Change is the Name of the Game

Ok, so its been a month. I've been busy! My show goes up in like, 10 days, i'm going on a retreat for it this weekend, not to mention that i was in Newport for a while.

But my life's boring (so it will be another post later). Lets get to the good stuff....politics!

I love being right, btw. I've been saying since, oh, August that people need to pay attention to Huckabee. And oh, wait, what? He won the Iowa caucuses (which are bs, but still) over a millionaire Romney by 9 points? Yeah, thats what i thought. Don't get me wrong, i don't agree with Huckabee. I think he's wrong about almost everything. But have you ever seen the man on a talk show - like Daily Show or Colbert? I want to say to him "I disagree with everything you stand for. ...But please, tell me more about what you think." He is, quite frankly, undeniably charismatic and well, likeable. And i tend to not like Republicans as a rule.

What do i think Huck & Chuck's (that would be Chuck Norris, btw) win means? Depends on New Hampshire, really. But a knee jerk reaction says that Romney has to have a stunning win, or he is over. With Romney weakened, McCain will be in good shape if he can beat Guliani in NH. And who the hell knows what Huckabee will place.

Don't get me wrong. I would love, love, if Huck got the Republican nomination. Because he could never, ever win. He's too regressive, too conservative, no matter how likable he is. It would be a Dem shoe in.

Now for the Democrats. Given how the last few weeks have gone, i'm not surprised that Clinton got 3rd (but thats misleading. There was less than half a percent difference between HRC and Edwards), and i'm not surprised that Obama won. But its still a little awesome in some ways, because Obama won by 8 points in a state that is 94% white. Here another interesting figure for you:

"Nearly 6 in 10 Democratic voters were first time Caucus goers, and 41 percent of them went to Obama." [From Politico.com]

In a year where caucus attendance among Democrats doubled, this is huge. Also, polls indicate that "Change" was the most important aspect of a candidate, and that it trumped "expierence." In this way, a vote for Obama is actually a correct one. He ain't no Baby Boomer - and i can rail on baby boomers for a long, long time, so i won't here. Suffice it to say that an Obama presidency will be less endowed with the virulent hatred that defines post-60's-Vietnam Baby Boomer politics.

Clinton's downfall has been that the Media dubbed her "the inevitable" for most of the year. And spinning a primary/caucus result is all about expectations. Now, with her loss in Iowa, expectations of her are in a reasonable place (where they were catastrophically high before). I sincerely hope she decides she doesn't have to go negative against Obama, because i believe that will only hurt her more. And everyone needs to remember, this one won't be decided until Super Tuesday (Feb. 5th), when a rather large chunk of the country will hold their Primaries all at the same time. And its entirely possible that it won't even be decided then.

But my point is that HRC is still viable on a national level...she just is being held back by the early states. Personally, i see it as Obama v. Clinton, with the edge going to Clinton (but we'll see if her national appeal is lessened after NH). I'm ignoring Edwards, who i don't care enough about to spend many words on.

Either way, i'd be happy with an Obama or Clinton Presidency, and less thrilled about an Edwards one. Just below Edwards would be McCain, then Guliani, and then after that i would shoot myself (not really, but the sentiment is there).