Iowa: The Importance of “Change”

| | Comments (1)

On Thursday night, Iowans – first in the nation to vote its presidential preference – shocked the nation with a major victory for Senator Barack Obama at 38 percent, a surprise second for former Senator John Edwards at 30 percent and Hillary Rodham Clinton dead last at 29 percent.

Voters in Iowa were shaken by the December 27th assassination of Pakistan’s former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. The violence and unrest in a key U.S. ally sobered many voters as they weighed the candidates’ ability to lead the U.S. in a dangerous world. It also restored the threat of terrorism to a once-again major issue along with voters’ economic concerns.

Now we know why Reagan and Bush I avoided Iowa. Vanished in last night’s result was Clinton’s aura of “inevitability” as the Democrats’ nominee. If she does not win BIG in the next three primaries, she’s done.

On the Republican side, as expected, ex-Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee relied on a church-based network of social conservatives and evangelical Christians to attract 34 percent of the vote. With the New Hampshire primary only days away – January 8 -- former Massachusetts’ Governor Mitt Romney who had spent heavily to achieve only 26 percent will not be able to recover in time.
Obama’s powerful and inspirational speech reflected voters longing for a new face – a symbol of change – who promises to unite our nation. But the New York Times reminds that only twice since 1976 has the same Democrat won both Iowa and New Hampshire in a contested nominating campaign. And for all the boasting that Granite-Staters do about picking presidents, both Al Gore and John Kerry went on to lose the general election.

    Comments

  1. Excellent post.

    Posted by: scriblrr | January 10, 2008 1:30 PM

Post A Comment


(for verification only; will not be published with your comment)