Search This Blog

Friday, January 04, 2008

The Meaning of Iowa

Rush Limbaugh predicted yesterday that if Hillary!!! Lost Iowa, her fellow campers would begin disparaging the Iowa caucuses. The people who caucus are few and Iowa is unrepresentative of the rest of the country.

Remember, Iowans have elected Tom Harkin, certified loon and convicted liar, to Congress since 1974. Iowans are isolationist, insular, and not a little bit greedy. The way to appeal to Iowans is to pass farm bills laden with fat and subsidies for the farm products produced there.

So let it be said that while I disagree with Hillary!!! on virtually everything, the spin we will hear is actually right. Iowa is not the country and the person who wins the Iowa caucuses is usually not the winner of the general election. In fact, only two people who were not incumbents won the Iowa poll and went on to win the presidency: George Bush and Jimmy Carter.

The primary reason for this is that the caucus goers are so unrepresentative. Caucusing is a great deal more time consuming that going out to vote so only a small number of people actually bother to go out. And those that do go out are committed. They are often fierce partisans and members of fringe groups. They are swayed by identity politics, the strategy that brought Preacher Huckabee his win in Iowa. The evangelical vote is so strong on the Republican side that Pat Robertson beat George H.W. Bush (the incumbent Vice President) in 1988.

So the Clinton camp will have a point when they dismiss Hillary’s third place finish in Iowa. But they will miss a larger point. Hillary!!! is not really running an independent campaign. The Clintons are running for a restoration of the Clinton presidency. The Iowa vote was more a referendum on Bill’s third term than it was a vote for Hillary!!! In that respect, Iowa is possibly The Last Days of the Clinton Dymasty, as Philip Klein states in the American Spectator.

With few tangible accomplishments of her own, Hillary Clinton launched her White House bid almost a year ago based largely on her husband's record, and on the promise of a return to the 1990s.

Well, on Thursday night, that dog didn't hunt.

Democratic voters overwhelmingly wanted change, and they didn't define change as turning back the clock 16 years. Instead, they came out in massive numbers to support the charismatic freshman Senator Barack Obama, and the former First Lady was relegated to a third place finish.


ON THE NIGHT before the caucuses, Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton shared the stage together at the State Historical Museum Building in downtown Des Moines. Had Fleetwood Mac's "Don't Stop" been playing in the background, it would have served as the perfect interactive exhibit: a 1992 Clinton campaign rally.

"It's been wonderful having my family with me," Hillary said after Bill introduced her, "and I think we were all just reminded what it was like to have a Democratic president of our country." It was a not so subtle appeal to Democratic nostalgia for her husband, which has been the cornerstone of her campaign.

There are, of course, people who have fond memories of the Clinton years. But for most people, the Clintons means turmoil, personal scandals, loathing for the military, stained blue dresses, shady land deals and improbably profits in cattle futures, disappearing records and misplaced FBI files. These are all fodder for soap operas, but not for the occupants of the White House.

The Clintons have mistaken the generosity of Chinese and Arab donors, the fawning of the drive-by-media and the adoration of well-worn and over-aged feminist post-pubescent girls for broad based support of the American people. When even the Democrats in Iowa caucus for change, the handwriting is on the wall. The era of Clinton is over.

No comments: