Salon’s Glen Greenwald has a hilarious round-up from the barons of Beltway conventional wisdom who inaccurately predicted/reported an impending Huckabee Iowa demise largely because his campaign tactics apparently do not comport with their savvy views on how an election should be run:

I love when this happens. It's a reminder that the political prattle that spews forth from group-think media stars without end and which consumes our political dialogue for a full year is based on absolutely nothing. Also, most predictive "analysis" from the media stars' cousins, the cogs in the right-wing noise machine, is merely self-absorbed wishful thinking masquerading as objective knowledge:

Greenwald's target list includes: Time's Joe Klein, The Politico's Mike Allen and Jonathan Martin, The Weekly Standard's Dean Barnett, Hugh Hewitt, Glenn Reynolds, Michelle Malkin and NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez.

A few more reactions to the Huckabee and Obama victories:

The American Spectator’s Hunter Baker provides readers with a respite from the anti-Huckabee hyperventilating:

When has the GOP last seen a candidate like Mike Huckabee? This man is talented, driven, and hungry. The same personality that decided to defeat diabetes has locked onto winning the nomination and he has achieved far more with far less than anyone thought possible.

We need more candidates with that kind of desire. If Huckabee should fall short, I hope he still has time to get in for the Arkansas U.S. Senate seat. Give that guy four years or so on the national stage and he'd be unstoppable.

Meanwhile, nearly every blogger on National Review’s The Corner seems blind with rage at Huckabee’s triumph. The Corner is flooded with posts insisting he can’t win the nomination, including one from Mark R. Levin, whose one-word thesis is “relax.” But the counter-arguments lack much evidence or reasoning, pushing rosy forecasts that imagine comeback scenarios for Fred Thompson, Romney and even Rudy Giuliani.

Some might say at least they are sticking to their guns. But it’s more like they aimed the gun, pulled the trigger, found it wasn’t loaded and are instead just making “Bang, bang!” noises and hoping for the same result.

The Obama praise continues to center on how his victory is good for America as a whole, as opposed to Democrats or African-Americans in particular. There are some over-the-top proclamations, like this one from Ezra Klein, but most fall into the theme outlined by Arianna Huffington:

Obama's win might not have legs. Hope could give way to fear once again. But, for tonight at least, it holds a mirror up to the face of America, and we can look at ourselves with pride. This is the kind of country America was meant to be, even if you are for Clinton or Edwards -- or even Huckabee or Giuliani.

Talk Left’s Big Tent Democrat dissects how Obama's message is telegraphing and to whom:

What to make of this? Some say it shows that Obama was perceived as a strong progressive. Some say it shows that Obama is selling progressivism to Independents and Republicans. I have a different take. I think it shows that Obama is able to convince people that he agrees with them or that his views are not anathema to them. How did he do it? I believe he did it by blurring his policy views, which are largely mainstream Democratic. Indeed, I find that Obama's views match up with my own more than any other candidate.

But many in the progessive blogosphere remain opposed to what they see as a Clintonesque triangulation on the part of Obama. It doesn't quite rise to right's level Huckabee antipathy, but it does reflect some level of discomfort between Obama and the left.

MyDD’s Jonathan Singer:

It's becoming increasingly difficult to come to the conclusion that Barack Obama understands the stakes of this fight and/or that he really stands on our side when he bashes Democrats, tries to gin up fears of a crisis in Social Security, and now kowtows to some of the basest elements of the Republican machine.

While most progressive bloggers are pulling for a John Edwards second-place showing in Iowa, many of those same bloggers have long placed Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd as their ideal candidate.

Unfortunately for them, that online enthusiasm isn't translating to much in caucus land. In fact, the headline is a bit misleading, as Dodd is actually pulling in .02% of the vote, according to official results:

Senator Barack Obama : 37.53% Senator John Edwards : 29.87% Senator Hillary Clinton : 29.42% Governor Bill Richardson : 2.09% Senator Joe Biden : 0.93% Uncommitted : 0.13% Senator Chris Dodd : 0.02% Precincts Reporting: 1719 of 1781 (Percentages are State Delegate Equivalents.)

UPDATE: The Dodd campaign just announced he is dropping out of the race

UPDATE 2:

From the AP

Dodd to drop presidential bid

By BETH FOUHY

Associated Press Write

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) _ Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut was set to abandon his bid for the Democratic presidential nomination Thursday after a poor showing in Iowa's precinct caucuses.

The veteran lawmaker was to announce his decision to supporters at a post-caucus party in Des Moines, according to advisers speaking on the condition of anonymity. He was expected to travel to Connecticut Saturday with his family to thank friends and supporters.

Dodd was never able to break from the pack of Democratic contenders despite his long and distinguished Senate career. He won just 0.02 percent of the state's caucus-goers.

John Edwards is giving his post-caucus speech right now. He is spinning a third-place tie well, talking about “showing backbone,” against Clinton and Obama, whom he says thought they could buy the election.

Liberal bloggers are certainly pulling for an Edwards second-place showing, both to keep his own campaign above water, and, perhaps, more importantly, to drown out Hillary.

Matt Yglesias:

It looks like he's likely to wind up in second. Certainly, I hope he hands on to it, both for the blow it'll do to Hillary Clinton's chances and also because he deserves to do well. It's very hard to see how his candidacy can stay viable without an Iowa win, but he's had a huge -- and entirely positive -- impact on the race.

Daily Kos says of Obama's victory:

The youth turnout numbers are stellar, and it looks like the Democratic caucuses got double the turnout that Republican ones did. This all bodes well for the future, and at the end of the day, I'm damned proud of all of our candidates.

Liberal blogers Atrios says the networks are spinning any and all results for John McCain

Red State offers this bit of humor on behalf of Obama:

Conservative, but Obama/Ron Paul/McCain supporting Andrew Sullivan says of Huckabee's win:

The GOP establishment is now being eaten - slowly - by the tiger they rode in on. Keep chewing, Huck. God is obviously winning this election, isn't He?

And Reason’s David Weigel adds:

This is better for him than it is for Huckabee - Hillary and Edwards are so bunched up he can declare his victory before they can claim second place.

And an interesting tidbit. NBC's Andrea MItchell is at Clinton campaign HQ and describes the scene as “Completely empty, a dirge like event.” She says the slowly filling room with country music playing in the background is “a staged celebration.”

More updated Iowa Democratic numbers:

Senator Barack Obama : 34.96% Senator John Edwards : 31.26% Senator Hillary Clinton : 30.96% Governor Bill Richardson : 1.72% Senator Joe Biden : 0.95% Uncommitted : 0.12% Senator Chris Dodd : 0.03% Precincts Reporting: 1230 of 1781

(Percentages are State Delegate Equivalents.)

The early conservative blog reaction to Huckabee’s Iowa victory is decidedly mixed. Are they in denial at this point, or holding onto some knowledge that runs counter to all trends of actual voters?

Powerline’s Mirengoff hopes it’s a short-term relationship in lieu of a long-term Romney commitment:

With any luck, tonight will be the high-water mark for Huckabee. Romney, meanwhile, faces the very real prospect of back-to-back second place finishes. That wouldn't be bad in the abstract, but given the resources he's thrown into these states and the leads he has held, it would raise doubts about his ability to "seal the deal" with voters. Of course, if Romney manages to defeat McCain in New Hampshire, his set-back in Iowa will quickly be forgotten.

And National Review, who endorsed Romney and has been boosting his candidacy for two years over at The Corner, isn’t happy either. But are they already preparing to shill for a candidate most have openly opposed? Mark Steyn writes:

Peter is right that we'll all have to start being more respectful of Huck after tonight, but, before that dread hour arrives, let me say there is something slightly jaw-dropping about a two-party system that presents voters with a choice between Mike Huckabee and (if early numbers hold up) John Edwards.

CNN has joined the Fox News Channel in calling Iowa for Mike Huckabee.

Romney sadists will note the former governor just gave a very somber interview to Fox talking up New Hampshire...

Fox News Channel just called Iowa for Mike Huckabee.

John McCain is on Fox News right now answering questions about Iowa and New Hampshire. The most current returns show Huckabee looking forward to a “decisive” victory over Mitt Romney, according to Fox’s Brit Hume.

Carl Cameron notes that Romney just referred to Iowa as “the first inning of a 50 inning game.” As Cameron points out, it wasn’t too long ago that Romney said one needed to win Iowa to win the nomination.

For his part, McCain did look a bit subdued with the numbers showing him trailing Thompson for third place. However, as the interview was wrapping up, the latest election ticker numbers show McCain catching up to Thompson, 12 percent to 14 percent, respectively.

The Iowa Secretary of State’s website is posting updated caucus results throughout the evening. You can follow the results live here.

The most recent official numbers for the Democrats:

Senator John Edwards : 33.44% Senator Hillary Clinton : 32.24% Senator Barack Obama : 31.63% Governor Bill Richardson : 1.80% Senator Joe Biden : 0.78% Senator Chris Dodd : 0.07% Uncommitted : 0.05% Precincts Reporting: 367 of 1781

(Percentages are State Delegate Equivalents.)

The state Republican website isn’t loading, presumably because of the high-traffic

The first entrance polls are coming out from Iowa. CNN is reporting that Huckabee and Romney are leading, 33 percent to 24 percent respectively. In the battle for third place, Fred Thompson is getting 17 percent of the entrance poll numbers, while John McCain is pulling 11 percent.

On the Democratic side, CNN says entrance polls are showing a “tight race” between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

These numbers are incredibly early and prone to change, but very interesting nonetheless.

UPDATE:

MSNBC is also posting some post-entrance poll numbers

Edwards: 39%

Clinton: 38%

Obama: 36%

Huckabee and Romney are leading MSNBC's polling as well, with Fred Thompson is a solid third-place at 18 percent.

I recently had the chance to interview Georgetown University Professor and author Christopher C. Hull about his new book, “Grassroots Rules: How the Iowa Caucus Helps Elect American Presidents.”

Mr. Hull has been studying the Iowa caucuses for years and offered some insights on tonight’s voting, along with how the political blogs have helped reshape the process.

Although there have been a number of developments in the days since we spoke, Hull’s breakdown of the three leading Democratic candidates sounds about right.

Hull says Obama “has the right idea,” in his approach to campaigning in Iowa and is “well-positioned to win,” the caucuses which are about to begin in just over an hour.

Even with the recent Obama surge, Hull still thinks Hillary Clinton is“likely to do very well” in Iowa. “I still see her ultimately winning the nomination,” Hull said, despite the favorable trends for Obama in Iowa and New Hampshire, where most polls have him now leading Clinton.

However, Hull was less enthusiastic about John Edwards, saying his trends have been “almost a mirror image of Clinton’s,” with poll numbers “slowly trending downward,” despite his large turnout at recent campaign rallies.

Hull’s observations have added weight because he correctly predicted the final results in Iowa back in 2004. He said his statistical model allowed him to make the ’04 prediction in advance of caucus night, but that this year’s field is too competitive for him to make a similar public prediction.

Nonetheless, he did predict that if current trends continue, Obama is “positioned to win New Hampshire if he wins Iowa.”

On the Republican side, he said the “thing to watch,” is how Mitt Romney’s traditional organizational support fares against Mike Huckabee’s largely grassroots effort. Hull says his research shows that part of Huckabee’s support has come from voter fatigue with Romney’s massive spending and advertising blitz in the state.

“What you really need in Iowa is narrow-casting,” Hull said, adding that retail politicking almost always trumps media saturation in Iowa. “Spending is inversely proportional relative to what you see elsewhere.”

In the previous post, I mentioned at least one Red State blogger prediction an Iowa victory for Fred Thompson tonight.

Fellow conservative blogger John Hinderaker over at Powerline predicts a Romney victory in Iowa, followed by a McCain win in New Hampshire.

Weekly Standard’s Richelieu, who may or may not be long-time GOP strategist Mike Murphy, says Huckabee will edge out Romney by less than a point, while McCain will get the strong third place showing his campaign is hoping for. He also predicts an Obama victory tonight by seven points, with Clinton finishing third.

Red State has also weighed in on the Democrats, predicting a narrow victory for Edwards over Obama, and Clinton pacing a few points behind in third place.

Most liberal bloggers have been more reserved about their predictions, but a few have weighed in, often with detailed disclaimers explaining their educated guesses.

Daily Kos separates his predictions into "Entrance poll" numbers and "Final results," with Obama coming out first in both. In fact, he sees an upward tick for Obama once supporters of candidates who receive less than 15 percent of the vote are asked to give their second choice candidates.

Open Left’s Chris Bowers also predicts an Obama victory

MyDD’s Jerome Aromstrong goes with Obama as well, but notes he is personally pulling for Edwards, a sentiment that seems to be shared by a plurality of progressive bloggers.

Finally, over at the Huffington Post, pollster John Zogby has revised his own caucus fallout theory. Originally, Zogby said Edwards could not survive a third place finish in Iowa. However, Zogby now says that might not be the case if the top three finishers are within a few points of each other:

This race could stay very close and we may emerge with all three as viable candidates going into New Hampshire

Fred Thompson's campaign has been denying last night's story from the Politico, which cites sources "close" to the former senator claiming he will drop out of the presidential race and endorse John McCain if he doesn't finish at least second tonight in Iowa.

Thompson adviser Mary Matalin just told MSNBC's Norah O'Donnell that Thompson “unequivocally” denies the rumor and will not drop out no matter what happens in Iowa tonight.

If the Thompson story falls apart, it would be a tough mark for the paper which last March incorrectly reported that John Edwards was dropping out of the race.

However, the story has already likely damaged Thompson, whether it was accurately reported or not. Conservative blog Red State jumps to Thompson's defense, refuting the Politico piece in two separate posts. Red State's Erik Erickson outlines the path to a successful Thompson nomination run:

Clinton lost Iowa and New Hampshire before winning South Carolina and coming back. Fred has the online support. He's going to do better than people expect in Iowa (he actually is). Huckabee is going to beat Romney today so those two are going to fight like drag queens wearing the same dress to a party. Fred needs to leverage these three things and go to South Carolina.

Meanwhile, Red State diarist Pejman Yousefzadeh bucks the polls and predicts a Thompson victory in Iowa:

Thompson: 22

Romney: 21

Huckabee: 20

McCain: 17

Paul: 11

Giuliani: 9

That wraps things up for today's Des Moines Register Republican debate. The Democrats' debate is tomorrow.

But first, a few more nuggets...

Paul, on how he would “adjust his plan in light of political reality in Washington,”: “In a way, it is revolutionary to go back to the Constitution.”

McCain, asked to give an example of a time he wished he would have compromised rather than sticking to a “maverick” position: “I cannot think of a time and I hope I never think of a time.” Also said he will “reach across the aisle” to Democrats if elected.

The final question asked candidates to suggest a New Years resolution for another candidate. Most dodged the question, or gave their own, personal resolutions. But a few actually answered the question:

McCain: “Let’s not accuse each other of a lack of patriotism.”

Huckabee: “I’m going to be a lot more careful about anything I say.” When it was pointed out that he was answering about himself, “Well, I’m going to make it about them too.”

Romney: “That we’ll fight to make sure one of those people on this stage is the next president.”

Paul: “My advice would be to re-read the Bill of Rights and to take it seriously.”

Hunter: ‘One thing we could do just a couple weeks before Christmas is to buy American goods.”

Giuliani: “All of us should take a better look at America and realize how lucky we are.”

Quick analysis: Romney takes another veiled shot at Huckabee by stating that Republicans can only win in 2008 if they nominate a candidate who will hold the base together on not just social, but fiscal issues as well. Huckabee didn't do anything to damage his lead, but did appear a little more scripted than before his jump to front-runner status. And finally, how obvious was it that Carolyn Washburn is regretting her paper's decision to include Keyes in the debate?

Some of the candidates were asked questions about "leadership."

Giuliani, on ensuring his administration would be open to information that might not be flattering: “I would be extremely open. I’m used to it – I’m used to being analyzed.” “I’ve had both an open, transparent government and an open, transparent life.”

Romney, on whether he wants to respond to Alan Keyes’ previous answer on abortion: “I’m not sure.” (crowd laughter). Then explains his transformation from pro-choice to pro-life.

Thompson, on how he would make use of national intelligence: “”That’s probably the most important question asked today.” “You’ve got to rebuild from the bottom up.” “In the meantime, we’ve got to rely on other people,” (cites the British).

Quick analysis: Pretty shocking answer by Thompson, who not only said that American intelligence is unreliable but that we should rely on foreign intelligence until American reforms are enacted. Did he really mean that?

The candidates were asked about education and what role the federal government should play.

Tancredo: Noted his tenure working to reduce staff sized in Ronald Reagan’s Education Department. “We took the staff down to 60 … I asked anyone if they could notice a difference … no one said they could.”

Huckabee was chided for advocating expanded arts and science programs for children. On whether POTUS should be an advocate for education, Huckabee noted 30% high school drop out rates: “For a president to say that’s none of my business is unacceptable.”

Romney: Initially downplayed Huckabee’s education record as Arkansas governor, but then said there is a role for POTUS in educating, “Not just poking and saying it’s someone else’s job.”

Quick Analysis: Romney is performing well so far and taking on Huckabee without coming across as bitter or angry.

The candidates were asked to raise their hands if they believe global climate change is a serious threat caused by human activity.

Thompson: I’m not raising hands (applause from the audience)

The question then shifted to what the candidates would do instead.

McCain: “I know it’s real.” On if global warming isn't real, “All we’ve done is give our kids a cleaner world.”

Giuliani: Agreed with McCain, then, “I believe the best way to deal with climate change through energy independence.”

The question then changed to one about how much the government and economy should be used to combat climate change.

Romney: “It’s going to help our economy because we’re going to invest in new technologies to get off our dependence on foreign oil … We can do these things in a way that help both our economy and the environment.” “We call it global warming not America warming … let’s not put all the burden on us.”

Keyes: Makes his own contribution to climate change with a passionate, eloquent answer about nothing and then chides “politicians who create hot air.” He should know.

Huckabee: “The reason this issue ought to be important is that we are not owners of this world, we are stewards.”

Hunter: “Instead of mandates, I’d say incentives.” “We can produce a great new industry.”

As Mike Huckabee continues to ascend in both Iowa and national polls, so rises the level of distrust and criticism from the conservative blogosphere.

The oft-cited narrative of the Republican primary is that voters are just waiting for someone to latch onto. Rudy reflects their views on crime and foreign policy, but little else. Romney says all the right things, but hasn’t held those views long enough publicly to earn their trust. Fred Thompson seemed like a perfect fit, until he didn’t. And Huckabee, he's great, just not electable.

There are a number of significant differences between the conservative and liberal blogosphere aside from the obvious ideological gaps. The netroots are more reflective of what the Democrats’ progressive base believes in the same way that conservative talk-radio speaks to the Republican base. The overall membership of the Democratic Party is certainly more moderate, but philosophical alignment between liberal bloggers and the Democratic base is a powerful, and mostly united, front.

Meanwhile, the conservative blogosphere tends to more accurately reflect the largely diminished sentiment of fiscal conservatives. It’s a very respectable branch of political thought, and one that many disaffected voters call for a return to, but not one that dominates the party nowadays.

So, how do we evaluate the contrast between Huckabee’s rise in national polls versus his lackluster reception in the righty blogosphere?

Real Clear Politics’ John McIntyre says Huckabee has benefited because: “I suspect the voters have been very much turned off by the recent nastiness between Giuliani and Romney.”

Sounds a lot like this morning’s post on how John Edwards is potentially benefiting from the Obama-Clinton cage match.

Most conservative bloggers don’t like Huckabee’s record on fiscal issues or his opposition to torture. And they are crying foul at this Politico story today revealing that he, as of yesterday, had not yet been briefed on the latest NIE report about Iran.

All that outrage aside, I doubt any of these issues really hurt Huckabee in his quest for the nomination. Fiscal conservatives are no longer reflective of a base that has largely continued to support George Bush and congressional Republicans despite their very liberal record on spending issues over the past several years.

And Mary Katherine Ham’s cry that Huckabee needs to carry around a Blackberry to avoid missing breaking news may sound practical to Beltway pundits, but I find it hard to believe that Iowa voters will punish Huckabee for being slightly behind the curve on an evolving news story that many conservatives have rejected. If you actually read through the transcript of that Politico interview, you’ll find the substance of Huckabee’s answer was quite measured and tailored to a conservative audience, even if it didn’t come directly off a Fox News Channel email alert.

While Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama continue to earn most of the news headlines in their increasingly personal battle for Iowa, there’s an emerging theme this morning about the renewed possibility for John Edwards to wind up as the literal or symbolic victor of that battle.

First, many liberal bloggers are echoing the sentiment of the Ohio for John Edwards blog, which says of yesterday’s NPR debate:

“[A]t today's NPR debate, Hillary and Barack spend so much time sniping at one another, Edwards seemed to emerge as the voice of reason and dignity.”

And as MyDD’s Todd Beeton notes, when John Edwards finished a strong second in Iowa back in 2004, many attributed his showing to fallout from Howard Dean and Dick Gephardt’s contentious debates leading up to the caucuses:

“In 2004, the model for how the final Iowa result came about was that the two front-runners went at it, thus creating a space for a third (and fourth) guy to come up through the middle. So, I wonder, now that Clinton and Obama are going at it, why don't people expect this will play out once again to Edwards's benefit?”

That scenario certainly is plausible. After all, Edwards has hovered within the polling margin of error for most of the campaign. And while he certainly dropped under the national media radar these past few months, that may have actually played to his benefit. He’s been able to spend that "wilderness" time almost entirely focused on winning over actual Iowa voters, rather than balancing his effort there with a more nationally focused campaign.