And the Winner in Iowa is…Change
Jan 3rd, 2008 | 6 responses
Here, I indicated on December 23, that I thought Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama would win the Iowa caucuses in their respective parties tonight. I also spoke of the parallel universes that are the Democratic and Republican presidential nomination races this year.
But are there commonalities between the two parties’ races?
I think so and it’s their common themes.
In selecting Huckabee and Obama this evening, members of both parties were choosing change.
This, of course, is probably more obvious in the case of the junior senator from Illinois. Obama’s very person symbolizes change, an American whose father is from Kenya, who spent much of his youth in Indonesia.
But Huckabee is an advocate of change as well. Admittedly, the former Arkansas governor is a rather conventional social conservative. But in repudiating George W. Bush’s foreign policy, characterizing it as arrogant, Huckabee advocates a departure from a neoconservative approach to national security and, effectively, a return to traditional conservative foreign policy. He also is a populist when it comes to domestic issues like education and concern for the poor.
Beyond the issues though, both Obama and Huckabee are change agents when it comes to their approach to politics. While both have flirted with or actually engaged in what most of us would describe as negative campaigning, they were, relative to people like Hillary Clinton or Mitt Romney, positive in their approaches. Should the two of them end up being the nominees of their two parties, they will likely fulfill the yearnings of Americans for a race for president between grown-ups.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
6 Responses to “And the Winner in Iowa is…Change”
To see a tongue-in-cheek review of the Iowa primary in pictures…link here:
http://www.thoughttheater.com
OTOH, Huckabee is still a candidate of the Religious Right. Not enough of a change for me.
Obama and Huckabee both talk about religion. Obama talks about his “faith” while Huckabee talks about being a Christian.
I think Obama got a higher percentage of the Dems votes than Huckabee (of the Reps.) because Obama does try to appeal to a cross-section of people: Dems, Republicans and independents. Obama understands that he will be a leader of all citizens, and not just one group (such as Huckabee appealing to conservative Christians). Obama tries to reach out to all. Obama does not use the politics of divisiveness to gain supporters. Obama, as an adult, realizes that a lot of people won’t agree with him on everything. And he respects those who do disagree with him.
Edwards and Clinton pulled in very close second and third spots so the Dem. race is very much between these three people, though with an amazing 38% of the vote Obama is clearly ahead in round one.
The Republicans don’t show a tight race- Huck and Rom. are the two front runners out of Iowa but Thompson, McCain (at 13% each) and Paul at 10% (pretty close behind) still show that the Republican field is open. Paul is the only Rep. I would vote for but I think McCain will be the eventual Rep. nominee.
I’m not sure if I’m more surprised that Thompson did as well as he did or that Guiliani did as poorly as he did.
In my mind Obama, Clinton and Edwards have always been the three Dem. front runners while there is no clear Rep. candidate. Iowa only proves this. Even though Huckabee is now seen as a viable candidate and Guiliani is way down, the Rep. field is still open.
The lower-polled Democratic candidates will drop out faster than the Republican candidates, simply because the Dems see this as a three way race while the Republicans are still up in the air. Many probably see Huckabee as a fluke who can gain a sizable national following.
[...] that election/caucus thing. One interpretation here and an odd phrase “ferocious intelligence” ?! [...]
Giuliani slighted Iowa (and has slighted New Hampshire). In addition, he is sleazy as well as a RINO, and that wouldn’t be welcomed here in Iowa.
Iowa’s conservatives are definitely conservative, hence some support for a quite-weak Thompson.
Sixty per cent or more of GOP voters last night here in Iowa identified themselves as born-again or evangelical Christians, i.e., typical Religious Right members. There is some acknowledgement (and possible misinterpretation) of the Religious Right influence here, but the Religious Right percentage here is much higher than in other states, which is a major reason why too much shouldn’t be derived from results here. (Women as well as Christians powered Huckabee’s win, incidentally.)
The real sad story is Romney, who spent a wad of cash in Iowa and still lost to Huckabee, who spent 1/20th of that amount. I think Iowans caught on to the fact that Romney is the real change candidate—he changes positions according to his audience.