Some thoughts on the Iowa caucus
Being an Edwards supporter, I am both pleased and disappointed with the results from the Iowa caucus. Which, in case you've been in a cave since yesterday or something, were:
1. Obama
2. Edwards
3. Clinton
Pleased, of course, because he did much better than the pundits expected. Second place, for Edwards, really is a victory of a sort. Not the same as coming in first, of course, but all things considered it's a darned good showing.
Disappointed, of course, because he didn't win. There was a chance that he might have, the way Iowa uses people's first- and second-choices, that he'd take a enough of the second choices to win it.
But hardly anybody caucused for the other candidates. And of the other candidates, Kucinich - who appeals to many deeply involved activists - urged his supporters to back Barack Obama as a second choice.
Which brings me to the point of this post. I can't quite figure out why Kucinich would do this. When I look at Kucinich's record of outspokenness about ending the war and about (a record that I admire, and wish that more politicians had the guts to emulate), I see the strongest parallels to Edwards statements.
Edwards seems to me to be the one of the big 3 candidates who is making the strongest and most strident statements about ending the war. It's an issue Kucinich clearly cares deeply about, so why back Obama? It's puzzling.
One reason might be that Obama is the only one of the big 3 that didn't vote for the war in the first place -- a vote Edwards has admitted was a mistake (something, again, I wish more elected Democrats had the guts to do), and that Hillary won't give a straight answer about. So perhaps this is Kucinich's way of rewarding Obama's foresight on the Iraq AUMF. Perhaps.
But I can't help but being a bit more cynical than that. I suspect that his real motivation to back Obama is simple political deal-making.
Some back-room deal he and Obama made to trade Kucinich's Iowa second-choice votes for ... what? The vice-president slot on the ticket? A cabinet post? Who knows. I guess we'll find out later.
That's my suspicion, and I have to say, it disappoints me. Kucinich has, of late, been a principled representative and orator, particularly about Iraq and impeachment. To see him (probably) trade principle for deal-making, well, I hope I'm wrong because I thought he was above that.
1. Obama
2. Edwards
3. Clinton
Pleased, of course, because he did much better than the pundits expected. Second place, for Edwards, really is a victory of a sort. Not the same as coming in first, of course, but all things considered it's a darned good showing.
Disappointed, of course, because he didn't win. There was a chance that he might have, the way Iowa uses people's first- and second-choices, that he'd take a enough of the second choices to win it.
But hardly anybody caucused for the other candidates. And of the other candidates, Kucinich - who appeals to many deeply involved activists - urged his supporters to back Barack Obama as a second choice.
Which brings me to the point of this post. I can't quite figure out why Kucinich would do this. When I look at Kucinich's record of outspokenness about ending the war and about (a record that I admire, and wish that more politicians had the guts to emulate), I see the strongest parallels to Edwards statements.
Edwards seems to me to be the one of the big 3 candidates who is making the strongest and most strident statements about ending the war. It's an issue Kucinich clearly cares deeply about, so why back Obama? It's puzzling.
One reason might be that Obama is the only one of the big 3 that didn't vote for the war in the first place -- a vote Edwards has admitted was a mistake (something, again, I wish more elected Democrats had the guts to do), and that Hillary won't give a straight answer about. So perhaps this is Kucinich's way of rewarding Obama's foresight on the Iraq AUMF. Perhaps.
But I can't help but being a bit more cynical than that. I suspect that his real motivation to back Obama is simple political deal-making.
Some back-room deal he and Obama made to trade Kucinich's Iowa second-choice votes for ... what? The vice-president slot on the ticket? A cabinet post? Who knows. I guess we'll find out later.
That's my suspicion, and I have to say, it disappoints me. Kucinich has, of late, been a principled representative and orator, particularly about Iraq and impeachment. To see him (probably) trade principle for deal-making, well, I hope I'm wrong because I thought he was above that.
# Posted by Jason Black : 10:29 AM
Comments:
The idea that OBama won because of some deal with Kucinich has no basis in reality. Kucinich had hardly any support. And if you look at the entrance polls, OBama went into the caucuses with 35% support, compared to 23% for Edwards.
edwards has many more senate votes he has to admit were mistakes for before i believe him. (i could make you a list if you want to get sick).
i know, obama has made many bad votes, (for funding the bombing!)
so i do not understand why anyone who says they are for peace, supports any of the top tier 3.
i am very Disappointed y'all did not support Kucinich or Gravel or Revolution.
--
kucinich in 2004 asked his supporters to caucus for edwards as their 2nd choice, (not dean). it was pure politics as edwards told his supporters to back kucinich 2nd.
this time i hope dennis got a better deal. dont doubt his semi endorsement swung more people than just his people. obama would not have had his margin without dennis.
The endorsement of Obama may have been an anti-Clinton move. Kucinich may have thought that Obama had the better chance to defeat her.
Post a Comment