Now if Obama can get Al Gore to endorse him, as Gore did Howard Dean, he'll have the nomination locked up.
CLINTON UPSETS OBAMA IN N.H., CONFOUNDING POLLSTERS
There is much soul searching on the part of pundits and pollsters regarding how they all got it so wrong in predicting a monumental victory for Barack Obama. Part of the explanation may well be in the fact that the polling stopped on Sunday, missing any changes happening before the Tuesday voting.
One of these changes is supposed to emanate from sympathy for Clinton's showing of vulnerability at a rally on Monday. I doubt that this was a major factor although it may have been part of a trend for previously undecided voters, particularly women, opting for Clinton at the last moment.
Another cause may stem from the fact that pollsters often obtain smaller samples from those at the lower end of the economic and educational scale. These voters are more of a Clinton constituency than Obama's. Also, it could be that more of the independent voters than expected decided to help McCain since the Obama victory seemed to be a lock.
Part of media hype had to come from the size and nature of Obama events in N.H. These rallies were overflowing, stirring, and often inspiring. Getting caught up in the enthusiasm is understandable but not necessarily excusable.
Some media pundits have claimed that part of the explanation lies in attitudes about race. As in Los Angeles' Mayor Bradley's race for governor and Douglas Wilder's bid for governor of Virginia, the thought is that voters, to avoid being considered prejudiced, will mislead pollsters and then vote against the black candidate. Unless the questioning is more specific than I imagine, this claim hardly applies to primary elections. In a general election a voter can easily mislead the pollster by saying he 'll vote for his party's black candidate and then do otherwise, thus concealing a prejudice. In a primary, the voter would just pick a candidate and then vote for that candidate. The polling would be accurate.
Many studies later, we may have an answer.
CLINTON AND OBAMA HEAD TO NEVADA
The Obama and Clinton camps are gearing up for a showdown in the Nevada caucuses on January 19th with hundreds of supporters coming to Nevada to spread the word for the candidates.
Those who worked in Iowa before coming here just have to remember that in Nevada it is opposing Yucca mountain and not supporting ethanol.
PERSONAL POLITICAL POSITION
Most of the time my political thoughts are limited to comments, sometimes snide, about politicians or their views. Now, on the morning after the Iowa caucuses, I feel the need to say a bit about my political sentiments.
First, in 2004 I was a disappointed Deaniac and now I am an elated Obamiac. Having listened to Senator Obama's keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic convention, having noted his law school achievement, and having learned about the man from his two books, I realized that he is indeed a different and inspiring candidate for these times. It didn't hurt that he opposed the invasion of Iraq, as I did.
While I believe that either Hillary Clinton of John Edwards would be a good president, I think that Barack Obama might well be a great president. He would present a new and different face of the United States toward the world. Among the Democratic candidates, there is not a whole lot of disagreement on the issues. But I think only Obama would take a different approach that may transcend the sharp divide prevailing in our country.
I am optimistic about Obama's chances for the nomination, but must note that my prediction record is not real good. I picked Romney and Obama as Iowa winners - 50%. New Hampshire is even more difficult. Huckabee won't have his evangelicals;
Romney has been bashed by newspapers; and so I'll go with McCain. Because of the many independents, and partly from the heart, I'll pick Obama on the Democratic side.
If Obama wins in New Hampshire, a difficult task, I think he'll also succeed in South Carolina and go on to get the nomination.