It’s completely the reverse of what I thought common sense was telling us. Stick with what you know? That, after all, is what American voters have done for two terms now. But there are other themes in play – Iraq, the faltering economy, age, race, religion, sexual orientation, the electorate is fractured like never before. Now as well that the idiot Bush has been in power for nearly two decades, there’s also a new generation ready to try to make their mark. Hillary Clinton was a guaranteed victor in Iowa? Apparently not.
The young and the female voted for Obama, the older people (with lower turnout) voted Clinton. As the article says, where Bill was seen as the consummate change maker, Hillary is not – two term senator and two term First Lady. Where she’s touted these as assets as making her uniquely electable, there seems at least to be a nascent narrative forming where they are the exact opposite. Or maybe not. What if Hillary gets the grey vote out across the country, more than Obama the young? Anyone who underestimates them (or her) really isn’t paying attention. Or will Huckabee’s foul, homely evangelical Christianity win the day? Bush’s did, although he got lucky with more than a few electoral irregularities to pull it off. Or will the sublimely two faced Romney convince the electorate that he is what he says he is (whatever that is)?
There’s a long way to go (maybe more than the next month I’m guessing) until we know if it really is Obama v Huckabee in November and a lot is going to change through this. If Hillary wants it she’s going to have to understand the role she’s playing and get her base out. But there’s a serious risk that she hasn’t a chance – popular as she is, she’s still tied to an era which America is now somewhat sure it’s fed up with and wants to move on from. Having voted for Iraq as well, where Obama has been against it all along might just swing it. If that’s true I’d really hate to be Gordon Brown. It’ll mean he won’t have a chance in hell of winning in 2009…
Cosmodaddy 
At the moment, and I’ve been saying this for a while, I’ll be a little surprised if it’s not a Clinton/Obama ticket for the Democrats. What I can’t quite figure is which way round it’ll go. I don’t think that Edwards has the support to be helpful, though yesterdays results, if replicated, may well prove me wrong there.
The Republican one intrigues me as well, not so much that Huckabee won, but that McCain did so badly.
It’s so fluid though, isn’t it? Far more than some of the mainstream press would like you to believe. They’re so desperate to draw some narrative out of these proceedings when there still aren’t dominant ones on either side, that you’d almost think Obama got elected yesterday. Until Iowa Hillary was still leaps and bounds ahead of Obama nationally in the polls – what will be interesting is if his inevitable ‘bounce’ breaks people’s confidence in her ability to win. It’s not just the intellect, it’s the name with her after all – people expect the wife of Bill Clinton to hit the White House almost without trying. Well she’s going to actually have to try – he had to dig deep and so will she.
McCain’s fortunes *are* interesting aren’t they? They’re pretty much showing that the influence of the Iraq War was also having a fluid effect. Last November it had an utterly polarising effect, now it may have a different result in different states, even perhaps following different news headlines.