All you need to know: Evening of 4th January 2008

It's an important day in American politics so please forgive the two All You Need To Know posts!  The morning edition is here for those who missed it.

Here's the best of what we've read today:

Peter Wehner, until recently a key adviser to President Bush, thinks the intensity level for the Democrats should worry Republicans: "The turnout for Democrats last night exceeded 239,000 – almost double what it was four years ago. It was an enormous, even breathtaking, showing. Democrats are excited and it’s manifesting itself in money and in turnout.  In contrast, and until now, Republicans have been in almost a torpor. The path to victory is hard enough as it is; if the Party remains in need of Prozac for much longer, it’ll be wiped out in November. "

David Frum does, however, think that the Democrat campaign may now get bloody: "A strong Hillary Clinton showing in Iowa would have unified the Democrats early, while Republicans ran negative ads against each other into the spring. Now it is the Democrats who must fight. Hillary Clinton in particular cannot afford to remain above the fray. She must now mess up Obama a little bit or else go gentle into that good night. Somehow I cannot see her taking the gentle way."  The Politico has news of the "sharper" attacks that Camp Clinton is planning.

Rasmussen polling reports that Obama has now opened a lead over Giuliani and Romney.

The New York Times' Caucus blog has the markets' assessment of who'll prevail in the end for both parties:

• HIllary Clinton is still favourite to be the Democrat nominee but only just.  The percentage lead she had over Barack Obama has narrowed from 70%/25% to 52%/44%.
• McCain is the likeliest of the Republicans to win but not by much.  He's on 32%, Giuliani on 28%, Huckabee on 17% and Romney has slid down to 14%.

As well as writing about the 'Obama earthquake' David Brooks has written about Huckabee's conservatism (although he's not a believer in his presidential qualities):

"Huckabee understands how middle-class anxiety is really lived. Democrats talk about wages. But real middle-class families have more to fear economically from divorce than from a free trade pact. A person’s lifetime prospects will be threatened more by single parenting than by outsourcing. Huckabee understands that economic well-being is fused with social and moral well-being, and he talks about the inter-relationship in a way no other candidate has.  In that sense, Huckabee’s victory is not a step into the past. It opens up the way for a new coalition.  A conservatism that recognizes stable families as the foundation of economic growth is not hard to imagine. A conservatism that loves capitalism but distrusts capitalists is not hard to imagine either. Adam Smith felt this way. A conservatism that pays attention to people making less than $50,000 a year is the only conservatism worth defending."

Comments

[Comstock]

Peter Wehner, until recently a key adviser to President Bush, thinks the intensity level for the Democrats should worry Republicans..... It was an enormous, even breathtaking, showing

I think this is very significant. This could be 'their' 1997. And I think if Barack wins the nomination I think he could get black and working class voters to turn out as well as taking some of the swing voters.

[Ron Paul supporter]

This is just a rehash of other websites' commentary. Yaawwwwnn!!!!

[Editor]

It doesn't pretend to be otherwise, RPs.

;-)

[mamapajamas]

I think the MOST important thing about the results of the Iowa Caucus is that it was supposed to have been a "coronation" for Hillary. Now she actually has to FIGHT for the nomination, and there have to be many broken lamps and ashtrays in her hotel room from last night's results.

[Joe James Broughton]

I know very little about this, but am pretty certain of a few points.

Hilary Clinton will lose the Presidential Election if selected - although not by much.
She is not fresh, does not have a rapport, and will probably motivate an anti-vote.
Some of this may not be fair, but it's realistic.

Barack Obama probably would win the Presidential Election. He is more likely to be chosen than Clinton or Edwards, who is probably a good Democrat candidate but has missed his chance.

[mamapajamas]

JJB... you are correct about the anti-vote. She is the first presidential candidate in history with a "won't vote for under ANY circumstances" rating in the 45-50% range.

[Steevo]

My sentiments Mama with JJB's post about Hillary. He may not know much but is astute with her. On the other hand Edwards is the Learjet blowdried liberal I think its apparent many overseas don't know of on a more personal level, and with some just don't care. A 28,000 square foot home yet having a job with a hedge fund (to learn about poverty) and the $400 haircuts for starters. A diehard lefty with some absurd and destructive policy to finish it off. But really, does he look OK?

[cliff]

I think Obama will go on to final victory. The wind is blowing in his direction.