Post-Iowa: Making A Sense Of It All…
I wonder how much wiser we all are going through the outpourings/hysteria in the blogosphere in the wake of the recent Iowa storm. However, some of the analysis has been readable/enjoyable. Michael Barone, who is the principal author of The Almanac of American Politics, says the stunning show at Iowa is “a good starter — but where’s the meat?”
Writing in The Times, Barone states: “British readers might be pardoned for wondering whether Americans – or at least Iowa caucus-goers – are a little crazy. On Thursday night, the ninth night of Christmas, some 340,000 Iowans (out of 2 million registered voters) chose for their party’s presidential nominations two men whom no one outside their home states had heard of four years ago and who, between them, have less than four years’ experience in the federal government.
“This does not seem like the way to choose the leader of the two great parties in the greatest democracy in the world – unless you compare it with the various leadership selection processes (dinner at Granita, anyone? Another whisky, Mr Kennedy?) of the main British parties in recent years. Yet we are stuck with it and we must make the best of it…”
opinions powered by SendLove.to
2 Responses to “Post-Iowa: Making A Sense Of It All…”
The oddest thing about the media reporting of Iowa is that if Senator Obama does win in New Hampshire, the Democratic primary seasons will have lasted a grand total of six days and the heir apparent to the White House will have to wait a year before being inaugurated.
As the U.S. becomes a one party states, do people really want Iowa and New Hampshire being the only states that have a say in who is elected president?
The desire for reform of the primary system has been discussed more than ever this year. We may see a change as early as 2012.