-
sponsorship
As E.J. pointed out earlier, the hotbed of radicalism otherwise known as "Iowa" is the third state to legalize same-sex marriage. (And let me tell you, it's crazy out here—gay orgies in the parks, polygamists storming the Capitol, abandoned children wandering the streets in various states of undress. .. pictures of the family-destroying chaos are available here.) As with Massachusetts and Connecticut, Iowa imposes no marriage-related residency rules, so the law applies to anyone who wants to visit after April 24, tie the knot, and sue some other state to recognize the contract. Consider Des Moines the Midwest's gay Vegas.
-
sponsorship
All I can say is, the women in my book are looking smarter by the minute. Though the favored narrative -- that it's women voters who make President Hillary a slam-dunk inevitability -- is still so entrenched that it wasn't so easy to locate the news that Iowa women actually favored Obama in today's Washington Post. Oddly, even their graphic broke out the percentage of women and men who supported each of the Republican candidates, but not the Democrats.
Obama prevailed last night not because we're more ready for an African-American than for a woman in the White House, but because he is striking chords about the hoped-for future that resonate in ways that her theme song --- "Don't Stop (Thinking about the '90s)" -- does not. And even if they agree on nothing, in tone and pitch I see a lot of similarities between Obama and last night's GOP winner, Mike Huckabee. As does a friend of mine who lives in Ames, Iowa, and caucused for Obama. Her report seems on the money:
One aspect of the whole experience that confirmed my choice was the speeches given by the candidates afterwards. Edwards was very fiery and compelling, but he still was saying the same exact things I'd heard him say at town meetings. He just repackaged his script. Still, I give him credit for championing his causes over the status of his candidacy. Hillary, on the other hand, was all about 'I, I, I.' For the first time, I realized that when she is not parsing the specifics of policy issues, she is talking about herself: her accomplishments, her expertise, her experience. It may be good to know these things, but they do nothing to inspire the electorate. In effect, she doesn't convey a vision for the future. She just touts a knowledge base that has evolved over the years. So when, in turn, Obama speaks as a visionary who will unite the country using the politics of inclusion, it really is music to the ears. He has that rare ability to actually inspire people, and that is why he won.
Huckabee showed a similar charisma in his speech. I know that he has an uphill battle ahead of him and he may not succeed, and I disagree with him on just about every topic, but given who he is, I thought he gave an amazing speech. I wanted to hug him and say, "If only you weren't so daffy in so many ways and didn't take such oddball positions on things, I'd like to be your friend!"
The "I wanted to hug him'' factor should never be underestimated. And though Hillary is in no way out of contention now, her plan of attack -- to attack Barack -- is only another confirmation that her playbook is perfect for the last war.
-
sponsorship
Women came out in Iowa last night-for Obama. He won with them overall, and among younger women with a wide margin. Hillary Clinton carried only the older-women crowd. That was reflected at the caucus I went to, especially in a mother-daughter pair who split Clinton-Obama, respectively.
If this dynamic continues in a couple of more states, Clinton will be toast, won't she? Is there something impressive about younger women transcending identity politics? Or is this really more about these particular candidates, and the change vs. experience choice they've come to represent?
-
sponsorship
So, the big GOP winner in Iowa was Mike Huckabee. Not surprising, considering the polls, but that hasn't stopped the hysteria. Andrew Sullivan last night seemed almost giddy that he'd forseen the surrender of the GOP to the Christianist right, and in the New York Times, David Brooks put Huckabee's victory on par with Obama's for the Democrats as a "political earthquake. "
Forgive me, but I can't get that worked up about Huckabee, though I have no wish for him to win the GOP nomination. For one, the evangelical turnout in Iowa was huge. About 60 percent of Iowa's GOP caucus-goers identified as evangelical and half voted for the former governor; in the general population, 26 percent of Americans are evangelical. New Hampshire is just a few days away, and if Huckabee's victory helped anyone, it was John McCain. If McCain wins New Hampshire, that could give him enough momentum to weather a Huckabee victory in South Carolina and hang on for Super Tuesday.
And what if it came down to a race between Obama and McCain? They'd be two refreshing candidates, largely untainted by scandal, whom their respective parties could rally around positively rather than spending six months tearing down the other guy. I can't help but think that would be an OK thing for this country.
-
sponsorship
Have Obama and Richardson entered into an unholy vote-trading alliance? In Eldora, Iowa, where I am reporting on tonight's caucus, precinct chair Ed Bear says that Richardson is his first choice and Obama his second, but not because anyone told him to go that way. There has been "coffee shop talk" about which candidates would make good president and vice president pairs, Bear says. He likes this team, though he doesn't think his first choice Richardson would be at the top of the ticket, because Obama has the charisma-and the height.
-
sponsorship
With all this confusing chatter about Iowa polling numbers (seems like every poll says something different, except when you account for the margin of error, in which case they all say the same thing: "Who knows!"), I think it's worth pointing out that many voters don't vote with their heads or their hearts, but on impulse. We've all heard the "I voted for him because I'd have a beer with him argument," and here's some more food for thought: according to a study published in Science magazine "inferences of competence based solely on facial appearance predicted the outcome of U.S. congressional elections better than chance (e.g. 68.8% of the Senate races in 2004)." The subjects had no previous knowledge of the candidates, and based their predictions solely on a 1-second exposure to a photograph. I don't think the study proves that people don't give a damn about the issues, but it certainly suggests that unreflective, knee-jerk reactions influence political races more than we'd like.
-
sponsorship
I have been in Iowa for all of two hours, and so far everyone I have talked to (newspaper vendor, rental-car agent, fellow traveler, minimart saleswoman) is planning to vote. Probably a fluke, but it makes me feel like I am in the Land of the Voter. The minimart saleswoman is the one with the most decided-sounding preference. She is caucusing for Hillary at her church tonight to set an example for her daughters, who she says now aspire not to be doctors or lawyers, but president.
-
sponsorship
With all due respect to Slate's cover pieces today, and Jodi Kantor's piece in the NYT, I am not moved by all the violin playing for poor disenfranchised Iowa voters. Yes, the caucus set-up stinks if you can't get out of working the evening shift or are out of state or too sick to get out of bed. But come on, the rest of you people, go caucus! I know it means leaving your house on a cold evening, and that it can take a couple of hours for Democrats. But the campaigns are offering food, babysitting, and snow shoveling for your driveways. They've spent tens of millions of dollars courting you—as much as $150 per caucus-goer on ads for Democrats and $105 for Republicans—and now the whole country is waiting to see which suitor you'll pick. All of this rebounds to your state's benefit. And yet the last time both parties held caucuses, in 2000, all you could manage was a measly 6 percent turnout of eligible voters?!? Come on, folks, if you deserve to go first because of your great civic tradition, then get out there and show us you've got one. Especially if you live in Eldora, the precinct I'm planning to cover Thursday night.
-
sponsorship
Via Talking Points Memo, some video of Hillary Clinton arguing this morning that caucusing is particularly hard for women—who see voting as something private and are uneasy standing up and talking about their candidate of choice. It sounds some familiar notes—about women and public speaking and women and politics in general—but I wonder if it’s true. And even if it is true, I wonder if it helps Clinton to say it?
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?