompson at 9 percent in that Register poll. But that's just 4 points behind John McCain - or a hair outside the margin of error.
If Ron Paul's supporters can catapult him into third place, they will do more than prove their candidate is no novelty act. More important, the anti-war Republicans can also clip the wings of the McCain, the GOP's biggest Iraq-war booster.
McCain is angling to be the Last Man Standing on the GOP side. If Huckabee kneecaps Romney, New Hampshire becomes McCain's for the taking, and you can see how he just might win a narrowed field against the Huckster in South Carolina and beyond.
But all of that is premised on his making a decent stand in Iowa. Lose to Ron Paul and you're not a viable candidate. Period.
5) The Youth Vote Makes All The Difference
Consider this fact: Likely caucus goers born after Watergate prefer Obama to Hillary Clinton 56 percent to 11 percent. The support for Obama among young women is even stronger.
There's no doubt the under-35 crowd are Obama's base. And he's done a remarkable job organizing them. He's hired the former political director of Rock the Vote. He's reached out to 17-year-old high school seniors - his "Barack Stars" - for support. And if you've been to an Obama rally this political season, you know he's got the star power to get them "fired up" and "ready to go."
Obama's campaign manager, David Ploufe, pointed to this secret trove of voters back in September, writing that "polls consistently under-represent in Iowa the strength of Barack's support among younger voters... Of course, there are organizational challenges associated with maximizing this support, but we are heavily focused on that task."
And here's the thing. In the last Iowa caucus only 124,000 people showed up. Obama doesn't need to bring 50,000 new caucus goers into the process. Given how tight this race appears to be, 5,000 or even 500 could easily push Obama over the edge.
How confident is Obama's camp about turning out new caucus goers? They're predicting a total turnout of 200,000.
We'll see soon enough.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

92 Comments so far
Show AllTouche, COMark!
I don't doubt it Kem, I was speaking about advisers, not donors. Don't get me wrong, I like every damn thing Edwards says, and it actually really surprises me that Kucinich didn't decide to back him instead. That's why I am wondering what went wrong. I think the question I asked is worthy.
Shoot, I thought the big joke in the last debate was that Obama had all Clintonitas on board.
With the possible exception of Robert Reich, who seems like a decent sort, why the hell would progressives find warmed over team Clinton any improvement--or "change"?
Last time around Kucinich through interference at Dean's populist momentum and now he repeats the pattern with Edwards. Anyone still drinking his koolaid is delusional at this point and actually participates in and is complicit in maintaining the status quo.
I certainly think that Edwards is one of the more viable candidates, however, I would like more clarification on his view on Iran. A few weeks ago, he was being interviewed by Bob Schieffer on "Face the Nation." Bob asked him about his view on Iran. Edwards said we "definitely cannot allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon." It immediately raised a couple of questions in my mind. Is AIPAC pulling this guy's strongs too? Is he going along with the popular status quo among the war hawks? Please correct me if I am wrong, but he did vote for intensified sanctions against Iran in the Senate's 97-0 vote, did he not?
At the same time, I suppose it is easy to find faults among all of the candidates. Maybe I am making a fuss about one particular tree in the forest.
He would never bomb Iran, Claudius. Bush will, if he has a half assed chance. Huckabee won't need that much prodding.
I misread it, my falult LEO. Sorry, it was an appropriate question.
But then if you wish to be fully informed, you would want advisors from both sides of the fence. Perhaps?
Hi Kem Patrick,
Thanks. I am sure he would not bomb Iran, but just wanted a bit more clarification on his process of dealing with Iran.
I don't see any problem with Edwards (aledgedly) saying that we definitely cannot allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. (I didn't hear it, so I don't know that he said it) I want to know that he feels the same way about anyone else who does not have, or claims to have no nuclear weapons.
Yes the vote was 97-0, but Edwards has not been in the Senate for some time now...
Why in the hell, does a small state, with under 3 million people get to set the pace for the whole nation?
Somethings wrong with this picture. This whole process reeks.
That is my main question about Edwards: what is his view towards nations that have nuclear weapons, and what is his view towards nations that are trying to obtain or develop nuclear weapons? I am not judging the man, but just asking for clarification (because I might eventually vote for him).
Thanks for the clarification on the vote - it skipped my mind that Edwards has been out of the Senate for some time.
"We do believe that the time has long passed for both parties to not only break the Iowa-New Hampshire habit but also end the damaging race to be third, with states pushing their primaries closer and closer to New Year's Day.
Instead, the country should adopt a more sensible and more representative system of regional primaries, in which states are divided into regional groups that vote on a designated day. The honor of going first would rotate year to year among the regions. That would give a far broader range of American voters a say in this vitally important choice."
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/010408M.shtml
Hey Bixby, I wouldn't be too quick calling Ron Paul a "certified nut". Who the heck are you, his analyst?
He has more common sense than any of the others running. He just doesn't agree with you.
Peacecandidates.com: just whom would you suggest we vote for, all the Democratic possibilities being such frauds? If, as you implied, it's the anti-war people who are destroying America, not the bushites, to whom should we turn? Nader? Is there a potential messiah out there clean enough for you? Don't get me wrong.....Hillary is almost the last person I want to see become president (though she's far ahead of Huckleberry Hound and Zombie-Romney on my list).
What are any of the candidates position on that issue. I don't know either.
I do know the media people will hit a candidate with a loaded question, such as asking Kucinich if he really saw a UFO. Some questions are frequently like, "do you still beat your mother?" A "yes" or "no" of course is the wrong answer and then when one attempts to answer, they often get interrupted by the well versed questioneer. Before you know it, the opposition is saying, "Dufus said such and such." ___ Politics is dirty!
Obama was blown by the Corporate Media from day one. Front page NYT when he was still a senator from Illinois. ITs clear now why. He was the Democrats plan to use SKIN COLOR ALONE to cover up the fact that the party was STILL moving right and STILL not challenging the Republicans on the bread and butter issues. Don't allow race to become a distraction. If Obama had 1% of the guts the MLK had in opposing the Vietnam war and connecting them to class and race issues domestically, then i would vote for him in a second. Realistically , John Edwards isn't close to MLK's famously censored (by the Corporate media-- hear it on Youtube 4-4-1967 speach "Silence is betrayal" either. BUT HE IS WAY WAY CLOSER TO IT THAN CORPORATE OBAMA!!
KEM PATRICK
I think Huckabee's one of those people who spouts off ANYTHING when his adrenalin is high. He becomes Bucketmouth personified. No telling what he'll say if he thinks he has a chance at the WH. If he wins in Iowa and eventually wins the Republican nomination, I don't think he'll win the presidency. America is tired of stupid presidents and suspicious of Republicans, particularly those who are warmongers and religious fundamentalists. His appeal is to those of like mind, and Iowa's got some of those people. Huckabee reminds me of Bush out of control, or a contestant on The Price Is Right, just with less political experience under his belt.
2008 may be the year of the Idiot Republican Presidential Candidates... None of them, not one, has gravitas or centered confidence. They remind me of .
chimpanzees.
When you are running for high office, your Finance Chairman accepts any money that is not illegal, or any the candidate has prohibited. Check out all of the candidates donations and John Edwards looks the best by far.
As an AI (Actual Iowan), I re-registered as democrat so I can caucus.
I will be standing with the Obama crowd. I'm happy to help move the moribund democratic party away from the republican quagmire.
Hopefully the Huckster ends up being the GOP candidate. It would almost assure a Dem win in Nov.
Some political pundits actually have said that the Republican Party is in disarray, and the current group of candidates really do not satisfy the base. In other words, there is no Ronald Reagan to unite the Party. When F*ckabee went pheasant hunting the other day, was that supposed to show the true gravitas of being a Republican? I am with anney... they are a bunch of chimpanzees. Say, if you make faces at them and upset them, will they do what chimpanzees do when they get upset?
NEWS ALERT!
I just opened an email from INDEPENDENPRIMARY.COM.
According to them, ABC News is "excluding" most of the Presidential candidates from the January 5th (Saturday) Democratic debate.
Also, FOX News is "excluding" Ron Paul from the January 6th (Sunday) Republican debate.
Both news stations have "changed" their criteria to eliminate whomever they wish! These stations are using "the people's" airwaves. It is NOT in the "public interest" to eliminate any candidates from these debates!
You can go to this website and let ABC and FOX that you upset about this decision and will file a complaint with the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Elections Commission if they limit participation.
IndependentPrimary.Com
Ron Paul is basically a Libertarian. If you ask for a handout it will come with strings attached to your freedom; so the less government the better.
I like the hell out of that concept. But what is to reign in GREED.
Anything that damages the health of the planet needs to be accounted for!
That's why I consider myself a hybrid of LIBERTARIAN/GREEN.
holaraphi RE: "I'm so sick of $hillary and Oprabama."
Hey, I've used both those monikers! I must have stolen them from you (I'll give you credit, but I thought I had come up with them).
I was just thinking about Obama's campaign book, "The Audacity of Hope" and it occurred to me that it's a perfect title for him. It sounds good, but it's meaningless. Hope isn't audacious, it's passive. Just what we need, another passive-aggressive in the White House, and one who's going to "sit at the table" with the power mongers, "hoping" they'll give their power away. Geez, how can anyone swallow that line of bull?
If it's the Huckster Vs. Obummer, we will have the Huckster. Obummer can not win the general election!
The best possible outcome for America would be John 'Teddy' Edwards and 'William Jennings' Hucklebee winning easily.
Could you be more specific about the 'lies' Edwards has been telling PEACE CANDIDATE? Maybe you could wake us 'ignorant ones' up.
Ron Paul is not a "Certified nut", he's one of the best candidates there is.
I'd LOVE to see an Edwards, Obama, Clinton placement, that order, resulting from the Iowa caucuses. And there's a Romney & Huckabee likely order on the Republican side. Giuliani hopes to trample them in New Hampshire, but it was probably a really bad decision for him not to aim for Iowa, too. What's happening with him and South Carolina?
God, though, it's STILL more than 10 more months before election day. Anything could happen.
I believe Huck-abee will take it in Iowa and he will then be tough everyplace else. You don't want that guy in the White House.
AP: Obama, Huckabee win Iowa caucuses
By USA TODAY staff
DES MOINES — Barack Obama has won the Iowa Democratic caucuses and Mike Huckabee has won the GOP race, the Associated Press estimated Thursday night.
With 41% of precincts reporting, Huckabee had 31% of the GOP vote, followed by Mitt Romney with 23%, Fred Thompson with 13%, John McCain with 13%, Rudy Giuliani with 11% and Ron Paul with 10%.
On the Democratic side, with 75% of precincts reporting, Obama had 36% of the vote, followed by John Edwards and Hillary Clinton with 31% each.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-01-03-iowa_N.htm?csp=34
"But Iowa will truly be a difference maker if the national front-runner takes only the bronze. And that could easily be Hillary's fate. It's easy to see how Edwards finishes stronger than he's polled. Ditto for Obama, who is counting on unprecedented turnout to goose his precinct tallies."
Damn ... how prescient !
"But let's get real: If Obama wins, Edwards places, and Hillary tumbles into third by any notable margin, her candidacy could be toast. Inevitable candidates don't finish last."
Is this the end for Hillary ? She just placed third !! I dunno about that ... its a long year ahead.
Yup, that's round 1, dreamertoo. Let's see what round 2 goes like in New Hampster.
Then, we'll let the dominoes fall to the predicable conclusion.
Kucinich is done, not that he had a prayer.
Politics should be illegal - it makes people crazy!
Keep in mind that only about 200,000-300,000 people are voting in the Iowa caucus. After February 5, we definitely will have a better idea of who the horses running the race will be.
What really happened?!
"A Message to Iowa:
For today, you represent all of our hopes and dreams for a better world. Do not take this responsibility and yes, privilege lightly."
It sux that 2 states (IA and NH) in reality get to make our choices for who we can vote for. This just stinks.
If Rudy Giuliani gets elected, will George Bush be Prime Minister?
Claudius, I agree with your observation. America has taken only a first baby-step, and no way is it predictive of the final outcome.
From The History Channel:
Presidential candidates spend a lot of time and resources to try to win the Iowa caucus. It must be very important right? Well, sometimes.
If you don't count the "uncommitted" slates that won the 1972 and 1976 Democratic caucuses, only two presidential candidates (excluding incumbents) have won Iowa and went on to win the presidency.
The most recent example was Texas Governor George W. Bush, who handily defeated publisher Steve Forbes in the 2000 Republican race. Bush went on to win the nomination and was elected that autumn.
And 1976, an unknown former governor of Georgia, Jimmy Carter came out of nowhere to beat Birch Bayh, propelling Carter to the nomination and the presidency.
But that's it. The only other Iowa caucus winners who went on to win the presidency were incumbents seeking re-election (and usually unopposed within their party), such as Ronald Reagan in 1984 and Bill Clinton in 1996.
The rest at the link.
I just hope that the media is shamed into giving Edwards some attention now after his very strong showing in Iowa.
And real progressives should open their wallets and start showing Edwards some love for pushing for their agenda, otherwise we're going to end up with more of the same corporate shills.
EDWARDS '08
I think John Edwards won the Common Dreams/Iowa Caucus. We'll see about the Common Dreams/New Hampshire Caucus.
Heidenheimer: I am not ready to believe the Democratic party has been hijacked the way the Repuglicans have. However, I agree with your statement vis-a-vis Obama and MLK. Dr. King came out against that war, and, as you pointed out, drew a direct line between the war and domestic issues. No current candidate (who has a decent chance of getting nominated) has been couragous enough to do that.
Iammyself, and someone else who commented on this: Yeah, how about that? Tonight a lot of evangelical pig farmers are going to put their stamp on the next four (and probably eight) years of American history. I'm over-simplifying, of course. There are a lot of other people who will be at the causcuses (thank heavens). Nonetheless, it seems progressively stranger to have the living room votes of such an atypical set of people (relative to the general American population) carry such importance and significance. We really need to start having a serious conversation, nationally, about how we go about electing a president. And about that Electoral College.............
Today on Democracy Now, Amy Goodman has a guest who has done some pretty extensive research on just who all of the presidential candidates have hired/plan to hire as their "advisers". In Edwards case, he has brought on to his team several of the same lobbyists who work for the military contracting industry. In all cases, cadidates are hiring the same old chumps who have driven this country into the ground. However, Obama has the least amount of these good old boys, aside of Kucinich. Could that be why Kucinich threw his support behind Obama, and not Edwards?
Also, one has to admit that electing Barack Obama would be a lightening bolt here round the world.
Obama, Hillary and John Edwards do.
So do any who don't want another Republican in the white House.
From IOWA;
Edwards will win Iowa by the 2nd choice vote but Obama will be a very close 2nd. Hillary will get third which should bring out the knives...The next big question is when Biden, Dodd & Richardson pull out whom will they endorse?
As for the Repugs I would hope Romney wins and does become their candidate for there is no way he should win in November. Too many flip-flops. It would be interesting to see Ron Paul get third just to shake up this group.
I'll be standing for Barack Obama and hope to vote for him in November.
Does that include the 'republicans' like Hillary and Obama?
I love the way the media, even Rolling Stone, perpetuates a myth. By this I'm referring to the reference to the 'Dean scream'. Its one of those things where it depends on which video tape you watch. The one the networks ran shows a close up of Dean with the mic pumped straight into the video and no other source of crowd noise. That's the one that makes Dean look awful. But, if you watch a video from someone in the back of the room picking up the sound both from the room and over the PA, what you see is a crowded noisy room of excited supporters. And then Dean looks like just another exuberant politician shouting to a noisy, excited room. Doesn't look out of place at all.
Thus, to me this author's second point is valid, but different. Its not a question of a candidate making a mistake. Its a question of the corporate media deliberately trying to torpedo a candidate that's challenging the corporate favorite. That's what the 'Dean scream' was. It was just another step of the process that torpedoed the more populist candidate in favor of the pro-war, pro-corporate Kerry campaign. Thus, the author's second point should be the question of whether the corporate media is going to similarly try to torpedo any of the opposition to the corporate backed campaigns of McCain\Guilliani\Clinton\Obama?
In both fields, to me the interesting part is going to be what happens in what is essentially an 'Instant Runoff" type of system. Everyone declares their first choice and groups up. But the rule is you need 15% of the caucus to count. And with both fields so largely split with many candidates polling under 15%, where those people go on their second choices is going to be the interesting part.
I'm really hoping the anti-war sentiment is strong enough in both parties the second choice coalesces around one of the anti-war candidates. That would give Hillary a nice shock to her dreams to being able to follow in Bill's and Dubya's footsteps in joining the "I killed more than a million people" club.
I would rather vote for a chimpanzee than what we have running.
A chimp will rip your face off if it gets angry enough--a human might talk nice before doing the same through other means.
Humans have a long way to go before we can claim to be on the same playing field as the rest of creation.
ABC News and FOX News are appropriately named, Gail.
Could be Street Walker Journal, though; not to put down street walkers.
(Or chimpanzees, anney.)
HA!
Obama has 36%, that mens 74% didn't want him. Hillary and Edwards split the vast majority of that that vote. Remember that two months ago, Hillary was the projected winner big time, this hurts her a lot. Edwards is not hurt there and the college area votes are not in yet. He may beat Hillary be 3% or more.
Bill Clinton lost big in Iowa, didn't hurt him a bit. He was the comeback kid, remember.
So do y'all think the MSM will try to propel Obummer to the Dim nomination, to insure the Repugs win the general election?
Like iammyself said, let's see what happens next Tuesday, in New Hampster, haw, haw. I like it.
If you want a nice historical perspective on our current political climate:
http://myhistorycanbeatupyourpolitics.blogspot.com/
Iowa was important for Jimmy Carter, but not so for Billary I.
Just so you know, Edwards will win the primary in his home state of South Carolina, shortly after the NH primary.
He won in SC against Kerry and the rest in 2004.
So, don't count him out yet!
Send him some money and tell other true progressive to do the same.
EDWARDS '08