A Pleasant Evening

We've all had the experience- watching a political debate (photo from Reuters/Mike Segar), listening to the "color analyst" for an athletic event, even reading a review of a favorite television program or movie- and wondering: did she watch the same thing I did?

You may had that same feeling if you watched Thursday night's Democratic debate in New Hampshire and then read the Associated Press story by Nancy Benac and Lisa Lerer, who write

Fireworks flying in their first one-on-one debate...it was Clinton who was the main aggressor, saying Sanders could never achieve his ambitious and costly proposals. Then she took after the Vermont senator for his efforts to cast her as beholden to Wall Street interests because of the campaign donations and speaking fees she's accepted from the financial sector.

"It's time to end the very artful smear that you and your campaign have been carrying out," she said.

"Artful smear" was, admittedly, a smear, something of a cheap shot.   And when Clinton charged "So I think it's time to end the very artful smear that you and your campaign have been carrying out...," some cross-talk followed, after which Sanders shot back with the vicious  "Let's talk -- let's talk about issues, all right? "

Devastating,just devastating.

Benac and Lerer note

Sanders, for his part, suggested Clinton's loyalties were colored by a reliance on big corporate donors.

"Secretary Clinton does represent the establishment," he said. "I represent - I hope - ordinary Americans."

Clinton may say the right things, he suggested, but "one of the things we should do is not only talk the talk but walk the walk."

Sanders added that he is "very proud to have people like Keith Ellison and Raul Grijalva in the House, the co-chairmen of the House Progressive Caucus" (supporting him). Clinton thus was handed the opportunity to suggest that Sanders has garnered the support of only two of the 188 Democratic members of the US House of Representatives, zero (0) Senators, and zero (0) governors because he is out of the mainstream or that the governors and members of Congress, from nearly every other state, who have endorsed her are afraid Sanders cannot carry their state in November.

Instead, she insisted "Well, look, I've got to just jump in here because, honestly, Senator Sanders is the only person who I think would characterize me, a woman running to be the first woman president, as exemplifying the establishment. And I've got to tell you that it is... " It was a positive statement, albeit one that does not mean she does not represent the Establishment.

For his part, Sanders could have laid into Clinton about her ties to the financial industry, or at least to Goldman Sachs.  Yet, when he cited Goldman for helping to "destroy our economy and runin the lives of millions of Americans," he said nothing about Clinton, instead turning to something no national Democrat would contest:

Kid gets caught with marijuana, that kid has a police record. A Wall Street executive destroys the economy, $5 billion settlement with the government, no criminal record. That is what power is about. That is what corruption is about. And that is what has to change in the United States of America.

Consider that Sanders has assiduously avoided the e-mail scandal, the nexus between Clinton's service as Secretary of State and the Clinton Global Initiative, or her response to her husband's philandering, which the GOP recently tried to exploit. Instead, he has criticized his opponent for: a bias toward "free" trade; an ambiguous relationship to Wall Street; not being a "progressive;" voting to give President Bush a blank check in Iraq; insufficient enthusiasm for universal health care. If Clinton is the nominee, the GOP- with its ideological bent- would be hard pressed to turn any of that into a sound bite or a damaging video.

The "fireworks" in the debate presumably did not include the following remarks by Sanders: "Secretary Clinton is absolutely right, there ar people, Koch brothers among others..."; "O.K. Let me argue with much of what the Secretary said..."' And I would say if I might, Madame Secretary- and you can correct me if I'm wrong"; "I fully, fully concede that Secretary Clinton, who was Secretary of State for four years, has more experience- that is not arguable- in foreign affairs."

In return (sort of), when Mrs. Clinton was asked if she wished to respond to Sanders' claim that an ad implying a New Hampshire newspaper (which had taken no position) had endorsed him, and which was entitled "Endorsement," Clinton replied "no."    It was a response as generous as it was brief, which  is itself  a welcome departure from the norm for a politican (or a celebrity).

Admittedly, Clinton must- not strategically, but from a sense of decency- drop the claim that the Vermont Senator proposes that as President he would rescind the Affordable Care Act while endeavoring to institute single payer.   It is a preposterous claim, intended to raise the hair on the back of the head of Obama Stepfords unaware that a President Sanders would maintain the current system while trying to improve or replace it.

Still, Clinton was civil to her opponent, at one point acknowledging "I have great great respect for Senator Sanders' commitment to trying to restore Glass-Steagall." And when the debate ended and Rachel Maddow, exhibiting a remarkable lack of professionalism and inferring a bias toward the Democratic candidates, hugged both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, it was a fitting end to a relatively informative and cordial encounter.

 

Share |

A Rubio "Like"

Marco Rubio from is prancing around with his third place showing in Iowa, like the boy in grade school who loses but gets a trophy for competing. (Usually, Republicans don't like this.) Much of the media is buying it and Seth Stevenson notes

The Washington Post deemed Rubio a “winner” because “he made a strong run at Trump,” while Trump got classified as a “loser” whose second-place finish (again, you understand, ahead of Rubio) might represent “a catastrophic hole that will bring the whole enterprise down.” Politico’s Dylan Byers tweeted that Rubio had secured a “win for [the] establishment” and that Trump had suffered a “clear loss.” Further examples abound.

Rubio himself, in a postcaucus address that sounded a lot like a victory speech, proudly embraced his tertiary status. “So this is the moment they said would never happen,” he began, beaming. “For months they told us we had no chance … but tonight here in Iowa the people sent a very clear message.” Indeed. Very clearly, more of them voted for Trump. A couple thousand more of them....

It’s a collective hallucination. Like we’ve all made a pact to disregard the actual vote tallies.

Stevenson recognizes, however, "the most insidious thing about the expectations game is that it might matter, even though it shouldn’t."

It matters because-  consciously or otherwise- Rush Limbaugh has bought it. Less than two months ago, Limbaugh maintained

Marco Rubio was part of the Gang of Eight trying to secure amnesty and wishes he wasn’t. Ted Cruz never was and they’re trying to make it out like he was. At the end of the day when people go vote, people are gonna remember of the two it was Marco Rubio that was a member of the Gang of Eight and Ted Cruz that wasn’t.”

Limbaugh never was specifically opposed to the Rubio candidacy but was decidely cooler toward the Senator than he was to Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, or to Donald Trump. However, he changed his tune promptly once the results were in from the Iowa caucus, stating (admiring image below from his website) on Wednesday

I think I made the point analyzing the results in Iowa that Rubio is heavily influenced by Reagan, as was Ted Cruz, as was Dr. Carson.  Three of the four top finishers in Iowa -- and I think it's momentous.  I think it's remarkable.  'Cause the Republican Party establishment they are trying to tie Rubio to is actually the group that wants to get rid of Reagan and Reagan influences, the Reagan fetish, the era of Reagan is over.  And I think Rubio's a Reaganite. 

That's tantamount to gaining Rush's "imprimatur," as Steve M. puts it. SM believes it "might make him acceptable to the crazies (even as the mainstream media is persuading middle-of-the-road voters all over America that he's a moderate)."  Nevertheless, as important as it is, the Limbaugh imprimatur will be even less important in persuading the right-wing popular base than it is in signifying that Rubio is (again) the candidate to beat, the guy whose nomination it is to lose.

There are very few things more reliable in any presidential campaign season

There are very few more reliable events throughout the years than that Rush Limbaugh will avidly, enthusiastically, and demagogically support the Republican nominee for President. If Rand Paul- whom Limbaugh has rarely if ever defended, let alone applauded- had become the GOP nominee, Limbaugh would have unqualifiedly endorsed him for the office of the presidency. If Jim Gilmore, whomever he is, had won the nomination, Rush would have had his back.

Neither Rand Paul nor Jim Gilmore ever had a chance of pulling it off.  However, Limbaugh is careful to couch criticism of any Republican candidate with a serious chance of nomination in terms that can be revoked or modified if the man or woman becomes the GOP standard bearer. And designation as a "Reaganite" is imperative.

The expectations game matters, as does the claim of Rubio spokesman Joe Pounder that "Marco is the only candidate who can unite conservatives and beat Hillary Clinton," which fits in nicely with the portrayal of the right-wing extremist from Florida as the campaign's "moderate." When Christie and Bush pound on Rubio, it becomes increasingly clear they believe he must be stopped in his tracks.

As someone who predicted that if Trump (still purportedly way ahead in New Hampshire) were to lose in Iowa, his support would plummet, I can be sure of this analysis. Maybe.









Share |

Not There.

Included among President Obama's ringing notes of extraordinary eloquence (photo from Reuters/Jonathan Ernst) at the Islamic Society of Baltimore (which isnot in Baltimore) was

And today, there are voices in this world, particularly over the Internet, who are constantly claiming that you have to choose between your identities -- as a Muslim, for example, or an American.  Do not believe them.  If you’re ever wondering whether you fit in here, let me say it as clearly as I can, as President of the United States:  You fit in here -- right here. (Applause.)  You’re right where you belong.  You’re part of America, too.  (Applause.) You’re not Muslim or American.  You’re Muslim and American. (Applause.) 

Indeed, they are American, Syrian-American, Lebanese-American, Iranian-American, Brazilian-American, Indonesian-American and so forth. And they are Muslim: Muslim and American, not Muslim-American, as they are so inaccurately referred to of late by President Obama and many other people. And as Muslims and Americans, they do "fit in here- right here."

The  President condemned hate crimes in the USA and courageiously acknowledged "there are Christians who are targeted now in the Middle East" and Jews who in France and elsewhere who "feel themselves under assault- sometimes by Muslims."

However, the President stated also

So let’s start with this fact:  For more than a thousand years, people have been drawn to Islam’s message of peace.  And the very word itself, Islam, comes from salam -- peace. The standard greeting is as-salamu alaykum -- peace be upon you.  And like so many faiths, Islam is rooted in a commitment to compassion and mercy and justice and charity. Whoever wants to enter paradise, the Prophet Muhammad taught, “let him treat people the way he would love to be treated.”  (Applause.) For Christians like myself, I’m assuming that sounds familiar.  (Laughter.)

People have drawn for more than a thousand years to Islam's message of peace, just as they have been drawn for at least as long as that to Christianity's message of peace. However, as this piece (written nearly four  years ago, before some of the more egregious examples came to light) indicates, religion has been the primary motivator of the Crusades,The Thirty Year War, the strife in Northern Ireland, "numerous religious wars of England and France," and more recent wars in Yugoslavia, Iraq, and Afghanistan. It goes on and on, with religions- Islam and Christianity included- being responsible for much evil and much good in the world. "Faith" has proven a handy rationale for scoundrels and the well-meaning alike..

But Muslim activists Asra Q. Nomani and Ify Okoye painted a different picture of the chosen mosque when Wednesday they wrote

This past weekend, dozens of girls and boys as young as about 8 years old ran up the stairwell to the main entrance of the musallah, or main prayer hall, of the Islamic Society of Baltimore, where President Obama visits Wednesday in his first presidential visit to a U.S. mosque. As the children rounded the corner, a stern mosque Sunday school teacher stood before them, shouting, “Girls, inside the gym! Boys in the musallah.”

The girls, shrouded in headscarves that, in some cases, draped half their bodies, slipped into a stark gymnasium and found seats on bare red carpet pieces laid out in a corner. They faced a tall industrial cement block wall, in the direction of the qibla, facing Mecca, a basketball hoop above them. Before them a long narrow window poured a small dash of sunlight into the dark gym.

On the other side of the wall, the boys clamored excitedly into the majestic musallah, their feet padded by thick, decorated carpet, the sunlight flooding into the room through spectacular windows engraved with the 99 names of Allah, or God, in Islam. Ornate Korans and Islamic books filled shelves that lined the front walls.

And it didn't have to be that way. Obama did not have to go to that particular house of worship to bring his message of acceptance and inclusion because (emphasis mine)

Today, in an estimated two-thirds of mosques around the United States, women and girls are segregated in dark basements, sparse balconies, separate rooms and even behind shower curtains in the “sisters’ section,” listening to Friday sermons piped in through shaky sound systems and watching them, if we are lucky, via TV screens.

There are mosques in the USA in which women are not segregated. As the 2011 report to which Noman/Okoye link reveals, "two thirds (66%) of mosques sampled use dividers to demarcate women’s prayer spaces during daily prayers. This percentage has also not changed over the past decade."

That leaves one-third which do not. None of those was honored with a visit while the leader of the Free World chose to extend a hand of friendship where "on any given day a woman or girl worshiping in the mosque would be dispatched away from the musallah where he will stand to speak out against 'Islamophobia,' to the 'prayer room for females,' as one worshipper described it."  Noman and Okoye

believe it is the role of government to protect women’s rights within religion, if a place of worship gets federal nonprofit benefits, just as it protects civil rights in the secular space. Places of worship in the U.S.would not be allowed tax-exempt status if, for example, they were to seat African Americans in segregated spaces. To condone the mosque’s gender segregation is particularly ironic coming days after the White House announced efforts to win equal pay for women and increased workplace benefits for women in the military.

It's ironic, but not surprising.  While robustly applauding the breakdown of barriers to same-sex marriage in the USA, the left can at most manage a "tsk, tsk" at the brazen discrimination practiced among some of those recognized by President Obama as Muslim and American.

Noman and Okoye refer to it as "gender apartheid."  However, I refer to it as segregation, practiced 62 years after Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka and 52 years after discrimination in public accomodations was outlawed. Houses of worship, including mosques, can segregate males and females as does the Islamic Society of Baltimore. But the President of the United States of America should not celebrate it.

Share |

Unusual Revolutionary

Charlie Pierce caught an interview of Hillary Clinton by one of the candidate's acolytes, Chris Matthews (photo from MSNBC). and observed "it appears condescension is not just a river in Egypt." Matthews claimed

Look, the history of the Democratic party—your party, not Bernie Sanders. He's not a Democrat—your party has produced the New Deal, the progressive income tax came from the Democrats, Social Security, the greatest anti-poverty program, came from Roosevelt, health-care and civil rights, and all these good things, and in every case, you had to battle Republicans against it to the last person. It's always been a tough fight. You need 60 votes in the Senate, and you need 218 in the House. And if you don't have them nothing gets done. Can the Bernie people be taught—not him, he can't be taught—can the kids behind him be told that this is how it works in our system? You can call for a revolution but it ain't gonna happen. There isn't going to be a revolution. There's gonna be an election and an inauguration and then there's going to be a Congress sitting next to you that you have to deal with. Revolution sounds like a pass. You don't have to have logic any more. We're going to have a revolution and pay for anything.

Pierce remarks

First of all, what Sanders is calling for is a democratically determined change in how we govern ourselves. He's not fcking Robespierre. The tumbrels are all in your head, dude. Among other things, Sanders is advocating for the restoration of a financial-reform system that was a pure product of the New Deal and that prevailed for 60-odd years. That's his "revolution." Just chill. 

"The kids" is how Mattthews refers to young voters. It's reminiscent of the common sports talk show vernacular in which college athletes and even professional athletes are commonly referred to as "kids." It's what you call young adults when reluctant to afford them the full respect they're due.

Thus, Matthews asks, probably rhetorically "Can the Bernie people be taught—not him, he can't be taught—can the kids behind him be told that this is how it works in our system?"

Not only can't "the kids" be taught, but a 25-year veteran of the United States Congress, one currently more popular among his own constituents than any other Senator, "can't be taught."   Matthews should have consulted the other veterans, those of the United States Armed Forces.

In 2014, GOP Senator John McCain of Arizona and Vermont senator and then-Senate veterans' committee chairperson Bernie Sanders addressed the huge controversy surrounding the Veterans Adminstration. McCain proposed a bill which contained a provision allowing veterans residing far from a VA facility to obtain private care. House veterans committee chairperson Jeff Miller, representing the extremely conservative and veteran-laden Florida Panhandle, added the provision to a bill he was sponsoring in the lower chamber, and it quickly passed, 426-0.

But Sanders, Jill Lawrence has written for Politico magazine, "was focused on fixing scheduling and strengthening the VA internally."  and he and Senator McCain

agreed to give veterans the choice of private care for both scheduling and distance reasons, and McCain agreed to limit the choice program to a two-year trial. Both agreed on expanded firing authority, and they compromised on how much due process to allow for those who were dismissed.

The bill passed 93-3.   However, the Senate and the House bills had to be reconciled and, Lawrence explains "Sanders and his party, with strong backing from the disabled veterans community, wanted to add new money to bolster the VA internally. Miller and the House leadership, meanwhile, wanted to focus on the private-choice program."  That would be Vermont's Bernard Sanders, whom a technically accurate but wildly misleading Matthews labeled " not a Democrat."

Soon afterward, the VA director told House Republicans that the agency needed to correct its deficiencies $17.6 billion, a number which infuriated Miller.  However

Sanders and other Senate Democrats were predictably livid. Instead of going to Miller’s meeting, they held a press conference to vent about money and collegiality. Sanders responded to Miller’s moving-the-goal-posts charge by saying he did move them—“to a much lower and more realistic number,” $10 billion less than the initial Senate bill. He said he had tried to meet the Republicans “more than halfway,” but was sad to conclude “the good faith we have shown was not reciprocated by the other side.” Miller’s approach, he said, amounted to saying “come to a meeting, vote for my bill, end of discussion.” He added: “That is not democracy.”

Then-House Speaker John Boehner did not agree with Democratic criticism and

blamed the impasse on Obama. "Bipartisan, bicameral negotiations were making good progress, until the White House began demanding more money with no accountability, and no strings attached. Now, I want to be clear: there's going to be no blank check for the president and his allies,” Boehner said. Other Republicans blamed Sanders, who had invited Gibson to assess VA’s internal needs and ended up with what a Republican aide called “a half-baked proposal” that arrived smack in the middle of a negotiation.

Nonetheless

a compromise was reached just a couple of days later. The House had offered zero money for VA improvements, while Sanders had asked for close to $9 billion. In the end, both sides agreed to $5 billion. Another $1.5 billion went for leases of 27 major medical facilities in 18 states and Puerto Rico. The two sides also agreed to create a Veterans Choice Fund and put $10 billion into it. The House, which had offered no due process to people being fired, agreed quickly to an appeal within a week, a decision within a month and no pay for the duration of the appeal.

The new bill passed the House 420-3 and the Senate 91-3 and was signed into law by President Obama.

After Chris Matthews' rant about how "the kids" and Bernie The Revolutionary don't understand how our representative democracy works, Clinton lectured the viewers on American history:

We had to have people who were willing to roll up their sleeves and compromise. We couldn't have ideologues who were just hurling their rhetoric back and forth. We had to actually produce results. That hasn't changed since George Washington. We have to produce results now because a democracy is a fragile organism. 

Over-compensation can be quite unattractive.  Throughout the 2008 primary campaign Matthews, enamored of Barack Obama, made several controversial remarks (some arguably sexist) about Mrs.Clinton, perhaps the most (in)famous being "T]he reason she's a U.S. senator, the reason she's a candidate for president, the reason she may be a front-runner is her husband messed around."

In December, 2007 Matthews had asked journalist Chrystia Freeland about Mrs. Clinton's supporters "Chrystia, do you -- aren't you appalled at the willingness of these people to become castratos in the eunuch chorus here or whatever they are?"  Given his about face, one now is tempted to say ooh, that must really hurt, Chris.








Share |

Back To Rubio And Cruz

Steve M. realizes that the Republican caucus results last night were bad news for the Democratic Party. He writes

We seemed to be on the verge of a Republican crack-up. Instead, last night we got a better-than-expected performance by someone who might be able to keep the party patched together. I hope someone -- Trump, Kasich ... hell, even Jeb -- humiliates Rubio in New Hampshire next week. If not, I hope Trump and Cruz cleans his clock in South Carolina. 

Rubio's surprisingly strong second-place finish was not the worst of it for Democrats. Rather, it was the defeat of the "ignorant bigot" who, though he "has created a particularly toxic strain of Republicanism"

poses a threat to the Republican Establishment -- he tarnishes the GOP brand by saying out loud what other Republicans say in code, and while his agenda may overlap with that of the GOP's power brokers on many issues, he wouldn't just take an ALEC or Grover Norquist agenda off the shelf and run on it, much less govern by it. I think a Trump presidency would be a nightmare, but it would be a singularly Trumpian nightmare -- it wouldn't be a tactical advance in the long war being fought by the Koch brothers and their allies. And we might never get to that point, because Trump would be a weak general election candidate, at a time when the Democrats are going to have a weak candidate of their own.

Ia case of "be careful what you wish for," while Democratic politicians and progressive blogs everywhere condemned Donald Trump the last few months, looming ahead were two much greater threats to the Democratic Party: Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz.

Steve M. warns "if Marco Rubio is the nominee, he will win. Take that to the bank."  But although the Florida Senator would seriously jeopardize the election of Hillary Clinton (or Bernard Sanders), Ted Cruz should not be taken lightly.   Bill Maher has commented "There’s a reason why the big question about Ted Cruz is always, “When he shaves in the morning, how does he avoid spitting in the mirror?"

That might, however, not be only the big question about Ted Cruz- it might be the only question. Although he is a political extremist, so too is Marco Rubio. Cruz appears to be more radical, which goes to Maher's remark, but he is a better campaigner and smarter than Rubio. And for what it's worth:  if he comes under withering assault, the Texan will have less difficulty than the Floridian under the same circumstances.  As Charlie Pierce recognizes (and Chris Christie has demonstrated) of Rubio, "if you knock him one inch off his talking point on a particular issue, he's lost and floundering" (photograph below from CNN).

While Steve M. is correct to describe Marco Rubio as "dangerous," there should be no assumption that he would be elected if nominated. He still has exhibited severe difficulty with personal finances, is evidently confused about religion, and has been for immigration reform before he was against it.   Unfortunately, now that the GOP frontrunner has been wounded, Democrats have to be concerned that they won't be able to run against a guy who doesn't know the difference between a collection plate and a communion plate .

Share |

The First Inning, Concluded

The awful cliche is "it is what it is." In the case of the Democratic race, the morning, it "was what it was."

Think David Plouffe.

On one level, Senator Obama won the Democratic nomination for President in 2008 because of his extraordinarily effective chief delegate counter, David Plouffe, now an executive at Uber (which ungenerously, may say something about Obama).   Plouffe executed the micro-strategy, in which he "implemented a strategy that focused on winning early (Iowa), on taking delegates from small states and/or caucus states and on trying to get as much as could be had from the big states, even those where Clinton was sure to win."  "One day at a time," the 12-step programs intone; for Plouffe, it was almost "one delegate at a time."

Similarly, the result of the Iowa caucuses was not a Sanders win, a Clinton win, or a harowingly close Clinton victory which portends trouble for her. It was: Clinton 29, Sanders 21. tje delegate count which emerged from the small, overwhelmingly white, state.

Oh, this could change. Hillary Clinton, who is being portrayed as wounded from caucus night, could get a very unexpected boost from her narrow victory and surge to an unexpected victory in New Hampshire. But that's unlikely, given what is perceived as a big lead of Sanders there, as well as the mixed results in Iowa.

Then it's on to Nevada and South Carolina, as well as other states in which Mrs. Clinton is perceived to have a significant advantage, whether because of organization, endorsements, her attention to women's issues, partiality of Democratic voters to a Clinton, familiarity with the former First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State, or other factors.  She is a flawed candidate- but not so much the damaged candidate the mainstream media portrays.

The weaknesses of her candidacy including, but not limited to, lingering fear the e-mail scandal and a stunning lack of charisma or likability, always have been there.  However, Senator Sanders probably has made her a stronger candidate, one aware she cannot be complacent and who has tacked left- and more populist- on economic issues such as the financial services industry.

So beware of headlines like Politico's headline "How Iowa Went Wrong for Hillary Clinton" and the technically accurate but misleading paragraph:

How Clinton squandered such a commanding advantage in Iowa is an all-too familiar tale with echoes of 2008, of grit and a top-dollar organization undercut by the candidate’s flaws, the stubborn ambivalence of a state that has now delivered two embarrassments – but above all her inability to capture the zeitgeist of her own party.

Great writing, but an indirect shot at Bernie Sanders, who may have had something to do with Clinton's inability to snare a resounding majority of caucus participants. (And credit those young people who appear to be demonstrating a greater concept of income inequality than their elders- chart from NBC News via Vox.)   Hillary Clinton is a terrible puncher, weak when needing to go on the offensive. But she is a magnificent counter-puncher.

Credit Politico's writers for quoting a communications adviser to Clinton’s 2008 campaign. Mo Elleithee recognizes “There's going to be a new sense of urgency [in the primary] -- there is nothing more dangerous than Hillary Clinton as a candidate with her back against the wall. You're going to see two energized campaigns."



Next up: Steve M. is right about one thing, wrong about the other.








Share |

The Show Will Go On

Robert Costa, who has taken his intimacy with Republican contacts from the National Review to The Washington Post to NBC/MSNBC, let out a secret on MSNBC this afternoon: Iowa is only the first inning.

Practically no other journalist or pundit, recognizing that there are eight innings beyond the first, has admitted as much.

It's not as if all states are created equal.  The Iowa caucus (and the New Hampshire primary) in all likelihood will prove more important than votes in California, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, and South Dakota, which bring up the rear on June 7.

Consider the Democratic caucus. If Hillary Clinton wins, she makes it even tougher for Bernard Sanders. However, the Vermont senator is reputed to be well ahead in New Hampshire which, as in 2008, will not take its cue from Iowa. If Sanders wins in NH after Clinton wins in Iowa, he remains in the running- and still will be an underdog.

If Sanders wins in Iowa, he is likely- but far from certain- to win in New Hampshire. Yet, even if he wins in both Iowa and New Hampshire, he still will be an underdog, though not the decided one he is now.

Admittedly, if Donald Trump loses the GOP primary, he is done. Done, because his campaign is partially based on the idea that he is a winner and everyone else is a loser and it would call his organization into serious question.  However, every poll shows him ahead, and in at least one poll well ahead.  Further, if he does lose, the GOP race is thrown into disarray, assuming that Ted Cruz,hated among his colleagues, wins.

If Trump wins, he will be even more of a favorite in New Hampshire. However, whether Trump or Cruz comes in first in Iowa, the GOP will  face the issue of whether it wishes to lose disastrously with the first, or risk backing the second and his far-right movement which threatens run roughshod over opponents and upend the Party.   Ted Cruz, it is understood, has a lot of scores to settle.

So if either Trump or Cruz wins, the GOP is unlikely to take it lying down, whether it is moved to action immediately, or waits till after New Hampshire, when panic sets in.   Having a  standard-bearer with a history of outrageous or damaging remarks can prove inconvenient.  ("I don't bring God into that picture" of asking forgiveness, an admission even some atheists wouldn't make.) Losing the presidency is one thing, but the electoral math favors the Democrats in the Senate, and a historic loss at the top of the ticket would be accompanied by loss of the upper chamber and even a possilbe loss of the House. And then the top dogs in the GOP would have to decide among John Ellis Bush and John Kasich, whom the popular base wouldn't accept, Chris Christie (who is still vulnerable over the George Washington Bridge scandal), or Marco Rubio.









Enjoy watching the Iowa returns, as I will. Then in a day or so,we can enjoy the media telling us that New Hampshire is oh, so important. But after these two are done, the Democratic race is not over unless Bernie Sanders loses in both, and the GOP primary season will have just begun.  In the latter contest, South Carolina and Florida will be most important, as usual.

Maudlin though it is, when I think of Iowa,I think of..




..












Share |