On Iowa

Barack Obama won the Iowa caucus. He won by a clear 8%, which is more than most polls favoured him doing at any stage of the race. If I'm honest, even I was expecting it to be tighter. I even had a nightmare that Chris Dodd had beaten the lot, with Obama in third place, although in reality this is as likely as most people having heard of Chris Dodd.

Clinton is by no means down and out by any stretch of the imagination. New Hampshire is consistently referred to as her "Firewall", and it would take a victory there as well as the next primary, in South Carolina, to seal the deal for Barack Obama. Even then, a powerful showing in Florida could push her over the edge on Super Tuesday, when some 22 states hold their primaries. That said for supporters of Obama there is reason to be optimistic, as well as reasons not to become complacent.

This race showed a number of important things:

1. A predominately white electorate is perfectly happy to vote, in large numbers, Republicans included, for a candidate of African-American origin in a Mid-western state. There will be a lot of squabbling among the more idiotic liberals at the racist undertones of this observation (something I won't even dignify with a response), still more on the fact that he is not "very black". Both of these miss the point. The latter is a ridiculous observation, racism isn't a percentages game. A racist is a racist, and generally doesn't get caught up in the finer points of heredity, nor do they pay heed to how "white" someone acts (yet another ridiculous point). To them, it's white or bust. Plus, most out and out racists aren't voting Democrat in any event.

2. Women, Clinton's core constituency, did not buy into the idea that they should vote on gender lines. Maybe some did, but the majority (last figure OI read was 5%) went with Obama. To me, this is more important than the race thing (but then I've never believed that the majority of Americans are the bigoted morons that the Guardian et al make them out to be).

3. "If you book them, they will come" was the oft repeated epithet in Wayne's World 2. Many scoffed at the idea that an Obama campaign could motive a youth vote, let alone a youth caucus. Well, Barack listened to the ghost of Jim Morrison, he booked them, and they came. This says two things. Firstly, there is more genuine sense of movement and change among young people. Unlike Howard Dean in 2004, there is something substantial going on. Secondly, it shows the sheer sophistication of his electoral machine. Despite the fact that he is new to Presidential politics, he is an extremely effective organiser with an excellent team of people behind him. Say what you will about the role of President - the executive branch of government is more than just one man.

4. I think the polls aren't particularly reliable in this race. As far as IA is concerned, they were never going to be, such is the nature of the caucus, but I think that there is a genuine under-representation of Obama supporters, and I think this is acute in those attending college. One of a number of examples is that the vast majority of polls are conducted by phoning residential numbers. If your main point of contact is a mobile phone, the norm for most students, you don't get counted in the polls. For this, and other reasons I reckon Clinton's lead is being overestimated by pollsters to some degree.

5. Contrary to what some pundits say, I think John Edwards is out of the race. The bedrock of his campaign was spending big and winning big in Iowa, and riding the momentum that that might have generated. He'll fight New Hampshire on the chance that Clinton going negative (see below) is effective, but save an almighty gaffe from Obama, it's unlikely he'll capitalise. He boasts he was outspent significantly by the other candidates. This is true. But the point is that they CAN outspend him, and afford to do so. Coming second in Iowa has stopped people talking about him, and therefore limits the amount of money that he can raise. If, and when, he does bow out, the general feeling is that he will endorse Obama, which will be key for latter.

And a few thoughts about the speeches:

Obama's had the atmosphere of a national convention speech. Obama has been criticised at times for his inconsistency, but it's generally accepted that the mean standard of his performances have increased. I think he can only get better, and I think that he's found his stride. The content will be criticised by the Clinton camp et al for lacking in substantive policy, but I don't think it really was the occasion for detailed statements in any event. Where some people make JFK comparisons, I was more reminded of Roosevelt's 1932 inauguration speech. The reaction was just electric and gave a true sense of a new movement in American politics.

I didn't like Edwards speech. He was about as gracious in defeat as John McEnroe. He also wasted the network coverage, with, oddly, a campaign speech that seemed to be targetted at Iowa, which he just lost. He still thinks he's in the running, and I guess you can't blame him. The 0.28% over Clinton speaks a completely disproportionately in the media, and is still only in the race by the thinnest of margins.

Clinton's speeches haven't improved and I don't think they ever will. She's been molded too deeply and for too long as the centrist iron-lasy . The very fact that at any point in the race she has to be "humanised" by her campaign speaks volumes. She made a good point about the turnout for the Democrats. It's a grand foretelling for the General Election in November, and one that is, ironically, probably down to Obama, who will also be the chief beneficiary of it. That said, the content, for what it was worth, was as good as it could have been. It definitely beat Edwards. It was also as abstract as Obama's too, but this probably won't be noted.

On the second tier:

Joe Biden is a nice guy and Chris Dodd has a lot of class. Any other election and I'd probably be saying it was a damn shame they didn't get more coverage. It's a pity they weren't in the running in 2000, maybe on the same ticket. A far more accomplished and dignified individual than Al Gore, I have little doubt that he would have floored George Bush Junior (as he was then known). Ah well. One for the ages I guess.

Richardson didn't give a speech, or if he did I couldn't find it on the web. For the record, at this stage I'm willing to bet on an Obama-Richardson ticket for a whole raft of reasons I won't go into here.

Final thoughts:

Clinton isn't out yet. She will go more negative, the question remaining is how directly. If she were to NH by negativity, it would cost her deeply in South Carolina. There won't be a lot, if any momentum from such a win, and it wouldn't be by a great margin either.

The factor that will have sealed her fate in the event of an Obama nomination? Her chief strategist, Mark Penn. He and his camp have treated Obama, and more importantly, the Democrat electorate with little short of contempt and assumed that at best they are naive and at worst, stupid. Throughout the campaign he has been condescending and smug, something shared by the rest of camp Clinton. He is running a 2002 campaign and will live to regret it.

Ultimately, the "Clinton Machine" is just that. A machine. It has substantial fundraising powers and is utterly ruthless and mechanical. Obama is leading a movement and a substantial movement at that. Where Clinton is an insular entity, the Obama effect has a life of its own. And unlike past underdog candidates, he can match her dollar-for-dollar throughout the fight.

There's still a long road ahead, but there's every reason to be incredibly happy with what has gone so far. I'm just glad that New Hampshire is on the east coast, so I can watch the results unfold on Tuesday.