A small correction* to Dan's post: It looks like McCain edged out the dignified pair of jowls that are Fred Thompson for a gentleman's third place (with 78% reporting as of this writing). To give this some perspective, that's exactly where George H.W. Bush placed in 1988, right behind Pat Robertson (second) and Bob Dole (first). To give it further perspective, we need only define the driving force behind a number of Republican caucus-goers:
About a third of Republicans interviewed before they cast their votes cited illegal immigration as the most important issue facing the country, followed by the economy and terrorism.
There's something about GOP-centric triptychs in Iowa that tend to get things exactly backwards, isn't there? I can already envision Mike Huckabee's SlimFast spots: "I may have lost the nomination, but that's nothing compared to the weight I lost on these shakes."
As for the Democrats, the big winner is actually John Edwards, who managed to eclipse Hillary by a small but telling margin (716 votes to 704 votes). I don't think the better-coiffed Huey Long has got much of a chance moving forward, though. In national politics, populism is good for demonstrating how it generates an unexpected momentum before extinguishing itself.
As for Obama, his win doesn't surprise, given the polls, but it's a hurdle he had to surmount in order to stay in the game — not to necessarily win it. (Contrast to other cases: Bill didn't snag the Iowa caucus in '92. Native Senator Tom Harkin did. And do you remember anything about him, even that last fact?) Moreover, as even conservatives have begun to appreciate, Obama's style comes off as being "above politics" rather than left-wing or right-wing. In rhetoric, he shrewdly employs the dialectic without seeming smarmy about it. It goes like this: "Yes, illegal immigrants are a major problem, and the burden falls mainly on employers who hire them — and on George Bush, who has done nothing to enforce the law. But, we can't very well kick every illegal out of the country. It's not practical and it's cruel. So let's enforce the current laws and create incentives for naturalization." Not groundbreaking, but nor is it triangulation because Obama actually tells you what he thinks; he just wants to show you how he got there, and he doesn't take opposing opinions for granted. And in this paraphrased example, he was talking to a seven year-old.
I pulled that example from Stephen Hayes's fulsome profile of Obama in the Weekly Standard, which seemed to argue that his more affable personality is a good vote-splitter, particularly in the idiosyncratic states:
I spoke to a lawyer from Des Moines whose first choice is Dennis Kucinich. (We agreed that I would not use his name because, well, would you want your name used if you supported Dennis Kucinich?) Since Kucinich is unlikely to be viable, the lawyer's second choice will be particularly important. Right now it's among Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Barack Obama. The lawyer told me that he has problems with each of them. Clinton is too opportunistic, too corporate, too Washington. Edwards is too insincere. Obama is too inexperienced. Still, of the three, he prefers Obama.
And after the Ron Paul Revolution becomes an Alamo, how many disgruntled anti-partisans like our Des Moines attorney will choose to stick with the maverick who also was too prematurely counted out?
Rotten luck on Hillary, either way.
* Dan was right in the long run, McCain came in fourth.
Wow! This could be one particular of the most helpful blogs We’ve ever arrive across on this subject. Basically Wonderful. I’m also an expert in this topic so I can understand your effort.