Kerry and Edwards win Iowa in 1st and 2nd, and I'd just like to remind everyone that I thought they'd be the strongest Dems back in May.
Update:
I'm sure you've all seen the further developments by this point, but Dean lost big.
With 18 percent of the vote, Dean finished 20 points behind the winner, Kerry. Edwards scored a surprise second-place finish with 32 percent in nearly complete returns.I'm amazed. I'm not surprised that Dean didn't win, but I think everyone expected it to be a lot closer than 20 points.
Dean blames the loss on recent attacks on his front-runner status, but his own gaffes provided more than enough rope to swing from. The big unknown factor was whether his internet-based organization could bring voters to the caucus as effectively as it raised money, and it looks like it couldn't, at least in Iowa.
Frankly, I think Dean's out of the running. Unless he wins convincingly in New Hampshire his presidential run is over, and judging from the effectiveness of his organization in Iowa I'm not optimistic for his chances in the Granite State.
On one hand, I'm disappointed. Even though I don't like his politics, I wish his internet based organizational structure had proven to be more effective. It's also unfortunate from a political standpoint, because Dean was the least electable of the major Democratic candidates, and as a Republican I would have liked to have seen him face off against Bush. Clark is a close second, and I don't doubt Bush could annihilate him as well, but Kerry and Edwards are a bit more politically formidable, in my opinion.
On the other hand, I'm pleased to see that the Democrats have rejected Dean's virulent anti-Americanism. Many Democrats may have initially supported him due to sympathetic anger, but I'm glad they got over it long enough to rethink their votes before actually casting them. It speaks well of Iowan Democrats that they didn't allow their emotions to rule the day by selecting a petty, pandering hate-monger as their nominee. (I don't say that to be patronizing.)
New Hampshire will be all the more interesting now that it's do-or-die for Dean.
I hardly see how thinking a war wasn't justified translates into virulent anti-Americanism. I mean, you can't even figure out for sure if you believe in basic human rights such as women voting. But, I'll pass on labeling you anti-American or anti-women. Nor will I call you a drunk, or a buffoon. For a Christian, you sure have a lot of pet names for people. Maybe when you get to heaven you'll be washing Ted Kennedy's feet. Cool.
It's not merely opposition to the war that make me think Dean is anti-american. It's largely due to the things his supporters think. Clark is a buffoon because he constantly contradicts himself and doesn't understand even simple political issues. Ted Kennedy is a drunk because he drinks a lot and drives off the road, leaving his female companion to drown in the river.
These are pet names. They're generally accurate evaluations of people's character and actions.
And, as I've explained, voting is not a "basic human right". But it's useful for protecting basic human rights.
Michael,
It really sounds sometimes to me that neither grace nor forgiveness are part of your vocabulary.
I'm not a drunk or a drug user. However, if I had lost one brother in a war, one sister in a plane crash, and two brothers by assassination, I don't honestly know how I would have reacted.
Surely you have at least one character flaw of your own.
Indeed.
Joel: Nicely said.
Michael: Joel commented *you can't even figure out for sure if you believe in basic human rights such as women voting.* What does Joel mean by this? You don't believe in women voting?
Joel: Grace and forgiveness have their place, but it's a matter of context. Neither one requires that evil-doers remain unpunished, or that those who seek to hurt us be allowed to do so.
IJ: He's probably referring to this post. But I'll repeat myself: voting is not a natural right.