Hawkeye Gumbo
There's no scarcity of interesting commentary available on the results of the Iowa caucus. Of course that is in large measure because the outcome flies in the face of most of what the increasingly marginalized national (read: corporate) media has been attempting to force-feed us for so long.
In no particular order, here are some enticing leads for followup. Doubtless the streams of comments on several of these contain gems for the plucking also. Lots of food for thought. Admittedly this might strain the gorge of even a true junky!
Jane Hamsher Thursday January 3, 2008 8:04 pm:
The numbers here tonight on the Democratic side do not tell the true story. If the caucus I went to was any indication, the distribution of delegates (tallied in the percentages) did not reflect just how strong Obama's support was. I'm hearing that the situation was mirrored across the state, and that if the total number of votes were tallied it actually would've meant a double-digit lead for Obama.
In Clinton's concession speech, she already started hitting the message her campaign will undoubtedly adopt going forward -- Obama needed the help of independents and Republicans crossing over to help him, and won't be able to be as competitive in a closed Democratic primary. Because Democrats should decide who the Democratic nominee will be, after all.
Then Bill Clinton will go on Larry King and say "no matter what happens, it's good for the Democrats." Because as we learned in the Lamont race, that's how it works, right?
Not sure where Edwards goes from here. Obama clearly won the "not Hillary" vote.
People wanted change, and their votes were cast based on who they see as best embodying that change. Obama did a great job energizing the youth vote. But the big winner -- Huckabee. The Republicans are eating their own livers on Fox news over his route. The success of his underdog populism is gonna shake the GOP to its core.
----------------------------------------
emptywheel Thursday January 3, 2008 7:16 pm:
Many of you no doubt disagree. But I'm not crying about an Obama victory (then again, I wouldn't have been crying about an Edwards or Clinton win, either).
But here are the details that I think are most important.
Crazy, record turnout--reportedly well over 200,000. And reportedly, perhaps two-to-one for Dems, compared to the Republicans.
Crazy, record turnout among youth.
Crazy, record turnout among women (MSNBC just announced that Obama actually beat Hillary among women).
I don't care who you support--this crazy record turnout is nothing but a huge win for Democrats.
(Four years later and I still sound like goddamned Howard Dean, bless his soul.)
And among Republicans? Some 45% voted against corporatist America. Add that to Edwards' turnout, and you've got a solid majority sick of government by the corporation, for the corporation...
Update: One more point. It's been decades since I took a math class. But by my calculations, 29% of 220,000 (Hillary's results) is significantly more than 34% of 120,000 (Huck's results), right? If my math is correct, we just elected three Presidents to one for the Republicans.
----------------------------------------
Greenwald Friday January 4, 2008 10:46 EST
Worthless chatter
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:
Joe Klein, Time, December 31, 2007: Huckabust Des Moines
Just when you think the Republican presidential race can't get weirder...Mike Huckabee holds a press conference here to announce that he'd just made a last minute decision not to air a negative TV ad slamming Romney.
That sound you hear rumbling out of Des Moines appears to be a monumental implosion
Mike Allen, The Politico, January 1, 2008: The national political press corps, which has been wishy-washy and all over the map all cycle had a harmonic convergence yesterday on a single point: Huckabee lost it at his news conference yesterday. "It" being both his stature and, perhaps, the first nominating contest. As pointed out by a colleague, as Huckabee falls back from the number above (which history suggests is more likely than not), the pundits and stories are going to blame it on what Slate's John Dickerson immediately called "Huckabee's Nutty Flip-Flop."
Reporters are wondering aloud if it was "his Howard Dean moment."
Dean Barnett, The Weekly Standard, December 24, 2007: I COME NOT TO bury Mike Huckabee. Mike Huckabee has buried himself. Over the next week, the Republican party in Iowa and elsewhere will decide that Huckabee may be a swell fellow, but he's not of presidential timbre. I predict this decision will be made en masse. Huckabee's support will likely crater in Iowa.
But here's the fun part--no one will see it coming. . . . If Huckabee declines to a distant second or perhaps even third place as I am now fearlessly predicting he will, it will catch the voting public by surprise.
Jonathan Martin, The Politico, December 31, 2007: Huckabee has found himself under the unforgiving glare of the front-runner's spotlight, and his hopes to win here have now become severely threatened by it. . . .
Huckabee's slide can be explained by a series of inter-related factors. His rise came right as the media began to closely cover the campaign, he and his undermanned campaign organization have been ill-prepared to push back against broadsides from both the media and Romney, and his positions and rhetoric have drawn the enmity of a constellation of groups within the conservative establishment.
Hugh Hewitt, December 28, 2007: Romney is fighting a two-front political war. And he is winning.Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds, December 20, 2007:
THAT DOESN'T SEEM SMART: Huckabee insider disses Rush Limbaugh. . . . [December 21]: LIMBAUGH GOES AFTER HUCKABEE: I told you attacking him was a bad idea.
-clip-
----------------------------------------
Blue Texan Friday January 4, 2008 7:01 am
The first thing I did when NBC called Iowa for Huck was I started laughing. After that, I started looking around the wingnutosphere for prime reax to share.
I was not disappointed.
Pantload: Lots of evangelicals voting for a Baptist minister? In a Republican primary in Iowa?! Wow, never saw that one coming!
Steyn: Why, it's just all about him being Christian! I am shocked, shocked to see this kind of identity politics in the GOP.
Ace: It's depressing that Huckabee's obviously a liar and a cheater but won just because he's Christian. Screw this.
Hemingway: Hrmph. How did all those pro-life Democrats vote infiltrate our caucus? Grrrrrrr.
K-Lo: It means nothing! Nothing, I say! Nothing!!!
Powertools: I can't believe a tacky big-spending foreign policy moron just won Iowa.
TigerHawk: Not helpful. A win for Osama.
I just can't wait to hear from Peggy, Charles, Robert, Rushbo, and the rest of the wingnut Huck haters.
----------------------------------------
Tristero Thursday, January 03, 2008 Strange Days
Back in '04, right around the time Judge Roy Moore was forced off the bench during the Ten Commandments nonsense, there were rumors he would run for president on a third party. I wrote a snarky blogpost urging that he do just that, as he would siphon votes away from the Republicans. Dave Neiwert, who really knows what he's talking about when it comes to the dangers of rightwing extremism of all kinds set me straight:
Liberals may cheer Moore on because he can do to Bush what Nader did to Gore...
However, this may be a case of getting what we ask for. Moore's candidacy not only could expand the Constitution Party's reach, it could bring its extremist brand of politics into even closer contact with the broader conservative mainstream -- and all that implies...
Republicans are obviously hoping Moore doesn't run. Democrats, if they're wise, should hope the same. The monster that would result might not be worth the short-term gain. In other words, religious extremists and rightwing nutjobs should have no place in American national politics. While their candidacies may be doomed, there lie monsters.
Which brings us to the genuinely repellent topic of Michael Huckabee. The fact that he won the Iowa caucus chills me to the bone. This is a ruthless, ignorant, and dangerously opportunistic fanatic who is so unqualified for the presidency that no one in the media should have returned his calls. And they still shouldn't.
This is a man so bereft of character he actively worked to free a serial rapist, a seriously deranged sociopath who had also been directly involved in a brutal murder. And why did Huckabee proactively seek Wayne Dumond's freedom? For one reason only: Because his release had become a rightwing cause celebre. Sure enough, soon after Huckabee's efforts succeeded in returning Dumond to the outside world, Dumond raped and murdered at least one, if not two women.
Huckabee's championing of Dumond's release - Huckabee never read the court documents or appeals from Dumond's victims - is enough to demonstrate that he has neither the judgment or moral character to be a dog catcher, let alone president. But since then, Huckabee has made it his business repeatedly to lie about his involvement in Dumond's release - which would never have happened without his efforts. So let's not mince words here:
Huckabee is hardly a better candidate for president than Wayne Dumond himself would be, if he were still alive.
-clip-
----------------------------------------
Tristero January 04, 2008 Strange Days, Take Two
Apparently, the point of this post [ed: Strange Days, above] was unclear. Numerous commenters responded with something like "Huckabee has zero chance of winning in November. Therefore, tristero, what's yer problem? It's great he won; it will make trouncing Republicans that much easier and sweeter." So I'll try again and try to be more focused.
Of course, Huckabee will lose a general election. But in the process of losing, maybe even by a landslide, the worst subculture of rightwing extremists and religious fanatics may very well gain a mainstream audience and an influence over that audience that makes their current reach look trivial. Let's not forget, folks, that the current "conservative movement" is traced to Goldwater's landslide defeat.
That is a very real risk and the reason I cannot muster any snarky whoops at Huckabee's win in Iowa.
Now, at least one commenter pointed out that all the GOP contenders are equally awful, implying that the great thing about Huckabee is that he would be uniquely weak in a general election, and therefore his win in Iowa is great news.
That viewpoint represents a failure to recognize the uniquely dangerous qualities of Huckabee and the reasons why you would really, really want to prevent him and his followers from gaining any more national attention. Here's one: There are extremely good reasons why this country's founders went out of their way to discourage the kinds of bald appeals to religious exclusion Huckabee wallows in.
Yes, Huckabee deserves contempt for his truly bad character. With his ignorance, incompetence, and provincialism he shames people like the great Wayne Henderson who represent the rural white South with integrity. Certainly, Huckabee's ideas and behavior deserve to be mocked, ridiculed, laughed at, parodied, and skewered, He should be ignored when he's not being sneered at. And the more creative we all are, the more in your face, the better.
But to applaud his ascent to the very center of the political life of the most powerful country on earth? No. The specific movement Huckabee represents is far too dangerous for that.
In no particular order, here are some enticing leads for followup. Doubtless the streams of comments on several of these contain gems for the plucking also. Lots of food for thought. Admittedly this might strain the gorge of even a true junky!
Jane Hamsher Thursday January 3, 2008 8:04 pm:
The numbers here tonight on the Democratic side do not tell the true story. If the caucus I went to was any indication, the distribution of delegates (tallied in the percentages) did not reflect just how strong Obama's support was. I'm hearing that the situation was mirrored across the state, and that if the total number of votes were tallied it actually would've meant a double-digit lead for Obama.
In Clinton's concession speech, she already started hitting the message her campaign will undoubtedly adopt going forward -- Obama needed the help of independents and Republicans crossing over to help him, and won't be able to be as competitive in a closed Democratic primary. Because Democrats should decide who the Democratic nominee will be, after all.
Then Bill Clinton will go on Larry King and say "no matter what happens, it's good for the Democrats." Because as we learned in the Lamont race, that's how it works, right?
Not sure where Edwards goes from here. Obama clearly won the "not Hillary" vote.
People wanted change, and their votes were cast based on who they see as best embodying that change. Obama did a great job energizing the youth vote. But the big winner -- Huckabee. The Republicans are eating their own livers on Fox news over his route. The success of his underdog populism is gonna shake the GOP to its core.
----------------------------------------
emptywheel Thursday January 3, 2008 7:16 pm:
Many of you no doubt disagree. But I'm not crying about an Obama victory (then again, I wouldn't have been crying about an Edwards or Clinton win, either).
But here are the details that I think are most important.
Crazy, record turnout--reportedly well over 200,000. And reportedly, perhaps two-to-one for Dems, compared to the Republicans.
Crazy, record turnout among youth.
Crazy, record turnout among women (MSNBC just announced that Obama actually beat Hillary among women).
I don't care who you support--this crazy record turnout is nothing but a huge win for Democrats.
(Four years later and I still sound like goddamned Howard Dean, bless his soul.)
And among Republicans? Some 45% voted against corporatist America. Add that to Edwards' turnout, and you've got a solid majority sick of government by the corporation, for the corporation...
Update: One more point. It's been decades since I took a math class. But by my calculations, 29% of 220,000 (Hillary's results) is significantly more than 34% of 120,000 (Huck's results), right? If my math is correct, we just elected three Presidents to one for the Republicans.
----------------------------------------
Greenwald Friday January 4, 2008 10:46 EST
Worthless chatter
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:
Joe Klein, Time, December 31, 2007: Huckabust Des Moines
Just when you think the Republican presidential race can't get weirder...Mike Huckabee holds a press conference here to announce that he'd just made a last minute decision not to air a negative TV ad slamming Romney.
That sound you hear rumbling out of Des Moines appears to be a monumental implosion
Mike Allen, The Politico, January 1, 2008: The national political press corps, which has been wishy-washy and all over the map all cycle had a harmonic convergence yesterday on a single point: Huckabee lost it at his news conference yesterday. "It" being both his stature and, perhaps, the first nominating contest. As pointed out by a colleague, as Huckabee falls back from the number above (which history suggests is more likely than not), the pundits and stories are going to blame it on what Slate's John Dickerson immediately called "Huckabee's Nutty Flip-Flop."
Reporters are wondering aloud if it was "his Howard Dean moment."
Dean Barnett, The Weekly Standard, December 24, 2007: I COME NOT TO bury Mike Huckabee. Mike Huckabee has buried himself. Over the next week, the Republican party in Iowa and elsewhere will decide that Huckabee may be a swell fellow, but he's not of presidential timbre. I predict this decision will be made en masse. Huckabee's support will likely crater in Iowa.
But here's the fun part--no one will see it coming. . . . If Huckabee declines to a distant second or perhaps even third place as I am now fearlessly predicting he will, it will catch the voting public by surprise.
Jonathan Martin, The Politico, December 31, 2007: Huckabee has found himself under the unforgiving glare of the front-runner's spotlight, and his hopes to win here have now become severely threatened by it. . . .
Huckabee's slide can be explained by a series of inter-related factors. His rise came right as the media began to closely cover the campaign, he and his undermanned campaign organization have been ill-prepared to push back against broadsides from both the media and Romney, and his positions and rhetoric have drawn the enmity of a constellation of groups within the conservative establishment.
Hugh Hewitt, December 28, 2007: Romney is fighting a two-front political war. And he is winning.Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds, December 20, 2007:
THAT DOESN'T SEEM SMART: Huckabee insider disses Rush Limbaugh. . . . [December 21]: LIMBAUGH GOES AFTER HUCKABEE: I told you attacking him was a bad idea.
-clip-
----------------------------------------
Blue Texan Friday January 4, 2008 7:01 am
The first thing I did when NBC called Iowa for Huck was I started laughing. After that, I started looking around the wingnutosphere for prime reax to share.
I was not disappointed.
Pantload: Lots of evangelicals voting for a Baptist minister? In a Republican primary in Iowa?! Wow, never saw that one coming!
Steyn: Why, it's just all about him being Christian! I am shocked, shocked to see this kind of identity politics in the GOP.
Ace: It's depressing that Huckabee's obviously a liar and a cheater but won just because he's Christian. Screw this.
Hemingway: Hrmph. How did all those pro-life Democrats vote infiltrate our caucus? Grrrrrrr.
K-Lo: It means nothing! Nothing, I say! Nothing!!!
Powertools: I can't believe a tacky big-spending foreign policy moron just won Iowa.
TigerHawk: Not helpful. A win for Osama.
I just can't wait to hear from Peggy, Charles, Robert, Rushbo, and the rest of the wingnut Huck haters.
----------------------------------------
Tristero Thursday, January 03, 2008 Strange Days
Back in '04, right around the time Judge Roy Moore was forced off the bench during the Ten Commandments nonsense, there were rumors he would run for president on a third party. I wrote a snarky blogpost urging that he do just that, as he would siphon votes away from the Republicans. Dave Neiwert, who really knows what he's talking about when it comes to the dangers of rightwing extremism of all kinds set me straight:
Liberals may cheer Moore on because he can do to Bush what Nader did to Gore...
However, this may be a case of getting what we ask for. Moore's candidacy not only could expand the Constitution Party's reach, it could bring its extremist brand of politics into even closer contact with the broader conservative mainstream -- and all that implies...
Republicans are obviously hoping Moore doesn't run. Democrats, if they're wise, should hope the same. The monster that would result might not be worth the short-term gain. In other words, religious extremists and rightwing nutjobs should have no place in American national politics. While their candidacies may be doomed, there lie monsters.
Which brings us to the genuinely repellent topic of Michael Huckabee. The fact that he won the Iowa caucus chills me to the bone. This is a ruthless, ignorant, and dangerously opportunistic fanatic who is so unqualified for the presidency that no one in the media should have returned his calls. And they still shouldn't.
This is a man so bereft of character he actively worked to free a serial rapist, a seriously deranged sociopath who had also been directly involved in a brutal murder. And why did Huckabee proactively seek Wayne Dumond's freedom? For one reason only: Because his release had become a rightwing cause celebre. Sure enough, soon after Huckabee's efforts succeeded in returning Dumond to the outside world, Dumond raped and murdered at least one, if not two women.
Huckabee's championing of Dumond's release - Huckabee never read the court documents or appeals from Dumond's victims - is enough to demonstrate that he has neither the judgment or moral character to be a dog catcher, let alone president. But since then, Huckabee has made it his business repeatedly to lie about his involvement in Dumond's release - which would never have happened without his efforts. So let's not mince words here:
Huckabee is hardly a better candidate for president than Wayne Dumond himself would be, if he were still alive.
-clip-
----------------------------------------
Tristero January 04, 2008 Strange Days, Take Two
Apparently, the point of this post [ed: Strange Days, above] was unclear. Numerous commenters responded with something like "Huckabee has zero chance of winning in November. Therefore, tristero, what's yer problem? It's great he won; it will make trouncing Republicans that much easier and sweeter." So I'll try again and try to be more focused.
Of course, Huckabee will lose a general election. But in the process of losing, maybe even by a landslide, the worst subculture of rightwing extremists and religious fanatics may very well gain a mainstream audience and an influence over that audience that makes their current reach look trivial. Let's not forget, folks, that the current "conservative movement" is traced to Goldwater's landslide defeat.
That is a very real risk and the reason I cannot muster any snarky whoops at Huckabee's win in Iowa.
Now, at least one commenter pointed out that all the GOP contenders are equally awful, implying that the great thing about Huckabee is that he would be uniquely weak in a general election, and therefore his win in Iowa is great news.
That viewpoint represents a failure to recognize the uniquely dangerous qualities of Huckabee and the reasons why you would really, really want to prevent him and his followers from gaining any more national attention. Here's one: There are extremely good reasons why this country's founders went out of their way to discourage the kinds of bald appeals to religious exclusion Huckabee wallows in.
Yes, Huckabee deserves contempt for his truly bad character. With his ignorance, incompetence, and provincialism he shames people like the great Wayne Henderson who represent the rural white South with integrity. Certainly, Huckabee's ideas and behavior deserve to be mocked, ridiculed, laughed at, parodied, and skewered, He should be ignored when he's not being sneered at. And the more creative we all are, the more in your face, the better.
But to applaud his ascent to the very center of the political life of the most powerful country on earth? No. The specific movement Huckabee represents is far too dangerous for that.
posted by Sir Gumbo at 11:11 PM
0 comments
