Out With the Old, In With the New
And so it begins.
We wanted exciting, we got exciting.
As this is written, late on the night of the caucuses, the outlines of the decisions seem clear: Barack Obama won.
Hillary Clinton, the inevitable, the avatar of the machine, lost.
It's huge. Even though people have been talking about this possibility for six weeks now, it's still huge. She had the money, she had the organization, the party's stars, she had Elvis behind her, and the Clinton name in a base that loved Bill. And she lost. There are always a lot of reasons for a loss, but the Ur reason in this case, the thing it all comes down to? There's something about her that makes you look, watch, think, look again, weigh and say: No.
She started out way ahead, met everyone, and lost.
As for Sen. Obama, his victory is similarly huge. He won the five biggest counties in Iowa, from the center of the state to the South Dakota border. He carried the young in a tidal wave. He outpolled Mrs. Clinton among women.
Peggy Noonan
I actually think Peggy might be getting senile.
Using words like huge to describe anything about the Iowa Caucuses is just plain silly. The Iowa Republicans have picked the eventual nominee in 50% of contested races. Iowa Democrats were right just under 50% of the time (with more contested races, by the way). Iowa's accuracy as an electoral bellwether is roughly equivalent to a coin toss. Hyperbolic assertions of "huge" events in Iowa are beyond ridiculous.
But Peggy's just playing the same game all of the rest of the old media has played for the last 30 years. Iowa represents their first and last opportunity to impress their own opinions on the electoral process without any pesky context of reality. Leading up to Iowa, all that the pundits have had to screech about are the equally meaningless opinion polls.
The nice thing about the Iowa Caucuses from the pundits' point of view is the fact that it is so nebulous, they can apply whatever spin they desire to it, resulting in at least two or three weeks worth of column fodder.
We wanted exciting, we got exciting.
As this is written, late on the night of the caucuses, the outlines of the decisions seem clear: Barack Obama won.
Hillary Clinton, the inevitable, the avatar of the machine, lost.
It's huge. Even though people have been talking about this possibility for six weeks now, it's still huge. She had the money, she had the organization, the party's stars, she had Elvis behind her, and the Clinton name in a base that loved Bill. And she lost. There are always a lot of reasons for a loss, but the Ur reason in this case, the thing it all comes down to? There's something about her that makes you look, watch, think, look again, weigh and say: No.
She started out way ahead, met everyone, and lost.
As for Sen. Obama, his victory is similarly huge. He won the five biggest counties in Iowa, from the center of the state to the South Dakota border. He carried the young in a tidal wave. He outpolled Mrs. Clinton among women.
Peggy Noonan
I actually think Peggy might be getting senile.
Using words like huge to describe anything about the Iowa Caucuses is just plain silly. The Iowa Republicans have picked the eventual nominee in 50% of contested races. Iowa Democrats were right just under 50% of the time (with more contested races, by the way). Iowa's accuracy as an electoral bellwether is roughly equivalent to a coin toss. Hyperbolic assertions of "huge" events in Iowa are beyond ridiculous.
But Peggy's just playing the same game all of the rest of the old media has played for the last 30 years. Iowa represents their first and last opportunity to impress their own opinions on the electoral process without any pesky context of reality. Leading up to Iowa, all that the pundits have had to screech about are the equally meaningless opinion polls.
The nice thing about the Iowa Caucuses from the pundits' point of view is the fact that it is so nebulous, they can apply whatever spin they desire to it, resulting in at least two or three weeks worth of column fodder.
posted by Anonymous | 10:27 AM
5 Comments:
Sorry, Steve, but it is very big news that Hillary lost by 9 points, and (according to my unscientific calculations) I'll bet that 2/3 of BP Contributors were actually pretty hacked.
Of course, I'm not surprised; I've known and said she's unelectable all along. Obama is kind of a surprise, though; I didn't think that younger voters would end up caring as much as they did.
In a way, the Hillary loss is kind of sad, huh? For example, Steve can't even mention Hillary's name in a couple hundred words of commentary on an article about Hillary. Not even a 'Beast In Pant Suits' — nothing. Who are the Republicans going to hate now? Tricky, tricky.
The real news, now apparent, is this: the Democrat's story in '08 ain't gonna be about Hillary; the young folks that snubbed John Kerry (and, to be fair, John Edwards) came out to support Obama this time. Hillary's the old guard; Edwards isn't out yet, but he was on the old guard ticket (and I wonder how many times in one day he smacks himself and says, 'Why John Kerry? Why?')
Now, does the Republicans have a 'new guard' member that the hardcore (primary voters) will support? Huckabee? It's likely (see http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/03/iowa.gop/?iref=mpstoryview). Romney? Sour grapes. Ron Paul? Too smart. Rudy? Too late. McCain? Too old ... and too late.
But, of course, we're all guessing, obviously.
You're not paying attention, Strother.
Iowa is statistically meaningless, especially so for Democrats. Iowa has picked the eventual nominee less than half the time. The road to ruin is paved with the corpses of Democrats who thought they had the election in the bag after Iowa. To be fair, I'm pretty sure that not a single one of them actually thought any such thing after Iowa.
If Obama still has this kind of lead after New Hampshire and South Carolina, then I expect her lizardness will need to start worrying. Anyone who thinks Iowa proves anything is on a fool's errand.
By the way, I know you're not including me with the Republicans, but I hope you're not including me with the Hillary-haters. I find her to be no better or worse than most of the rest of the field, Democrat or Republican. I find her infinitely preferable to Huckabee or Edwards, both of whom have that dangerous look of historical purpose in their eyes.
If Huckabee and Hillary are the nominees, I can't wait to see the Hillary sign in Steve's yard there in Brown Mtn. Maybe you can chair the "Hillary for Change in Stokes County" committee. Ha! :-)
You're so brainwashed, Andy. If Huckabee and Hillary are the nominees, I'll either vote Libertarian or abstain.
I was just joking with you, Steve... Yoo really do need a sense of humor. Ha! :-)
Post a Comment
<< Home