"The Status Quo Lost, and Change Won"

Iowa may or may not be the right place to begin the process of nominating Democratic and Republican candidates for the presidency.

But Iowans surely began the 2008 process with a bang.

Thursday's Iowa caucuses upended just about every expectation for the Democratic and Republican contests.

Barack Obama, who just four years ago arrived on the national political scene, did not merely win caucuses in Iowa. He prevailed, overwhelmingly, securing 38 percent support to 30 percent for John Edwards and 29 percent for Hillary Clinton.

Combine the votes for Obama, the first person of color to win the first-caucus state, with those of Edwards, who ran a fiercely populist campaign, and you've got a mandate for change -- for a radical shift in both political approaches and priorities.

Obama was not alone in telegraphing a "change" message.

Edwards was, if anything, more militant than Obama when it came to demanding a fundamental shift away from an economic agenda that for too long has favored Wall Street over Main Street.

Iowa's vote for Obama and Edwards sends the right message at the right moment. As Edwards said of Thursday night's result, "the status quo lost and change won."

Seventy percent of Democrats in a state that knows the Clintons well rejected the "inevitable" candidacy of Hillary Clinton for the promise of change and reform offered by Obama and Edwards.

And it was not only Democrats who sounded populist themes.

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, who won the Iowa Republican caucuses with ease, told his cheering supporters Thursday night, "Tonight, what we have seen as a new day in American politics."

Sounding similar populist themes to those of Edwards, Huckabee declared that, "When one is elected to public office, one is not elected to be a part of the ruling class. One is elected to be a part of the serving class."

Huckabee's win on the Republican side was the most remarkable story of the night. He was outspent by seven- or eight- to one by Mitt Romney's self-financed campaign. Yet, he beat the Romney by almost ten points. And Hucakbee did so by peddling a message that is very much at odds with the Bush administration and insider Republicans.

An even more outsider Republican, Texas Congressman Ron Paul, pulled another ten percent.

"Something is happening here," said journalist Carl Bernstein, a Hillary Clinton biographer, on the night of the first-in-the-nation caucuses.

The question now is whether it will keep happening.

Iowa gave Americans a populist moment, a "change" moment. And that is a healthy development in our politics.

The status quo will now fight back. Power does not concede anything without a fight. So Clinton's campaign on the Democratic side will turn ugly, as will Mitt Romney's campaign on the Republican side.

We can only hope – for the sake of the country, and the world beyond -- that this "change" moment will continue.

Nation Poll: What's Barack Obama's biggest challenge in forthcoming primaries?

Comments (44)

1. We can only hope – for the sake of the country, and the world beyond -- that this "change" moment will continue.

   amen!

   Posted by frosty zoom at 01/04/2008 @ 02:35am

2. All in all, it was a remarkable night for America, for the idea of democracy, for Barack Obama --and most of all, a superb night for a progressive populist message of hope that the entire fragile little planet can raise a toast of thanks to in the midst of so much that is troubling.

   For one night at the very least.

   Who wouldn't want to sustain that?

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/04/2008 @ 02:54am

3. The status quo will now fight back. Power does not concede anything without a fight. So Clinton's campaign on the Democratic side will turn ugly, as will Mitt Romney's campaign on the Republican side.

   ~Nichols

   Message to Obama:

   "Gettin' robbed, gettin' stoned, gettin' beat up --broken boned,

   Gettin' had, gettin' took.....

   I tell ya folks it's harder than it looks"

   ~AC/DC

   I recommend that you "fire it up" with gusto.

   "It's a long way to the top if you wanna lead the globe"

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/04/2008 @ 04:02am

4. B_Kool,

   as on the fence as I am about Obama/Edwards, I gotta admit that your in-your-face rhetoric here over the past couple weeks has been a little off-putting (I don't begrudge you; somebody's gotta beat the drums).

   But anybody who can quote Bon Scott in such a fitting manner on a political blog is more than all right in my book. And in the wake of Edwards's second place, you've been nothing but gracious. So keep up the good fight.

   Posted by Rintrah at 01/04/2008 @ 04:28am

5. B_Kool,

   as on the fence as I am about Obama/Edwards, I gotta admit that your in-your-face rhetoric here over the past couple weeks has been a little off-putting.....

   ~Rintrah

   Rintrah,

   Your feedback is very much appreciated :-)

   I am keenly aware of trying not to be a "dick" in the perception of readers --ala Metteyya ;-)

   My essential philosophy on spending so much time here lately is pretty basic --along with just having a playfully good time:

   1) I think it's important to say something hopefully "meaningful".

   2) It's also a significant goal to be engaging --and hopefully-- entertaining.

   and 3) The primary target is to get readers to "listen" and think about what it is they really care about as global citizens and human beings.

   If that's achieved, then I'm one completely satisfied cat.

   Anyone who spends the time to tickle their mind long enough to contemplate what it might take to make their --near and far-- environment a better place is a friend of mine.

   Happy "progressive" trails to you :-)

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/04/2008 @ 05:11am

6. If the entire world has, indeed, become just one big fight club, I hope we're askin' where the hell our mind is at?

   I hope we're not just a planet of "dicks".

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/04/2008 @ 05:49am

7. One last brain tickler for the road:

   Hey Joe, where you going with that gun in your hand?

   I'm goin' way down to Mexico

   --maybe take a cleansing swim in the Caribbean, or Gulf of Mexico.

   Very cool very early footage of Jimi with his upside down reverse stringed Fender Strat.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/04/2008 @ 06:19am

8. Dick Gephart. 2000

   Posted by crabwalk at 01/04/2008 @ 07:40am

9. ...one completely satisfied cat.

   Posted by B_KOOL_66 01/04/2008 @ 05:11am | ignore this person

   Speaking of which, I'm pretty darn satisfied too. I would have liked to have seen Edwards win Iowa, to be sure, but 2nd place is no disappointment. Kuddos to Obama and his staff.

   I'm still not too sure of the impact of Iowa. In a way, I really hope it is significant. The people voted for change and I can get behind that.

   On the other hand, the republicans voted for a Baptist preacher, by a huge margin. That's troubling. The very last thing this country needs, and the world for that matter, is a hypocritical preacher at the helm of America should the republican side pull off a suprise victory in the general election.

   Back to the Dem side, without taking anything away from the Obama camp, I'm pretty pleased with Edwards' showing.

   The worst loss of the evening came later in the night when Virginia Tech lost to Kansas. :)

   Posted by FritztheCat at 01/04/2008 @ 08:42am

10. RESE, what on earth does JFK's assassination, impeachment proceedings (that will never happen) or Bhutto's assassination have to do with Iowa?

    Posted by FritztheCat at 01/04/2008 @ 08:45am

11. So in November 08, it might be Obama vs. Huckabee... With the strategists (and myself) thinking that Huckabee will be a 'walkover'... Finally looking forward to better times!

    ...the only thing bothering me (and a lot of other Europeans) are those reoccurring news that Bloomberg might still join the fight! Which may just lead to a similar cenario as 2000... Thinking about emigrating to Mars if that wacko Huckabee gets elected - Bush might still be seen as a messias compared to a Huckabee-administration. What do you guys think of that? What are the chances of Bloomberg stepping in - and whose votes will he steal if he does???

    Oh, and one more thing: When Americans say 'populist', what exactly do they mean? Because here in Europe, it's a very negative word: politicians bellowing empty slogans just to please the massa are called populists - often that's a right wing message like deporting all immigrants. Or someone promising heaven on earth without ever being able to pay for it - that's a populist according to European standards. So I'm a bit confused to read about such a positive connotation of that word here...

    Thanks! Greetings from Amsterdam!

    Posted by elziax at 01/04/2008 @ 08:49am

12. "Edwards was, if anything, more militant than Obama when it came to demanding a fundamental shift away from an economic agenda that for too long has favored Wall Street over Main Street."

    And he came in second...not first. Meaning???

    Posted by Mask at 01/04/2008 @ 08:59am

13. Posted by ELZIAX 01/04/2008 @ 08:49am

    In reality, 'populist' means the same thing here, except it's often a more left wing message (relative to the fairly right-wing landscape of American politics, not by European standards) and it has vague connections of actually representing people rather than exploiting them.

    Posted by srjenkins at 01/04/2008 @ 08:59am

14. Posted by MASK 01/04/2008 @ 08:59am

    Edward spent significantly less than Obama and Clinton. Meaning???

    You can't take just one component and pretend it is the only relevant factor, Mask.

    Posted by srjenkins at 01/04/2008 @ 09:01am

15. The status quo will now fight back. Power does not concede anything without a fight. So Clinton's campaign on the Democratic side will turn ugly, as will Mitt Romney's campaign on the Republican side.

    Last night Clinton spoke of how great it was for the Party that there was such a great turnout. It was true form in her parting comments that she did not mention any the lessons learned from speaking with voters in Iowa or other states while on the campaign trail. Everything was about the Party, and that party has largely failed the American people. Obama and Edwards did mention lessons learned, and their speeches did not ascribe voter enthusiasm as a victory for the Party, but rather a victory for hope and a victory for the people.

    If Clinton is so serious about doing the right thing, she should give it up right now -- but of course all those political donors won't allow it -- and as you rightly mention, the status quo isn't going to give up without a fight...likely a nasty one. It will be curious to see how Clinton attempts to turn herself into an agent of change (a message she has totally missed to date). During her speech, I couldn't help but notice all the dispossessed cronies in back of her....looking worried that their meal ticket and power play just may be in jeopardy.

    Kudos to Obama and Edwards!! Edwards has got the message right all along, and Obama is starting to get some fire and intensity. My respect and faith in the American people, at least in Iowa, has come to life. Let it continue.

    Posted by OneVote at 01/04/2008 @ 09:05am

16. And he came in second...not first. Meaning???

    Posted by MASK 01/04/2008 @ 08:59am | ignore this person

    A little intuition ought to tell you that message in Iowa was in no small measure just as important as money spent. Well....it ain't over yet, but maybe Ms. Inevitable is going to have a good fight on her hands. Wonderful that MSM last night....including Howard Fineman....was finally telling it like it is. Perhaps MSM is getting the message too!

    Posted by OneVote at 01/04/2008 @ 09:14am

17. Posted by SRJENKINS 01/04/2008 @ 09:01am

    Edwards has been in Iowa since before the Fall of Man....and he placed EXACTLY where he did in 2004. He also faced a nationally popular Hillary and almost (in Iowa) unknown Obama uptil a year ago. And he lost to a guy that had to have a map to find Ames and Ottumwa, while Edwards could probably name every person in those towns.

    Posted by ONEVOTE 01/04/2008 @ 09:14am

    As noted on another thread, if Hillary loses New Hampshire, she can still fight but she'll be walking wounded.

    Posted by Mask at 01/04/2008 @ 09:23am

18. Hi everyone. Just checking in to see if anyone knows what wine goes well with crow. Looks as though liking the Clintons is going to be as lonely as it used to be.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 01/04/2008 @ 09:25am

19. Posted by MASK 01/04/2008 @ 09:23am

    On the other hand, Obama has quasi-celebrity status and is backed by other celebrities, like Oprah. Add in the money, Iowa college students caucusing at home and so forth - and I think we have problems getting to your conclusion.

    Posted by srjenkins at 01/04/2008 @ 09:41am

20. As noted on another thread, if Hillary loses New Hampshire, she can still fight but she'll be walking wounded.

    Posted by MASK 01/04/2008 @ 09:23am | ignore this person

    It will interesting to see what happens in South Carolina. Pundits last night were talking about the fact that the black vote can now rest assured of the popular support for Obama and the real possibility that he can win. I would not be surprised if the black vote dimisses all the advice of the old supposed spokespersons for the black vote that are really Clinton cronies and join the bandwagon for change. I am thinking that Obama's propects are looking good short term and this would be one hell of a momemtum builder. "Walking wounded" just may be an understatement....I hope?!?

    Posted by OneVote at 01/04/2008 @ 09:50am

21. Just checking in to see if anyone knows what wine goes well with crow.

    I would serve the milk of human kindness.

    Posted by brannigan at 01/04/2008 @ 09:52am

22. I came here to see if FrankGrits was around. I was interested in hearing his thoughts on Hillary's loss.

    Personally, if I had the ability to turn a cartwheel, I would right now. I hate when anyone says that someone's winning anything is an "inevitability". I especially don't like it when it's someone that I don't think will be good for the country in the long one.

    It's kind of like last year's New England Patriots/Indianapolis Colts game. It was "inevitable" that New England was going to beat Peyton Manning and the Colts. But who ended up with the Super Bowl ring in the end?

    Maybe now Hillary Clinton will listen less to her DLC advisors and more to the folks who are saying we're tired of this corporatocracy shit.

    Posted by edwriter at 01/04/2008 @ 10:00am

23. The word that needs to top the 2008 Lake Superior State University list of banned words will be "Change." Obama, a DLC member and Lieberman protege, as a proponent of change. This is ludicrous.

    "Change" is just another empty buzz word being used to fool the voters into once again voting for another corporate stooge. No matter who wins the presidency, 4 years from now we will still be in Iraq, and nothing will have been done on health care, global warming, the economy, the trade deficit, degrading infrastructure, etc.

    The results in Iowa, and the seriousness with which people treat it, is just more evidence that Americans are too stupid for democracy.

    Posted by Tgasloli at 01/04/2008 @ 10:19am

24. "is backed by other celebrities, like Oprah. Add in the money, Iowa college students caucusing at home and so forth."----Posted by SRJENKINS 01/04/2008 @ 09:41am

    Edwards had celebrities...he had money before he went for public financing (well after establishing himself in Iowa last year)...and why do "Iowa college students" like Obama and NOT John Edwards???

    Posted by Mask at 01/04/2008 @ 10:27am

25. Posted by ONEVOTE 01/04/2008 @ 09:50am

    If Obama wins another "white state" like New Hampshire, then the taint of Jesse Jackson-ness would be off. That being that "he only draws minority votes and would therefore be a sure loser in a general election".

    Therefore, it would be "safe" to vote for him over "inevitable" Hillary and the South Carolina African-American voters could swing over to him.

    That means he wins IA, NH, and SC...and She-Who-Must-Be-Obeyed loses three in a row...and the Shield of Invicincibility given to her by the MSM. (her ONLY protection)

    Posted by Mask at 01/04/2008 @ 10:29am

26. The results in Iowa, and the seriousness with which people treat it, is just more evidence that Americans are too stupid for democracy.----Posted by TGASLOLI 01/04/2008 @ 10:19am

    THE cheapest excuse of any defeated candidate or (more typically) their supporters...."The American people are stupid!"

    Posted by Mask at 01/04/2008 @ 10:30am

27. No matter who wins the presidency, 4 years from now we will still be in Iraq, and nothing will have been done on health care, global warming, the economy, the trade deficit, degrading infrastructure, etc.

    Posted by TGASLOLI 01/04/2008 @ 10:19am | ignore this person

    That's a pretty bleak outlook. So what do you suggest, given the current situation?

    Posted by FritztheCat at 01/04/2008 @ 11:00am

28. Obama isn't a DLC member, and I know of no information that suggests he had any contact with Lieberman before he became a Senate candidate.

    The man is weak on issues, but don't come up with lies about him. Shows that however stupid the American public is, they are smarter than you.

    Posted by dentedpat at 01/04/2008 @ 11:35am

29. That means he wins IA, NH, and SC...and She-Who-Must-Be-Obeyed loses three in a row...and the Shield of Invicincibility given to her by the MSM. (her ONLY protection)

    Posted by MASK 01/04/2008 @ 10:29am | ignore this person

    He needs three in a row to stop the "I am sooooooooooooooo ready to lead" machine. Then maybe she can go back to NY and continue to pander to AIPAC and defense contractors, and fade into the woodwork like she has done since becoming a senator. I wonder why she was not "sooooooooooooo ready to lead" why she was a senator? This candidate is so unconvincing.....I broke out laughing last night listening to her. Pathetic.

    Posted by OneVote at 01/04/2008 @ 11:42am

30. As for college students supporting Obama and not Edwards, does anyone else here remember being a college student? You don't actually know that much in college. I teach college students for my pay, and they aren't really that informed. I would be willing to bet that your average union member is more politically informed than your average college student. Plenty of college students don't know how to do political research on their own, don't know much political history, and don't know the ins and outs of the issues.

    So it is not surprising that the candidate who had the message that was most free from policy details won among them. What should worry the Edwards people is not college students and how they fall for sloganeering, but how poorly they did among union and low income households. Clinton got alot of endorsements (and given her positions on trade I don't really know what explains this except that the unions concerned thought she was going to win) from major unions, but Edwards still should have done better I think.

    Posted by dentedpat at 01/04/2008 @ 11:45am

31. Posted by ONEVOTE 01/04/2008 @ 11:42am

    Iowa cleared the road for Obama. A New Hampshire win will put Edwards in the pits. And a South Carolina victory will spin Hillary out in the infield. After that, she may have the money...but in politics, perception is reality and the perception will be "She can't win in the Midwest, Northeast, or South...among DEMOCRATS...how can she beat a Republican?"

    Posted by Mask at 01/04/2008 @ 12:25pm

32. Edwards still should have done better I think.----Posted by DENTEDPAT 01/04/2008 @ 11:45am

    My thinking as well...s'why I incorrectly predicted he would win last night (Should have known better when John Nichols predicted the same thing....a sure fire way to know the OPPOSITE is going to happen!)

    Something just doesn't appeal to a majority of Democrats about Edwards. Remember he tied with Hillary, which means 2/3rds of IA Dems didn't want Edwards....

    and I don't buy the excuse that he was "outspent". Huckabee was outspent by Romney by TWENTY TO ONE...and Rev. Mike won.

    Why couldn't Edwards?

    Posted by Mask at 01/04/2008 @ 12:29pm

33. Edwriter wrote:

    "Maybe now Hillary Clinton will listen less to her DLC advisors and more to the folks who are saying we're tired of this corporatocracy shit."

    I hope not. All Hillary cares about is her own power. Regardless of the message she chooses, if elected, she will continue to be a pimp for the the ruling class. Any move to the left will be purely for strategic purposes alone, and given the mood of the country, enhance her viability. Instead, I hope she continues down her chosen path of unmitigated, unreconstituted opportunism, which will result in her campaign being blown out of the water in a month or two.

    Posted by KansasBob at 01/04/2008 @ 12:39pm

34. Posted by DENTEDPAT 01/04/2008 @ 11:45am | ignore this person

    this was certainly not the case in the 60s, when construction workers set on an anti war march with clubs, while the police stood by. what a country.

    Posted by brannigan at 01/04/2008 @ 1:14pm

35. And no Mett gloating after all! Good for him and Obama!

    Posted by MATTMAN at 01/04/2008 @ 1:42pm

36. Posted by MATTMAN 01/04/2008 @ 1:42pm

    No, he's just asking Edwards to quit and support Obama.

    Posted by Mask at 01/04/2008 @ 2:58pm

37. Obama Campaign Proves Much Less White Prejudice than Blacks Thought ! By: Greg 'Peace Song' Jones

    " There's no way America would vote for a black president !.....America's not ready for a black president." That has historically been the sentiment and attitude shared by the majority of blacks in America due in part to the fact that we have always been under the assumption that most whites are so prejudiced that a black president in America would just never happen. But one of the most incredible things that has arisen through Barack Obamas campaign has been the vision of mass numbers of white people at each of the Obama rallys showing great love and support for this credible, intelligent, gifted, strong leader....who happens to also be black. It has been incredibly eye-opening and uplifting, and it, for the first time, shows us blacks that we have actually been wrong in our assumption that most whites are prejudiced toward us. Guess what ? Although you do have the exceptions to the rule, the fact is....most whites ARE NOT racist toward blacks. This is a very important revelation. VERY !!!

    We, as blacks have held on to our injured history, which we rightfully feel was caused by whites, to such a degree that we have never had the opportunity to see or learn that the prejudiced attitudes of whites does not exist today like it had in the past. We just didn't know. We knew that a lot of whites like black music. We knew that millions of white women love Oprah, but we thought that was just a 'woman thing'. But in all honesty, we had no idea, until now, that white people of all ages....even older ones...could be as supportive of a black candidate as they have shown in great mass. We, as blacks have been wrong !

    And now, to my black brothers and sisters....It's time for us to acknowledge this extremely important revelation...In other words....all whites are not prejudiced !!! In fact, MOST whites aren't ! I know, it's hard to believe because of our lifetime of thinking differently....but these are the facts. Just look in the eyes of the whites at Obama's rallys. You see a true warmth, compassion and true support for this man....who is black. What this means is that most whites have risen above the racism of old. Now, it is time for us, as blacks, to rise up as well. Of course, we as blacks will have the specific cases of injustice and prejudice as displayed through examples like Jena 6, Genarlow Wilson, Katrina and the like....and specific cases like those should be dealt with accordingly. But we must not continue to allow certain negative occurances to misdirect our minds toward thinking that these negative examples speak for the entire white race. The majority of whites of today are actually on our side !

    Obama's campaign has already won by proving that whites and blacks can not only get along....but can work TOGETHER....toward a better tomorrow...for us all. And guess what my black family....America IS ready !!!

    Posted by gregjones at 01/04/2008 @ 3:03pm

38. Posted by GREGJONES 01/04/2008 @ 3:03pm

    RESE-style SPAM ALERT!

    Posted by Mask at 01/04/2008 @ 3:05pm

39. RESE wrote:

    "Why is Obama necessarily better if he's on the Council for Foreign Relations and retains Zbigenew Brezhinski as a foreign policy adviser? Why does his wife retain her lucrative board seat on a huge supplier to Walmart?"

    Good question. How can we forget Zbig, that good old fashioned cold warrior who came up with that absurd theory known as "The Totalitarian Syndrome," which laughingly tried to distinguish the Soviet's dictator client countries as "Totalitarian" while our dictators--Somoza, the Shah of Iran, etc, as mere "Authoritarians."

    Zbig, you might recall, was also the one who, at the urging of David Rockerfeller and against the prophetic advice of Cyrus Vance, strong-armed Jimmy Carter into allowing the Shah of Iran into the United States, which gave rise to the hostage crisis, and allowed Khomeni and his right wing facists to consolidate power and literally murder and otherwise annihilate the moderate pro-democracy forces lead by Bani Sadr, Ghobzadegh, et al.

    Had Carter not blundered, we may have never suffered the "Reagan Revolution" or the rise of Islamic Fundamentalism, and the world may have been a very different place today.

    But then again, with the exception of the foreign policies of Kucinich and Ron Paul--the rest of the crew, Edwards, Richardson, et al, are no different. Ralph Nader was right.

    Posted by KansasBob at 01/04/2008 @ 6:02pm

40. GREGJONES [see his comments above] makes a very profound point, which the liberals of this country simply can't grasp. For example, most white liberals, taking their cue from national pundits, see the O.J. Simpson case as a glaring example of an entrenched and continuing black/white polarization, and are obviously too fricking naive to realize that the members of the African-American community who applauded the not-guilty verdict were simply vocalizing their admiration for Johnie Cochrane, and not, as erroneously suggested by the media, a belief that OJ was factually innocent and the victim of a racially motivated frameup.

    Posted by KansasBob at 01/04/2008 @ 6:19pm

41. Posted by KansasBob at 01/04/2008 @ 6:20pm

42. Posted by KANSASBOB 01/04/2008 @ 6:02pm

    RESE also believes that in the next 3 1/2 months we'll.....

    be at war with Iran...have instituted the draft....have martial law...and dissidents will be being sent to concentration camps!

    Wanna hitch your wagon to his horse?

    Posted by Mask at 01/04/2008 @ 9:05pm

43. RESE, I'm sorry I asked. I was hoping to get a coherent thought from you rather than 10 more of the same posts that I was questioning in the first place.

    You are obviously very passionate about your research so I was thinking that maybe, just maybe, you could point out some sort of relevance to your posting and the current topic of the Iowa caucus.

    Posted by FritztheCat at 01/04/2008 @ 11:32pm

44. Mask wrote:

    RESE also believes that in the next 3 1/2 months we'll.....

    be at war with Iran...have instituted the draft....have martial law...and dissidents will be being sent to concentration camps!

    Wanna hitch your wagon to his horse?

    -------------------------------------------------------------------

    Hey Mask, just because a person spouts some crazy ideas it doesn't mean that one is permitted to logically infer that all of those persons ideas are crazy. Take Ron Paul, for instance. Many progressives find his "blowback" analysis to be the most cogent and sophisticated of all of the canidates--republican and democratic, alike. But that doesn't mean that the same progessives don't find his "gold standard" arguments or his "abolish the IRS" proposal to be loony tunes, nor does it suggest that progressives are "hitching their wagon" to Ron Paul's horse.

    Posted by KansasBob at 01/05/2008 @ 12:25am