My thinking going into the Iowa caucuses was that it didn't matter who won so much as how much they won by. Now, with most votes tallied, it is turning out that size does indeed matter because Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee emerged victorious by margins wide enough to make the first-in-the-nation primary significant.
Iowa sometimes can be dismissed. It's unions and cause activists on the Democratic side and Christian evangelicals for Republicans. But this year Iowa could have a major impact on the thinking of voters in future states.
The winners:
-- Obama. His mostly positive message and inspiring manner obviously registered with voters. He's narrowed a big lead by Hillary Clinton in the New Hampshire polls since mid-November to manageable levels. The Iowa win means momentum and probably fresh campaign funds to take his campaign deep into next month.
-- Huckabee. In a campaign in which Republicans have been desperately looking for alternatives to the presumed front-runners, the former Arkansas governor managed to fill the bill, at least here. Pollster Frank Luntz the past couple nights has reported on Fox News that voters in Iowa consistently told him that they were impressed by Huckabee as the person most like them. Like Obama, he's in position to capitalize. While still a non-factor in New Hampshire, he's surged ahead in South Carolina and has closed to narrow margins behind Rudy Giuliani in Michigan and Florida.
-- Fred Thompson. After it appeared for the past month or so that he was fading, the former Tennessee senator came in third in Iowa, barely beating out John McCain. He's a player in South Carolina. If he can hold out until Super Tuesday, he could gain support when the bloom comes off of opposing roses.
-- We the people. The political elite wanted to crown Clinton and certainly want nothing to do with Huckabee, who comes to the campaign with some big ideas -- good and bad -- that would shake up the way things are done in D.C. The candidates with the plain talk and the inspiring message won because we wanted it that way.
The losers:
-- Clinton. Iowa voters knocked her into third place. In a pie sliced three ways, she got by far the smallest piece. In a year when people want the plain unvarnished truth, as mentioned in the last winner entry, Iowans ruled that she's a fish out of water. Now the pressure is on to blunt Obama's momentum by New Hampshire, hopefully, or South Carolina, absolutely, or she's toast.
-- Bill Richardson. The New Mexico governor was running for the vice-presidency all along but barely managed two percent of the vote. Plus, the office he was shooting for was under Hillary, and she's in trouble. So is he.
-- Mitt Romney. The Massachusetts governor put all his marbles in Iowa and New Hampshire. He lost the first by nine percentage points and is now behind John McCain by significant margins in the most recent three polls in the second -- and was tied with the Arizona senator in the two polls prior. Lose one and he still has a pulse. Lose both and he's six feet under. Like Hillary, voters don't think they're getting the straight story from him. Too slick by half.
-- The political elite in D.C. and Manhattan. As mentioned earlier, they didn't get what they wanted, they did get something they didn't want.
-- Hugh Hewitt. The nationally syndicated talk show host, who otherwise has a very informative program from an evangelical Christian perspective, pimped Romney and led the media assault against Huckabee. He lost this round.
Iowa generally is important for intangible things like starting the election year with momentum, credibility and visibility, and the more tangible fundraising reward. The actual award of delegates doesn't mean a lot. Obama and Huckabee get a lot of each after larger-than-expected victories.
---
As much as it's true that Huckabee's "he's like me" appeal to voters made the difference in Iowa, do we really want someone like ourselves in office in these times?
While I'm cautiously optimistic regarding national security and the economy entering this year, we obviously have major challenges in both areas. We need an exceptional leader to carry our nation through the next four or eight years, not someone like us.
Huckabee, for all his good qualities, does not strike me as an exceptional leader. Obama seems to be someone who could be, given time and experience. Clinton, no. Thompson, no. Romney has it, but voters are starting to tell us they think he carries too much baggage. Giuliani, the same on both counts.
Now toward New Hampshire, after which I'll probably write an entry on results diametrically opposed to what we received from Iowa. Welcome to the real election year.
