Just wanted to bring your attention to the sordid underbelly of David Brooks' column today, which while praising Obama left, right, and center, took this gratuitous shot against John Edwards:
He's made John Edwards, with his angry cries that "corporate greed is killing your children's future," seem old-fashioned. Edwards's political career is probably over.
It's the conventional "wisdom." Edwards is toast. Why hasn't Edwards dropped out? He's dead in the water. Some folks on the left see the Iowa caucus -- what with Obama's message of bipartisanship (and flying pigs) polling so well -- as an end to progressive populust economic policy. (As obviously does Brooks.)
A couple of things to remember. First, both Clinton and Obama took Edwards' lead in setting policy. Universal health care? Withdrawal from Iraq? Edwards took the stand, it polled well, Clinton and Obama scurried to match his stance. Ezra Klein said it best, Edwards "set the agenda and finished second."
Second, Eric Kleefeld noticed something interesting about the caucus results, compared with pre-caucus poll: if such a comparison can be made, then it appears Edwards was the biggest recipient of second-choice delegates. What does that mean? It could mean that, as second-tier candidates drop out of the race, Edwards' numbers improve. Also, if the primary gets ugly, it's likely Clinton and Obama who take the swings at each other. Edwards could end up smelling like a rose in a couple of weeks. One word: youneverknow.
And third, and the most striking fact about John Edwards' results at the Iowa causus are the results, compared to the Republican candidates. According to the The Group News Blog, some 356,000 Iowans voted during the caucus. Of those, 20.5% -- or approximately 73,000 -- pulled for Edwards. That's more votes than Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney earned combined. That's about a thousand less than Romney, Huckabee, and Giuliani combined.
While Edwards may not win the Democratic nomination, Edwards' populist policies outpolled nearly the entire Republican field in the Iowa caucus. End of his career? Death of his message? Where are the columns dedicated to the death of the Republican party as a national force in politics?
So Obama won the Iowa caucus handily. As predicted, pundits were making sweeping claims about the entire primary based on last night's events. Edwards is in trouble, Clinton is in trouble, etc. But this morning's buzz is all about Obama.
Remember, this is a single primary. It's a mistake to make any sweeping conclusion from last night's political event. But there was one telling fact about last night's caucus: voter turnout. In short, in a state that went for Bush in 2004, Democratic turnout for the caucus was almost twice as high as it was four years ago. Steve Benen:
How one-sided were the results? Mike Huckabee cruised to an easy victory on the Republican side, but his vote totals would have given him a fourth-place finish against the Dems.
While we're on the topic of the Iowa Democratic caucus, one of the most important "events" that take place during the proceedings is the designation of a second-choice candidate for those candidates that don't win 15 percent support during the caucus. As a result, second-tier candidates may have a role in deciding who wins the caucus by directing their supporters to back someone else.
Kucinich has already asked his supporters to back Obama. (An interesting choice, given that he backed Edwards over Dean in 2004. Why the nod for more conservative candidates?) And Ralph Nader asked his supporters to go for Edwards.
Christopher Dodd says he won't make any deals during the caucus. Presumably, his supporters will decide for themselves who to back.
The big mover and shaker and Iowa could be Bill Richardson, who enjoys about 10 percent of support in the state. Given that the top three Democratic candidates are polling about even, even a few percentage points one way or the other could significantly alter the outcome of the caucus. According to an "exclusive" in today's Iowa Independent, Richardson is planning to throw his support behind Obama, a surprise, given the buzz that Richardson was angling for the VP spot on a Clinton ticket after his defense of the New York Senator during a recent debate.
(In an unrelated matter, check out the poll numbers from MoveOn.org members. It pretty much mirrors the composition of national Democrats, doesn't it? With two exceptions, of course: about twice as much support for Kucinich as found in national polls, and an undecided amount that hovers near ten percent.
So much for MoveOn.org being a "radical" organization. In reality, it appears to be a mirror of rank-and-file Democratic supporters...who make up a plurality of the entire electorate...)
Hey, political junkies! Excited about today's Iowa caucus? You bet you are! For fun and excitement, as you watch the returns roll in, here's a handy-dandy accounting of the spin you will hear...for every possible outcome of the caucus! Political analyst Chuck Todd has indeed outdone himself today.
Seriously, this stuff can be grating. After all, it's the spin that helps dictate the outcome of elections, isn't it? But let's remember tonight: this is one state's caucus. A small state. A caucus. While Todd is claiming Edwards is cooked if he places anywhere outside of first in the Iowa caucus, it could be that Edwards truest test is in the South Carolina primary. Will he be the man for Southern Democrats? And if Hilary finishes outside of first? She's still has California, New York, and Florida to bank on, and a ton of money to spend.
Whatever. Still it'll be fun to have this report out on the arm of your Laz-E-Boy as the talking heads liberally quote from it while the returns come in.
Update: Zeitgeist, guest blogging at the Carpetbagger Report, explains how a caucus actually works. A nice summary, and worth a read for a peek into the future for Montana's own Republican caucus.
