HorsesAss.Org

Postman reports this morning that Republican Doug Roulstone has dropped his bid to unseat Washington 2nd Congressional District incumbent Rep. Rick Larsen. As Jacob quips in Postman’s comment thread:

“If a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it, does it make any sound.”

No idea he was even running for Congress, and I am an above average political junkie.

It is a favorite pastime of local Republican trolls and bloggers to disparage and dismiss WA-08 Democratic challenger Darcy Burner as an “airhead” and a “lightweight,” as if repeating it often enough would make it so. But it is instructive to compare the brief political careers of both Burner and Roulstone.

Roulstone is a Navy Captain, a 27-year veteran, a graduate of the US Naval Academy and the former Commanding Officer of the USS John C. Stennis, a Nimitz-class, nuclear powered aircraft carrier. I’ve never met Roulstone, but on paper at least he appears to be an accomplished man and a commanding figure… the kind of resume that would seem a perfect match to Republicans’ own self image.

Arguably, Burner’s career accomplishments are less overtly spectacular. Burner, who enjoyed a modest upbringing in rural Nebraska, had to work multiple jobs to earn her way through Harvard University. That same sort of hard work, determination and natural smarts eventually carried her to a senior management position at Microsoft — not exactly equivalent to commanding a supercarrier, but a textbook illustration of the American dream come true, nonetheless.

Both Roulstone and Burner entered their respective 2006 House races as political novices facing well known incumbents in what most experts consider to be swing districts: the Cook Partisan Voter Index rates WA-08 as D+3 and WA-02 as D+2. (By comparison, WA-07 is rated D+30.) At the outset, neither were given much of a chance by local or national pundits, and Roulstone didn’t disappoint, losing to Larsen by a 19-point margin. Burner on the other hand shocked the political and media establishment, raising over $3.2 million and coming within 3 points of becoming the first Democrat ever to win WA-08.

Sure, it was a “wave” election in which Democrats retook both houses of Congress, and that certainly gave an advantage to Burner over Roulstone, but at the same time Burner had to swim against an unprecedented flood of GOP money while weathering the storm of being Karl Rove’s number one target. Adjusting for all the external factors — the strength of their opponents, the partisan leaning of their districts, the electorate’s thirst for change, etc. — only an idiot or a liar would deny that Burner proved herself to be the far superior candidate.

Fast forward to 2008, where Burner is preparing to announce over $600,000 cash-on-hand entering the final 9-months of the campaign, while Roulstone is quietly dropping his bid after an anemic year of fundraising, leaving 2nd CD Republicans in the unenviable position of scrambling to save face.

In many ways our electoral system has become utterly fucking ridiculous, a circus of perpetual campaigning in which money often speaks louder than words or deeds. But while this grueling and sometimes demeaning path toward elected office surely deters many qualified candidates who would otherwise make excellent public servants, it also serves to weed out those would-be office holders who are unwilling or unable to put up with the grueling demands of the office itself. It is undoubtedly an imperfect system, and our media’s (bloggers included) relentless focus on horse-race politics tends to trivialize our most crucial issues, yet it is fair to say that a candidate’s performance on the campaign trail is as good a predictor as any of his or her future performance in office.

Capt. Roulstone had an impressive military career by almost any measure, but as a political campaigner he paled in comparison to the supposedly “lightweight” Burner; that is why she is in the thick of a second competitive race, and he is not. Which is the more demanding profession? In America, our military commanders take their orders from our civilian leaders, and not the other way around.

As the oft maligned and dismissed Sen. Patty Murray — on the verge of becoming one of the most powerful figures in the US Senate — has repeatedly proven, it is not always obvious what traits make one a successful politician… though winning races you’re not supposed to win is surely one of them. Whether Burner is able to pull out an underdog victory against an entrenched incumbent in 2008 remains to be seen, but by the ultimate standard we use to judge all our politicians, she has already proven herself qualified to serve.

Like Goldy, I read the Times goofy-ass editorial about the building that formerly housed a Denny’s in Ballard. It’s editorials like these that would make me cancel my subscription. If I had one.

In the editorial, the paper announces that they don’t find the building all that special:

The Denny’s restaurant building in Ballard is not valuable enough to be saved — at least, not with public money or through a process of involuntary landmarking. Its owner should be allowed to sell the property to developers of housing, which the city needs.

Now, even if you disagree with this statement, it is, at it’s core, a reasonable one to make. We do need more housing, and as historic buildings go, I wouldn’t miss it that much. Maybe that makes me a philistine, but so be it. As googies go, we’ll always have the Space Needle. (On the flip side, while I usually goof on Skip Berger once in a while, I respect the fact that he seems to have single-handedly saved this building. Props.)

Then the Times goes on to make total asses of themselves:

The other problem with landmarking the old Denny’s is the process itself. Involuntary landmarking amounts to a partial taking of the owner’s property without compensation, for reasons that are at bottom political.

That is some stupid-ass reasoning. First off, the landmarking process is a long one. While owners of properties designated for landmark status may technically “lose” some rights to make changes to a building’s structure, they also gain access to all sorts of benefits that aren’t available to non-landmark buildings. Besides, if it weren’t for the landmarking process, how many of these buildings would be dust?

Besides, I don’t know what’s so political about saving landmark buildings. While Seattle liberals are proud to have saved the Pike Place Market, Spokane Republicans proudly show off the recently remodeled Davenport Hotel. While the big money interests in both towns wouldn’t have minded tearing down two old relics, good folks stood against it.

The Seattle Times, and the lazy libertarians who seem to be running the joint, should know better. It’s only a matter of time before their headquarters is designated a landmark for stupidity.

The legislative session starts on the 14th. It’s a short session so that the legislators can campaign for re-election. No major budget decisions. Nothing that hasn’t already gained some traction. So you can limit your expectations. But I won’t; here is what I’d like to see from our legislators:

* A cap and trade system for global warming gases. With our state’s biggest city (and several of our smaller ones) meeting Kyoto already, we ought to be able to make a cap and trade system with some real teeth. It’s my understanding that states can get into the European system if we meet their standards. This should be our goal. We can lead the country and get set up with a new commodity. Good for the environment and good for the local economy if we can make it happen.

* Income tax. Yeah, I know, a state supreme court decision in the 30’s says we can’t have one. We can have up to a 1% income tax, so here’s my proposal: A 1/2% flat tax for incomes between $30,000 and $60,000 and 1% for incomes over $60,000. We take whatever income we get from that tax and reduce the regressive state sales tax by that much.

* The article Lee linked to the other day had a suggestion for a law that will be tough to get through even this legislature, but is worth a shot:

When mothers abandon their unwanted newborns—which happens with alarming frequency—they must decide whether to leave an infant in a Dumpster, where the child is likely to die, or in a public place, where the child’s likelihood of survival is higher but so are the chances that the mother will be seen by witnesses, arrested, and prosecuted. The pandemic of abandoned newborns in the 1990s spawned a popular movement to declare emergency rooms and other medical facilities “safe havens” where mothers could abandon newborns without risking arrest. In 2002, the Washington State Legislature passed such a law.

A law that encourages people to call 911 when someone is overdosing would be grounded in the same impulse: It’s better to save lives than to prosecute every crime. But saving the lives of newborn babies is an easy sell and saving the lives of drug users is not.

But a life is a life to Senator Kline, who introduced legislation that would provide amnesty to people who call 911 to report an overdose. The bill, first introduced in 2005 and reintroduced in 2007 (remaining active in the 2008 session), states, “A person shall not be charged, subject to civil forfeiture, or otherwise prosecuted for a [drug offense] if… the person reported the drug overdose to law enforcement or summoned medical assistance at the time it was witnessed….”

Even the far from perfect law by Senator Kline would be a step in the right direction.

* Marriage Equity. Actually passing it does two things: First it gives gay couples the same recognition as the rest of us. As I told my evangelical cousin at Christmas, “what, do you want them living in sin?” But it also does something nice politically. It gets the issue off the table. Gay people aren’t going to drop the issue until they get full marriage equity, and the evangelical community isn’t going to drop the issue until gay people are all stoned to death, but having the end point puts the issue out of the minds of the rest of voters. So yeah, in the short term there may be some political fall out, but in the longer term it lets us not engage the crazies on the state level.

Anyway, there are a few from me, but I’d love to know what you want.

There are none. At least not locally. At least, not according to the Times and the P-I.

Fuck Mondays.

Tonight on “The David Goldstein Show”, 7PM to 10PM on News/Talk 710-KIRO:

7PM: Radio Kos with Miss Laura
Daily Kos contributing editor Miss Laura is on the ground in New Hampshire, and she calls in to give us the latest news and analysis as we head into Tuesday’s primary. Is Obama unstoppable? Can McCain pull out a victory? Who won Thursday’s debate? Tune in and find out.

8PM: TBA
Liberal propaganda.

9PM: TBA
The Ballard Denny’s has been designated a historic landmark, prompting the Seattle Times to complain that, well… it’s only a Denny’s. But they don’t stop there, charging that involuntary landmarking is a “taking” of the owner’s property, calling into question our long established historic preservation laws. Crosscut contributing editor Knute Berger joins us for the hour to talk about Ballard’s “Googie” architecture landmark, and historic preservation in general.

Tune in tonight (or listen to the live stream) and give me a call: 1-877-710-KIRO (5476).

Seattle’s Landmarks Preservation Board voted 8-1 to nominate the old Ballard Denny’s for historic preservation, an act the Seattle Times attacks as an involuntary “partial taking of the owner’s property without compensation, for reasons that are at bottom political.” The building opened in 1964 as a Manning’s Cafeteria, and was designed by noted architect Clarence Mayhew. With its swooping roof and sixties-era futuristic look, preservation advocates argue that the building is one of the best remaining examples of “Googie” architecture in the region, a sentiment the Times derides:

It’s an old Denny’s, boarded up.

Huh. I’m agnostic on the issue for the moment, but I wonder if folks at the Times will be so unsentimental the day they board up Fairview Fanny and cease operations as a print publication?

Blogger and soldier Andy Olmsted lost his life in Iraq.

Seahawks coverage is going late, so please tune in to an abbreviated “The David Goldstein Show” tonight, from 8PM to 10PM on News/Talk 710-KIRO:

8PM: Update from Iowa with The Stranger’s Eli Sanders
The Stranger’s political reporter Eli Sanders joins us by phone from Iowa to give us a first hand account of what might have turned out to be a historic caucus night. Later in the hour, blogger / TV analyst / Democratic strategist James Boyce joins us from New Hampshire to fill us in on what he sees as a “huge” movement toward Obama.

9PM: Saturday night comedy with Kermet Apio
Tired of my angry rants and liberal propaganda? Local comedian Kermet Apio joins us for the hour to lighten things up and give us his own unique take current events.

Tune in tonight (or listen to the live stream) and give me a call: 1-877-710-KIRO (5476).

This weekend, HBO’s The Wire kicks off its final season. After living in relative obscurity throughout much of its run, the show is finally getting a lot of attention for telling amazing true-to-life stories from the inner-city that have long gone untold. The show’s material is based on the experiences of its two creators, former Baltimore Sun reporter David Simon and former Baltimore PD Detective and public school teacher Ed Burns. As one of those who found out about this show too long after it began, I’m still catching up on the last few seasons. While the show deals with various aspects of inner-city life, the drug war and its downstream effects are everywhere, demonstrating in full detail the damage being done by a policy that far too many Americans have been fully content to ignore. The final season will focus on the role of the media, and how it fails to tell this story.

Last weekend, I posted a response to a column from the Longview Daily News, written by editor Cal Fitzsimmons. The column was describing a case from rural Cowlitz County where a confidential informant, 40-year-old Tina Rivard, tricked federal drug agents into arresting a man, 21-year-old Bo Jeremy Storedahl of Kelso, on felony drug trafficking charges. The original article on the Longview Daily News site is no longer there, but the Seattle Times article on the case is still up (and another article from The Daily News Online is here).

According to Mike Carter’s account in the Times, Rivard was first arrested in May for forging prescriptions. In return for leniency, she agreed to become a confidential informant (or “snitch”) in order to help build cases against others involved in dealing prescription drugs. After successfully helping to convict one person, she helped the police nab Storedahl, a 21-year-old with no criminal record. She did this in part by tricking the drug agents who were listening in to her calls by quickly re-dialing a different person (her husband) and convincing the agents that they were listening to Storedahl when in fact they weren’t. After Rivard managed to carry the charade further and stage a drug buy at Storedahl’s house, the young man was arrested and charged with a five-count felony indictment. Now that Rivard has admitted to what she did and plead guilty, she faces up to 20 years in jail, while Storedahl was only charged with misdemeanor drug possession for the four pills he had in his pocket when he was arrested.

I initially took issue with Fitzsimmons’ column because despite the tremendous example he had right in front of him that the use of confidential informants can be fraught with problems, he brushed all of that off in order to reassure his readers that snitches are good. There was no desire to explore the world of confidential informants, to look into the role they’ve played in our prison overcrowding problems, or to look at the larger issue of why these drug war tactics are failing – both in large cities and small towns – to actually prevent people from using drugs, while also undermining the level of trust in law enforcement. A few days after my post went up, an interesting comment appeared:

Hey, sometimes it pays to Google your name. I suppose I could complain about your reprinting my column here, though in chunks, but I won’t.

I won’t even engage in an argument about snitches. (Love ’em). But I would suggest you lighten up. Cheers.

Cal | 01.02.08 – 4:45 pm

I wasn’t sure what was more amusing, the fact that the editor of a newspaper had such a poor understanding of Fair Use in the internet age, or that I was being told to lighten up by someone who still fervently believes that we’re achieving something by sending as many people to jail as we can for drug offenses. A second comment, however, was even more interesting:

FYI – Your assumptions about this case are largely wrong. Bo plead because he confessed to the crime and there were other witnesses willing to testify they bought dope from him (without any compensation by LE). Tina wasn’t simply forging prescritions, she was entrenched in the sale/distribution network. You can spin this however you want but you can’t change the facts – Bo was dealing – Tina was dealing – both faced a judge for their behavior. That’s the way its supposed to work.

KT | 01.02.08 – 6:40 pm

KT’s comment was directed at me, but his/her opinion was that I was getting some facts wrong both by accepting what Fitzsimmons had written about this case and through a couple of assumptions I made myself. At this point, I have no way of knowing who’s telling the truth (KT declined to leave any contact info), but some of what he/she says actually makes a bit of sense: if Rivard was just some lone addict forging prescriptions to get her pills, it wouldn’t make much sense to make her an informant. She was likely involved in some larger network of people forging prescriptions and selling oxycodone tablets.

As for Fitzsimmons, his belief that this case represents some grand departure from the normal use of confidential informants has no basis in reality. This outcome is often what happens when people snitch in order to get more lenient treatment. In theory, it’s supposed to yield some kingpin, but that’s rarely what actually happens. What often happens is that the informant rolls over on some easy target like Storedahl. The story here is not that this case is an aberration, it’s that messes like these have become commonplace.

As for Storedahl, commenter KT is not the only person who believes that he wasn’t just some random innocent target, but was just as involved in dealing prescription drugs as Rivard (see the comments at the end of the Daily News Online article). None of this is proof of anything, but it is interesting that Storedahl is a son of a local businessman. There are still a lot of questions in this case that have still gone unanswered. How did the Rivards know Storedahl and had access to his house? Was he a customer? A friend? Who was the first person sent to jail by Rivard and what were the circumstances of his arrest? Why was law enforcement using Rivard as a snitch even though with prescription drug fraud there’s not likely a “kingpin” to take down anyway? Is Rivard getting the book thrown at her because she really tricked the police or because she targeted the wrong person? It seems like the only thing I really know about this case is that the editor of the Longview Daily News wants to me to “lighten up” when it comes to my concerns over what can go wrong when confidential informants are used by law enforcement.

I can only guess at the plotlines in the upcoming season of The Wire, but I’ve gained a very clear picture of how the media has failed to tell us the bigger story behind the drug war. Whether we’re talking about inner-cities or small towns, heroin or OxyContin, young black men dealing on a street corner or wealthy white kids dealing out of their parents’ suburban house, newspapers across the country seem uninterested in doing anything more than parroting the view from law enforcement that the war is necessary, the victims deserve what they get, and the tactics should not be questioned. It’s time for someone to tell this story with the kind of honesty and insight that will finally break down the illusions that have been mistaken for reality for so many years.

And now, for a bit of HA heresy. For a solid year now, people have been asking me who I’d like to see become President in 2009. For most of that time, I’ve offered the same unsatisfying response: it’s far too early, a lot can happen between now and then. But as the fascination with the race among local political types I know has heightened leading up to this week’s Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primaries next Tuesday, I have slowly begun to embrace a different response: why do you care?

Not that the question of who will try to clean up (or exacerbate) George W. Bush’s, er, messes isn’t important: on multiple fronts, it will influence nothing less than the future of humanity. At present, our likely choice will almost certainly be between two of eight less than inspiring people, who break down roughly as follows (based on their past governing records, not their campaign rhetoric): two liberal members of the bipartisan D.C. establishment (Obama, Edwards); one “liberal” who would have been considered a moderate Republican not too long ago (Clinton); four guys who would for all practical purposes be a third term of Bush (Giuliani, Romney, McCain, Thompson); and one charismatic loon (Huckabee). There’s a lot of room between those positions, most of it not good, and it matters a lot which of them will, in slightly over a year, become the most powerful person in the world.

And, of course, there’s a good argument to be made that even the most powerful person in the world can only do so much, and given the country’s political realities, isn’t likely to accomplish much of what s/he is now promising.

Still, it does make a difference who the next president is. It’s a pity Washington state residents will have virtually nothing to do with that choice. Today’s front page P-I headline — “State could turn into big player” (with the subhead “New front-runners might give our caucuses more sway”) — is a truly embarrassing bit of nativist wishful thinking. Sure, our caucuses might have a big impact. Mount Rainier might erupt next week, too.

In the Evergreen State, the presidential campaigns are and will be close to meaningless. Candidates have used our area primarily as an ATM, and that won’t change. Actual visits by candidates will continue to be rare, and any public appearances will be filled in around big stakes fundraising as almost an afterthought, useful almost solely for the resulting free local media coverage.

Of course, we will have a chance to register our opinions in the race next month. Our state’s Democratic and Republican caucuses are on Feb. 9, and the primary vote is on Feb. 19.

Unfortunately, 23 different states and territories, including heavyweights like California, New York, and Illinois (encompassing the country’s four largest media markets) will be having their primaries on “Super Tuesday,” Feb. 5, four days before our caucuses. And six other states (Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada, Michigan, and Florida) will have decided before that. Voters representing 326 of the country’s 538 electoral college votes will weigh in before we do. (Another state, Louisiana, is on the same day, and three more states follow in the next three days.) The upshot: the party’s nominees will likely be decided before we have our say. It’s certain that most of those eight frontrunners will be gone.

Even then, the Washington state process is something of a fraud. The Feb. 19 Democratic primary vote is completely meaningless; all the party’s nominating delegates will have already been chosen at the caucuses, so unless you’re willing to sign up for a political party, invest half a day at some church social hall, and get fund appeals for the next two years, your opinion won’t matter. The state Republicans, to their credit, at least factor the primary results in with the caucuses in determining their delegates — not that the race is likely to still be much of a race by then.

And, of course, come November, Washington state’s 11 electoral votes will all go to the Democratic candidate, just as they have for every presidential election since the days of Reagan. Regardless of how or whether you vote.

So why does it matter what you, I, or any other local person thinks about the 2008 presidential race? Sure, you could join a campaign and fly to a state where the votes matter. (Most of us won’t.) And we can all send in our $25, $50, or $1000 (or whatever) to the candidate of our choice. That’ll make a big dent in the over $100 million that Clinton and Obama have already raised, or the likely combined total of over $1 billion that the two major party nominees will raise for 2008. And since when did “one dollar, one vote” become the standard for our democracy?

The end result is that much of the fascination with the 2008 race hereabouts reeks of rooting for one’s favorite sports team (albeit with more meaningful stakes). It’s fun, it’s entertaining, but it’s not to be confused with the functions of a healthy democracy. That would require, among other things, a national primary day, abolishing the electoral college, public campaign financing, and allowing more than two competitive parties. Since we don’t have any of those things, locally or nationally, and aren’t about to get them, sure, I’ll get some popcorn and watch the race. But we’re spectators in this race — not participants. And that’s a problem.

Meantime, we also have a governor to elect, a local congressional race likely to be hotly contested, and a lot of other offices and measures on the ballot where we can have far more direct impact. So why all the focus on the White House?

From the Seattle Times: “Phony psychic sentenced for bilking woman of savings“.

You know, as opposed to all those real psychics.

Considering Goldy and Lee are both Eagles fans, it’s up to true blue Seahawk fans like me (and Carl) to fly the 12th Man flag. You see, while Seattle has several pro teams, it will always be a football town. The Seahawks may be a winning team these days, but it hasn’t always been that way.

Back in the early 90’s, the Seahawk juggernaut was grinding to a halt. Chuck Knox was gone, Steve Largent had retired, Dave Krieg was waived. The front office, which was run by the owner’s son, had made some really stupid personnel moves (Dan McGuire! Kelly Stouffer!). The 1992 season quickly went sour.

After managing a single victory, the Seahawks met the Denver Broncos late in the season at the Kingdome on Monday Night Football. With John Elway injured and sitting out the game, the Hawks had a chance. But with their 1st and 2nd string quarterbacks injured, the game was in the hands of the World League MVP. His name?

Stan Gelbaugh.

The sidearm QB didn’t disappoint, tieing the game with no time on the clock. Gelbaugh led the Seahawks to victory (one of two all season!), and was a bright spot in a dark season.

Unfortunately, that victory over Denver guaranteed that the Seahawks would get the 2nd overall pick in the next draft, and not the 1st. (The Seahawks and Patriots both had 2-14 records, but since the Seahawks beat the Patriots that year, that Pats got the first pick.) With that pick the Patriot selected Drew Bledsoe, and were in the Super Bowl four years later. The Seahawks picked Rick Mirer, and weren’t.

Before the 1993 season, Coach Tom Flores announced that Rick Mirer would start, and that Gelbaugh would not get any consideration. To Stan Gelbaugh fans (and there were many), this was a huge disappointment. After watching Rick Mirer flounder, fans were left to wonder how far the Seahawks could have gone with Stan “The Man” Gelbaugh under center.

So enjoy Matt Hasselbeck, Shaun Alexander, Qwest Field, and the winning records year after year. To me, it still takes some getting used to.

Some firefighters are actually for Giuliani:

(This and some 70 other media clips from the past week in Politics are now posted at Hominid Views.)

Winners

Chinese Mind Control Scientists.

The Chinese scientists who brainwashed Lt. John McCain back in the late 60’s, hoping for their own real-life “Manchurian Candidate” to win the White House. Their long term plans to control the American government may finally be falling into place.

Chuck Norris.

Behind Chuck Norris’ beard is another fist, which he uses to beat the delegates out of Iowa. Which he then gives to Mike Huckabee.

Losers

Mormons.

When Sen. Orrin Hatch dropped out of the race back in ’00, Mormons leaders put all their efforts into Boston businessman and liberal Republican Willard Mitt Romney. With Romney’s second place showing in Iowa, the LDS plan to force all Americans to wear magic underwear and drink Sprite will likely be deferred until 2012.

People Who Think That Voters Care About Bill Richardson’s Experience.

When Iowa Democrats send 68% of the vote to a freshman senator and a one-term senator, something tells me that folks are thinking that “experience” is overrated. In any case, the future VP should start picking out some black suits, because he’ll be going to a lot of state funerals and such the next 4 years.

Sen. John McCain wins! At least that’s what you might think from the TV punditry in the immediate wake of McCain’s fourth-place finish in yesterday’s Iowa Republican caucus. The desperation of our media elite to elevate McCain into front-runner status is exceeded only by their lazily dismissive effort to brand Sen. John Edwards as “angry.” Gimme a break.

In fact there were winners and losers in yesterday’s caucus, and some of them not so obvious as you might think.

The Big Winners:

The Democratic Party:
The big news coming out of Iowa was not Obama’s or Huckabee’s somewhat comfortable wins (or McCain’s spectacular fourth-place victory) but the caucus itself, which saw record-busting turnout on the Democratic side and well, not so much for the Republicans. In 2000, the last time both parties caucused, the Republicans turned out 87,000 voters and the Democrats only 59,000. In 2004, the Democrats drew 125,000. Last night Republicans produced 115,000 voters, a modest increase from 2000, while a stunning 236,000 Iowans swarmed the Democratic caucuses. It doesn’t take a Beltway pundit to understand what this energized (and independent engorged) Democratic base could mean next November, up and down the ticket.

Obama and Huckabee:
Yeah, they both won, so I suppose that makes them both winners, though of the two I think Barack Obama goes into New Hampshire in the much stronger position. I came away from his June appearance in Seattle wondering if the polls might be underestimating Obama’s support. The audience was filled with new faces, somewhat younger, many of whom told me they’d never even voted before, let alone contributed to or volunteered for a political candidate, and if these folks actually turned out, the “likely voter” model on which pollsters rely would have to be tossed out the window. Well… they turned out. If that holds true throughout the primary season and into November, nothing short of an assassin’s bullet will keep Obama out of the White House. (I hope Obama has really tough security.)

Senators Chris Dodd and Joe Biden:
Yeah, they lost, and they lost big. But at least they had the common sense to get out and return to life as almost normal. And while Dodd came away from Iowa with only a single delegate, he’s gained the newfound respect of progressives nationwide, who are already mounting a grassroots campaign to have him replace Harry Reid as Senate Majority Leader.

Fred Thompson:
He’s rich, he’s famous, and he has a much younger, buxom wife, despite being rather ugly and shriveled himself. How can he lose?

The Big Losers:

The Republican Party:
Evangelical Christians turned out in large numbers to push Huckabee over the top in the Republican caucus, but other than that, what does the GOP have? Not much. This is a fractured party with an extremist base that independents are fleeing in droves. If I were a Republican running in a competitive race anywhere in the nation, I would be very, very nervous right now.

Mitt Romney:
Two years and a kajillion dollars later, and a distant second-place finish behind a preacher from Arkansas is the best he can muster? For a guy whose biggest claim to the White House seems to be nondescript competency, losing Iowa runs counter to message. He’s not out of it, as both Huckabee and McCain are ripe for self-destruction, but even in this pathetic Republican field I’m not so sure Romney’s campaign theme of “I’m not one of the other guys” is enough to garner the nomination.

Hillary Clinton:
Again, not out of it, but this has to be a huge blow. I never bought in to the inevitability meme (or the Hillary can’t win meme either,) but a lot of folks did, and Clinton’s marginally third-place finish will have a lot of voters reevaluating their options. Obama didn’t just win, he won a comfortable majority of women voters, a core constituency Clinton had counted on. If she can come back from Iowa, she deserves to be president.

Rudy Guiliani:
Sure, Guiliani didn’t even campaign in Iowa, but for the man who led in the polls for much of the year to come away with only 3% of the delegates, a distant sixth place behind Ron Paul for chrissakes, well, that’s just pathetic. Expect similar results in New Hampshire, where Guiliani has also declined to campaign, instead choosing to pin his hopes on winning Florida. Sure, I’d rather spend my winter in Florida than in Iowa or New Hampshire, but it’s not exactly an obvious path to White House.

Bill Richardson’s press release writer:
I got a lot of ridiculous spin emailed my way last night, but by far the winner for the most pathetically grasping was headlined: “Bill Richardson Makes Final Four”. Um, yeah… with 2% of the delegates. I like Richardson, and I feel bad for him that he hasn’t gained more traction, but somebody with a conscience had to write that headline, and it is he to whom I offer my deepest condolences.

Bill Richardson, Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter:
As expected, they lost, and they lost big. And yet they don’t seem to have the common sense to get out.

Not Quite So Big Losers:

John Edwards:
Yes, I know even Edwards said he had to win Iowa, but he didn’t really, and beating Clinton I think gives him a little air. Edwards must now pin his hopes on Clinton imploding, while he picks up most of her support; not a likely scenario, but possible. The best spin one could possibly put on Edwards performance is that for most of the past year this was covered as a two-way race between Clinton and Obama, and now it is legitimately a three-way. (Assuming the pundits legitimize that spin.) On the bright side, Edwards has had a huge impact on the race as a whole, with Obama, Clinton and Huckabee increasingly picking up his economic populist message.

Ron Paul:
Sure, he came in fifth with only 10% of the vote, but my God… Ron Paul got 10% of the vote! Paul is a nutty candidate, but he’s running for the nomination of a nutty party, and thus I think he’ll pick up traction before he fades away. With his gobs of cash, his anti-war message, and his psychotically fervent base, Paul could end up picking up enough delegates to give convention handlers a fit next summer. I’m looking forward to it.

Gravel and Kuccinich:
They lost big, but then, neither one is really running to win, so what does it matter?

Sen. John McCain:
No, he wasn’t a big winner (unless he was actually shooting for fourth place) but with Huckabee trouncing Romney, he didn’t exactly lose either. McCain’s strategy must be to outlast Romney and Guiliani, becoming the only real alternative to Huckabee and his Christian soldiers, but it won’t be easy without much money, and well, being McCain. McCain had long counted on independent voters to carry him to a good finish in New Hampshire, but if Iowa is any measure, independents seem to be stampeding to the Democrats, and particularly Obama.

That’s my take on Iowa, and I stand by it, even the parts that are complete bullshit.