Giuliani and Edwards

Another two candidates have dropped out of the race for the White House. One was expected, the other one a bit of a shock. The expected one first. Giuliani now knows how Al Gore feels. He lost this campaign in large measure because of his strategists. I think there was the sense that, much like Mitt Romney, Giuliani would not go over well in the coffee shops of Iowa and New Hampshire. Running for Mayor of New York involves shockingly little retail politics for a municipal position. Giuliani doesn't know how to do it and frankly wouldn't be good at it. You didn't want a lot of tough questions and intense scrutiny of some of those not so Republican ideas of his. Having said that, Romney is still alive having fought and lost in Iowa and New Hampshire and Giuiliani is done. The lesson here is that even if it hurts (and losing both hurt Romney) you have to campaign in the holy states of American politics. The impact of Giuliani's exit and support for McCain at the polls may be minimal. However, Giuliani was the best fundraiser the Republicans had. McCain had such significant fundraising issues that he had to lay-off his staff in the summer due to insufficient funds. Romney's been paying for this largely from his own savings, something not even he can sustain. Huckabee has been unable to open the church coffers. Paul has had some success but none of the other candidates want any part of Ron Paul or his money. For the first time in at least thirty years the Democrats have a commanding lead in the fundraising department. Clinton's war chest is legendary and Obama keeps churning it out (CNN's reporting 32 million in January alone!). Giuiliani may have been the only candidate able to spend like a Democrat in the national election. The Republicans with 5 senate vacancies to defend and more house vacancies then they want to count are looking for their presidential candidate to rake in some hay. I don't know that either of the remaining front runners have that potential. In other words, the largest beneficiary of the Giuliani loss may be Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

Edwards impact is very different. First of all, why he didn't go to the floor and play king maker, I don't know. Perhaps he couldn't pay for it financially. Maybe he decided to spend some time with his wife who is battling cancer yet again (never a good sign) instead of running a hopeless campaign. At any rate, he's out. The question becomes who was supporting John Edwards? Was it a) people looking for change (i.e. not Hillary), b) people looking for policy and experience (i.e. not Obama) or c) people who just liked John Edwards (i.e. will likely now stay home). My guess is that his support is about 50% a, 30% b and 20% c. It's a complete guess. However, if accurate, it would be good news for Obama. The difference between Obama and Clinton in most of the Super Tuesday states is covered by Edwards' support. This changes the dynamic dramatically. A two horse race (apologies to the stubborn Mike Gravel) is a different kettle of fish (if I may mix my metaphors). It allows for a lot more negative campaigning (there's only one other option so criticizing one automatically boosts the other). It also narrows the focus. The PR nature of the Democratic primary selection means that in terms of delegates we will not have a nominee on Super Tuesday. However, if one candidate manages to win a vast majority of the states (irregardless of margin and therefore delegate count), the perception may be enough to name a winner. I'd be surprised if that happens at this point.

A Little Absurdity

I don't know how many of you caught this story. The long and short of it is that the local chapter of the National Organization for Women in New York has criticized Ted Kennedy saying,

"We are repaid with his abandonment. He's picked the new guy over us. He's joined the list of progressive white men who can't or won't handle the prospect of a woman president who is Hillary Clinton."

Given this All Politics is Local is happy to provide like criticisms of other presidential candidates' supporters:
(NOTE: THIS IS A JOKE)

The NAACP responds to Wesley Clark's endorsement of Hillary Clinton:

Mr. Clark's endorsement of Hillary Clinton is a betrayal. The NAACP has stood by Mr. Clark throughout his career and is shocked by Mr. Clark's betrayal. The fact that he would pick a white person over Barack Obama proves that he is just not comfortable with the idea of an African-American president. For shame.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints responds to Chuck Norris' endorsement of Mike Huckabee:

How could you Chuck? We supported you throughout your career. We've watched all 99 episodes of Walker: Texas Ranger and this how you repay us? Clearly, this demonstrates that you are just uncomfortable with the idea of a Mormon president. Your endorsement of Mike Huckabee over Mitt Romney proves that you are in fact a bigot. You are no longer welcome in Utah.

AWOL

I really hope there was a damn good reason that my school trustee missed the vote on black-focused schools yesterday. If anyone knows why Cathy Dandy was AWOL, please leave me a comment. This was probably the most important vote the board has taken since it refused to balance its budget under the Tories. Barring major illness or a death in the family there is simply no excuse to miss this vote. By the way, this is a horrible decision. A major step backwards. John Tory was wrong when he proposed giving government money to ethnically divide our schools. The 11 members of the board are wrong. I hope this dies in the bureaucracy.

Follow the Money

In my efforts to better gauge support on the ground in Super Tuesday states I have raided CNN's handy-dandy campaign contribution maps to find the leader in donations for each party in each state. Note: these numbers reflect last year's contributions only. No momentum from the early races here. Thus, Huckabee has no money. Also, just because they raised a lot in a given state doesn't mean they are spending it there. A lot of this money has gone into the contests already finished. What fundraising does demonstrate is some sort of local organization (with the exception of the internet based Paul campaign).

Without further ado here's the list of the states each candidate leads the money race in:

Democrats:

Clinton: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Georgia, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York and Oklahoma

Obama: Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Massachusetts, Missouri, North Dakota, Tennessee and Utah

Edwards: Alabama

Republicans:

Romney: California, Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Missouri, Montana, Tennessee, Utah

Giuliani: Alabama, Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, West Virginia

McCain: Arizona, Minnnesota

Huckabee: Arkansas

Paul: North Dakota

The Democratic side is fairly predictable and not all that surprising. The Republican side is worth paying attention to. McCain has all the momentum but does not have much money in the bank. Huckabee had almost no ground game in these states (most of his numbers are under $10,000). It will be interesting to see if he has been able to catch up in a month. Giuliani is nowhere in the polls but has more money than McCain and Huckabee combined. Politically, Giuliani may be forced out after Florida. Economically, he can live to fight another week. Unlike the rest of the candidates, Giuliani spent a relatively small amount in the early states leaving him lots of money for Super Tuesday. This was Giuliani's strategy.

Wide Open

The nomination of the Democratic party for the presidency of the United States is anyone's game. Barack Obama won an overwhelming victory in South Carolina last night. The next Democratic primaries of consequence occur on Super Tuesday (Florida, like Michigan, has been disenfranchised). Obama and Clinton both face real challenges if they are to win the White House. Obama is behind. Recent polls in many of the big Super Tuesday states show him well back of Hillary. Obama needs to translate what has been an effective ground campaign into an effective national campaign. If I was advising the Obama campaign I would tell them not to try to take Hillary head on in New York and California. There are some states that should play well for Obama and he should focus on winning those. There are only two states where Obama is ahead in the recent state wide poll: Illinois and Georgia. Illinois is a non-issue and requires little attention. Georgia should be bolstered by his win in South Carolina. Alabama was close (3 points) in the most recent poll and should also be a target. Obama should also be out beating the bushes out West. Arizona and California may be lost causes but Idaho, Colorado, Utah and New Mexico are all in play. Obama did well in rural Nevada and may be able to carry that success forward.

The Clinton strategy is all about holding on for dear life. Clinton needs to make sure the leads she has don't disappear once Barack Obama starts actively campaigning. Clinton has a national network at her disposal and is going to have to use it. She was in Tennessee last night and it states like it (where she holds leads in states that look vulnerable) that Hillary's fate will be determined.

Edwards' strategy at this point is a bit of a mystery. He is clearly no longer a viable candidate for the presidency. My guess is that he's hoping that this race will go to the convention floor where he could play the role of king maker. This would mean keeping both Obama and Clinton under the magic number of delegates. I don't know that he even has the support do this.

Quick hits

Some thoughts and suggestions as you browse the interweb:

• Electoral-Vote has a great piece today on how the conventions actually work. In general, it is one of the most reliable sources of Presidential and Congressional races out there.
• Social Credit is back in vogue in the United States. All aboard the quick boat to hell because that's where this economy is heading. Seriously, your best idea on how to fix the economy is giving everybody a cheque? This was bi-partisan!!!! Heaven help us.
  
• More big promises with lots of smoke and mirrors on the environment from the EU. Ok, all countries that already produce a lot of renewable energy will have high targets. Those that don't will have low targets. See, if you set the bar low enough, even Bulgaria can get over! Of course, if you really want to you could always build the power plant in Eastern Europe and have the power go into the West. I love EU rhetoric on the environment but their actions are pathetic.
  
• By the way, a few months back I posted on the importance of air conditioning in meeting or more accurately not meeting Kyoto Targets. I did the math thanks to the government's website, it looks to my calculations that about 3% of Canada's emissions growth is due to residential and commercial cooling. That might not sound like much but think about it this way. That's about 5.6 Megatonnes of C02 per year. That's over 300% more than in 1990. Residential and commercial lighting (which has become the first front in the war against climate change) has increased by about 0.9 Megatonnes. The other big non-industrial culprit? Well, you're using one: computers.
• I'm pulling for Obama in South Carolina. I don't know that there's much between him and Clinton but isn't it nicer listening to him?
• Giuliani's radical strategy is producing expected results. I don't expect his campaign manager to be working in November.
• If anyone cares, I'm backing the OYL Roots team at the meeting in March.
• For the no readers I actually have at Queen's University I am unlikely to vote in the upcoming AMS elections. Two reasons. One, I don't have class Tuesday or Wednesday and making a special trip to vote in an election that won't affect me when I graduate in April doesn't seem worth it. Two, the most inspiring platform belongs to the joke team which isn't on the ballot. The AMS is big government at its worst. If anyone wants to know how to lose money selling alcohol to students, ask the AMS. Pathetic. Four years of different executives with identical results.
• Fred Thompson has dropped out of the Republican race. Now, if someone could wake the Senator and tell him the news we can proceed with our regularly scheduled programming.
• Speaking of regularly scheduled programming. How y'all liking the reality TV-a-thon that is prime time TV? Yay for corporate greed and internet piracy!

PR Continues to Fail Italy

Another Italian parliament has bitten the dust under the weight of their broken electoral system.

Manley's Musings

I have been perusing John Manley's report on Afghanistan. Manley argues that the Afghan mission is important for four reasons:

1. Counter-Terrorism
2. Bolster the UN
3. Support NATO
4. Help the Afghan People

I get point 1 and point 4. The middle two are a little bit of a stretch. The United Nations is not going to live or die by the Afghan mission. While the mission is UN authorized, this is NATO's baby. If the UN wanted to help Afghanistan it could try to get more troops from non-NATO countries. The third point bothers me because outside of the United States and occasionally the UK no one else in NATO cares enough about this mission to risk lives. France, Germany et al. are content to let Canadians die. I support an active Canadian presence in NATO. However, there is a major difference between participating in a mission and getting the proverbial shaft. Canadian troops right now are getting the latter. Canadians should be equal partners not cannon fodder. Mr. Manley recommends that we make our extension conditional upon getting more assistance from our NATO allies. If the mission is important and worthwhile our extension should be unconditional. If not, we should pull out. Our European allies will not change their minds because of a Canadian ultimatum. For the Germans and French (the two most capable armies), such a change would mark a major shift in foreign policy. We simply do not have that kind of power.

Manley then argues that Canadians should stay in Kandahar past 2009 because there is no strategic reason to exit earlier. Mr. Manley is confident that the Afghan National Army will at some point be able to step up so we can step down. I can not share his optimism. I do not foresee the day when Hamid Karzai is going to call up the Prime Minister and say, "we've got this now, you guys can head home." The insurgency is strengthening year by year. The poppy trade grows exponentially. All this, and the Afghan government remains little more than a Kabul based neighbourhood watch.

Seventy-seven brave Canadian soldiers have lost their lives in Afghanistan. This fact is barely mentioned in Mr. Manley's report. This remains the crux of the matter. To quote, "How many deaths will it take 'til he knows that too many people have died?" I am reminded of The Simpsons episode where Homer is slowly sinking in tar and attempts to extricate himself. Mr. Manley's recommendations are akin to trying to get your arms out with your mouth. While it would be tragic to leave Afghanistan again to its own decay and devastation, it is simply not within our military powers to help. Our soldiers may be able to pacify one area for a few months as long as they maintain a presence. However, it is simply not reasonable for our troops to try to hold down the fort forever. We can and should help Afghanistan in other ways. Our aid agencies are at work on the ground and should continue that work. Canada has a good reputation in assisting fledgling democracies with the institutions requisite for effective government and we should play that role in Afghanistan. We should assist the UN in its health and social development projects. The only way to end the insurgency is to make it clear that a peaceful, democratic, prosperous Afghanistan is not only the inevitable future but also in the clear best interests of all Afghans. We cannot achieve that goal with bullets and bombs.

I commend Mr. Manley and his team for many of his recommendations. I agree that we need to be pushing for more help from our NATO allies and other partners. I am weary, for the reasons noted above and others, of the chances of our success. I agree that more effort should be placed on development. However, on the crucial question Mr. Manley has bought into the false promise of state-building and imperial counter-insurgencies. To quote Ogden Nash, "Man is a victim of dope, in the incurable form of hope." Mr. Manley is no exception. It is tragic that Canadian soldiers will die for his false optimism. At the end of the day, the Government of Canada must act in the best interests of Canadians. Our duty as a people and a government to aid others around the world does not extend to instances where the Canadian national interest is being sacrificed. The lives of our citizens must come first. Seventy-seven deaths are too many, the cost has become too high. It is time to leave Kandahar with our heads held high, knowing that for the past six years we have fought for the people of Afghanistan and given them a chance for a better life.

Monday Thoughts

Quick thoughts on the start of this new week:

• Don Wittman was a great broadcaster. He will be missed by all Canadian sports fans.
• I'm getting really tired of the debate over hand guns and Toronto. Of course they should be banned. Will it change anything? Probably not. It's like the ban on heroin. It doesn't stop heroin but it does make it a little harder to access.
• Good editorial from the Star today about racially divided scholing. I agree. It's a desperate idea and not a good one. We absolutely have a major problem. Segregation is definitely not the answer.
  
• Brady plays badly and the Pats still win? I give you your Super Bowl Champs. It will be a game but Brady has had his one bad game. He's not going to miss against the Giants.
• A huge win for Eli and the boys up at Lambeau field. Winning on the frozen tundra in January is no easy feat. Their reward? See above.
• The right is reorganizing itself again in Alberta. Not an issue in the next election I wouldn't think. However, if Stelmach continues to bleed support, we could see this new Wildrose Alliance Party making a play. Kind of like the Québec Solidaire. Could be something, but isn't quite there yet. I'm sure that comparison would make members of both parties shudder.
• I disagree with Cherniak on local nominations. Yes, instant members are not reliable partisans. However, the ability to sign up instant members and get them to vote for you at a nomination is a good facsimile of a candidate's ability to recruit volunteers and voters. Much like university skills are not horribly relevant in most work places but are still a valuable asset, nomination skills, while not directly transferable, are a good predictor of success. Also, appointing candidates gives your opponents a free cheap shot. "My opponent? She's the Ottawa choice. I am the local here." Does a leader have the right to appoint? Sure. Should he (or she)? No.
  
• We are rapidly approaching 4,000 dead Americans in Iraq. The deaths on September 11th were just under 3,000. The two events are not all that related but it does give you a sense of scale.
• This is folly. There simply is not sufficient transit to try to force people out of their cars. Get on the TTC in rush hour. There isn't much room left. We need more public transit infrastructure before we start imposing tolls.
  

Nevada and South Carolina

Results are in from the latest caucuses and primary. On the Democratic side Hillary Clinton eked out a victory over Barack Obama. The real story here (given the almost identical delegate count of Clinton and Obama) is that John Edwards is done. He says he is going to stay on in spite of getting an abysmal 4% of the vote. In my opinion, the Nevada result is a more accurate gauge of Edwards' national popularity. Edwards did well in Iowa and New Hampshire because he was able to revive the infrastructure he had from his 2004 run. Without the organizational advantage, the campaign collapsed. Now, he may still do well in his native South Carolina (he was born there but later moved to North Carolina), but his campaign is over. This is a two horse race from here on in.

On the Republican side, Romney continued to show that he is the man to beat nationally with his win in Nevada. Much like the Democratic race, Nevada involved little of the retail politics of Iowa, New Hampshire or South Carolina. This meant that Romney's money paid off handsomely. The real question is can Romney actually fundraise. He may be able to pay for the Republican nomination by himself, the presidency is a much more expensive kettle of fish. However, no other Republican seems able to get their name out without a long intensive ground war. John McCain, facing a problem similar to John Edwards, garnered only 13% of the vote. Mike Huckabee who has almost no money was a distant fourth at 8.2%. Ron Paul continued his strange and fascinating run, picking up his first second place finish. Rudy Giuliani still believes that he can compete with Romney in an air war but he may have kept his powder dry a little too long. There are only so many sixth place finishes a candidate can take.

In South Carolina, the Republicans had a completely different result. Those who argue that Romney will never win the nomination can point to South Carolina with confidence. There, John McCain, with no Karl Rove to attack him, exorcised his 2000 ghosts and held off Mike Huckabee for the win. South Carolina is the first state from the South to vote and is thus crucial in reading the Republican Base. Iowa and New Hampshire are swing states and Nevada, while traditionally Republican has in the past and may in the future vote for a Democrat. South Carolina is as red as they come and the failure of the Romney campaign in that state should not be overlooked. Romney has a real problem in that the more people see him the less they like him (see Iowa and New Hampshire). As a result he didn't go hard to ground in South Carolina. The other candidates were far more invested here and were rewarded by the locals. McCain's win here makes him nationally viable in a way that his repeat in New Hampshire did not.

Long story short, I don't know who wins in either party. Hillary has the momentum but an Obama win in South Carolina (the first state with a significant African-American population) would swing the Mo back to the junior senator from Illinois. The Republican race is as wide open as ever. I would be shocked at this point if the race is over after Mega Tuesday (February 5).

Hail to the Victors Valiant

Mitt Romney has won his SECOND state of the primary season. Yes, CBC, John Ibbitson et al. that's his SECOND victory. Mr. Romney, of course, won the great state of Wyoming on January 5th. The Democratic non-primary saw Clinton beat uncommitted. Romney's victory in Michigan means the Repubican race is wide open. I mean wide. It becomes even wider when you factor in that South Carolina will almost certainly not vote for Mr. Romney. Fred Thompson's non-race for the presidency likely faces its Waterloo in South Carolina. Barring an unexpected victory there, he's done. The x factor in all of this is Rudy Giuliani, who although he has yet to win a state or finish better than 4th in a major contest, is expected to be competitive when about half the country votes on February 5th.

Other news? Gary Lunn's getting grilled over isotopes. Yawn! The Guergis thing is shocking but I doubt actually malicious in intent. The premiers are mad at the feds. Well, that is news. When something actually happens in Canadian politics, let me know.

Sometimes it isn't fun...

...being a Liberal in Toronto-Danforth. First, our big star provincial candidate, Ben Chin, decides he's better off working in Dalton McGuinty's war room forcing the local riding association to scramble and find Joyce Rowlands to throw under the wheels of the NDP juggernaut. Now, Deborah Coyne, the 2006 candidate for the federal Liberals in Toronto-Danforth, is seemingly being rewarded for her bravery in facing down Layton and now is running in Don Valley West to replace the retiring John Godfrey. Coyne is a great candidate and will make a great MP assuming she can win in Don Valley West (an almost certainty if she can get the nomination). However, I can't help but feel a little bit frustrated with the party. I don't blame Chin and Coyne for pursuing greener pastures. However, I would like to think that someone, somewhere thinks that a Liberal can win in Toronto-Danforth. It might not happen soon federally (beating a sitting NDP leader is no easy task), but I would like to see a little more fight.

Golden Globes Lose Their Shine

The Golden Globe Awards will not be televised due to the writers' strike State side. I know for many the return of Stewart and Colbert last night marked a return to normalcy, however, the strike continues. The next major casualty may be the Oscars which would be a far bigger ratings hit for the networks. Stay tuned.

Chantal Hebert is Colour Blind

Or at least somewhat forgetful. Here's a quote from her most recent offering:

"when the Prime Minister hosts the premiers later this week, it will be an all-white all-male gathering."

This will no doubt be news to Nunavut Premier Paul Okalik.

This really is more funny than anything else. I am just so angered by Ms. Hebert so much of the time that I get a little joy by pointing out her typos.

Romney for Wyoming

In case you missed it, Mitt Romney has won the Wyoming Republican Caucuses in an impressive victory. He won 8 of 12 available delegates. Fred Thompson finished second garnering three delegates and long shot Duncan Hunter picked up the one remaining delegate. Why are these results not getting the Iowa caucus/New Hampshire primary treatment? Your guess is as good as mine. Here is an example of Huckabee's lack of cash and organization hurting. If Huckabee could have campaigned in Wyoming, a state filled with Christian conservatives, he could have been competitive. Unfortunately for Huckabee he couldn't and Romney won in a cakewalk. On to New Hampshire. Keep your eyes open for the Maine caucuses on February 3rd. Another state no one is paying attention to that is voting before Super Tuesday.

4-Peat

Great win for Canada. The juniors have made this country proud once again.

More Caucus and Other Random Thoughts

So, two am postings are clearly a poor way to get readers. The before bed thing posting thing worked a lot better when I was six hours ahead and was posting in prime time eastern. At any rate, my first thoughts on Iowa are below. Here are some more with some assorted stuff thrown in.

• Joe Biden has called it quits. What a shock! I didn't hear it... who's concession speech did he use?
• Romney's people goofed big time. His speech overlapped with Huckabee making him the only major Iowa contender not to get air time on CNN. Terrible gaffe.
• Brad Marchand has turned his game around. So has the team, great game today. Sweden's going down! Please JFJ, if you can, draft Luke Schenn. The kid is great. Reminds me of the job Dion Phaneuf did in Grand Forks.
  
• The Leafs don't just suck. They sizzuck. They seem to come to play about one night in four.
• I know less than nothing about the politics of northern Saskatchewan. I do know that my principles say that local membership, not Ottawa should choose their candidates. This might be the politically astute move, it is not the principled one.
• That said, Dion screwing his own guy (Orchard) is kind of strange. Normally, you screw your opponents lieutenants not your own.
• Clinton's speech was a stinker last night. Hard speech to write, but still. It was downright awful.
• Mason was fabulous today in net. The only goal was a scrambling mess that was frankly the fault of the defense (Pyett and Godfrey I believe) not Mason. Good decision by Hartsburg to keep him in.
• Did you see my Wolverines knock off the Gators? I have said it before and I'll say it again, the SEC is overrated.
• Kenya is depressing. Actually, beyond depressing. It just makes you want to curl up into a ball and cry. The alternative is doing something but for the life of me I can't see much for the world to do. Maybe peacekeepers but I don't know that the Kenyans would be all that keen.
  
• Isn't Canada a utopia now that the GST is at five percent? What's that? The big three are still shedding jobs? The world is still getting warmer? The PQ are surging in the polls? Damn! Better knock off another point.
  
• Oil around a hundred dollars a barrel means one thing and one thing only, Alberta's about to get even richer.

That's it for now. Enjoy the game tomorrow. Go Canada Go!

Caucus, Caucus, Caucus!

The results are in from Iowa. Yes, after only twelve months of endless polls and speculation we have results. Here they are:

Democrats:

Obama: 38% (16 delegates)
Edwards: 30% (14 delegates)
Clinton: 29% (15 delegates)
Richardson: 2%
Biden 1%

Republicans:

Huckabee: 34% (17 delegates)
Romney: 25% (12 delegates)
Thompson: 13% (3 delegates)
McCain: 13% (3 delegates)
Paul: 10% (2 delegates)
Giuliani: 4%
Hunter: 1%

The important numbers should actually be the ones in brackets. These include delegates who are selected by the voters and those super delegates who can choose who they want to vote for. Thus, Clinton leads Edwards and the huge gap in the Republican race. I hate how CNN reports this as a winner take all thing. It isn't. This is PR and they are reporting it as First past the post. The real story is here. However, super delegates are notoriously disloyal and are likely to jump ship if it looks like one of the other ships is going to win the race. Please note how well PR treated the small candidates on the Democratic side. The most interesting thing on the Republican side is the performance of Congressman Paul. Paul has fundraised better than almost anyone on the republican side (Romney's spending more but that's a lot of his own money). Now, Paul's support up to now has been a little shady. Largely web-based and not all from the most reputable sources (conspiracy theorists/racists). However, a ten percent showing in Iowa shows that he has a real following. Will he win the nomination? Of course not. Is it a trend to look for in American politics? Maybe. The congressman's message may resonate even more in the Granite state where Republicans are more interested in their wallet and big government than the God-fearing Iowans. So, I will be watching that with great interest. Outside of that, bad night for the inevitables. Romney is in trouble. As is Clinton. Edwards has to pray Clinton wins New Hampshire and he can play the native son card in the now Colbert-free South Carolina primary, otherwise he's done. The delegate count is close. Dodd is gone which means there are 11 Connecticut super delegates looking for a home. However, as is often the case in politics perception is way more important than reality and the title of Winner of the Iowa Caucus goes a long way in America.

I'm not hugely surprised by the result. I thought both results were going to be closer but aside from that. I am leaning towards the junior senator from Illinois, so I am pleased with the results. Huckabee, like a lot of the Christian right, scares the pants off me but I am glad he kicked Romney's butt. I am still confused by Rudy's strategy. If he was just avoiding Iowa or just avoiding Iowa and New Hampshire okay. However, I can't see him bursting on to the scene in South Carolina either. Michigan was governed by Romney's father and McCain did well there in 2000 so I don't see that one happening. Poor Nevada moved up their caucuses and nobody cares (with the possible exception of Richardson) so a win there is unlikely to generate much buzz going into the February 5th. I just can't see the big states bailing him out at that point. Anyhoo, that's enough random ramblings for one night. We shall see what Tuesday brings.