Obamamentum!

Obviously, I'm an Obama supporter. I buy his schtick, regardless of how many times critics call it his "kum ba yah" strategy, or "bipartisanship for bipartisanship's sake," or the ever-more-odious "Lieberman lite." The truth is, Obama's tapped into a wellspring of support that's not delineated strictly along partisan lines in a time when hyperpartisanship rules the day.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not one to shy away from partisanship, and I'll say that again and again. But I don't know how anybody can refuse to see the value in expanding the progressive coalition to include people who normally wouldn't self-identify as progressive. Obama's great at throwing a little bit of rhetorical red meat the way of independents and disaffected Republicans while simultaneously not changing the progressivity of his platform at all. That's a strategy that I truly believe is ultimately best able to win a mandate, and to sweep progressive legislators into office on Obama's coattails.

I've never actively disliked Hillary Clinton, and I've never specifically been a fan. I'd vote for her over any of the Republicans if she were the Democratic nominee, but I've always thought that I'd much rather see it go to Obama or Edwards. That having been said, I understand and sympathize with those bloggers who say she's been getting a raw deal largely because she's a woman. She doesn't get emotional, she's a robot. She gets emotional, she's shrill. Etc. Double standards abound, and I don't like it any more than anyone else.

That having been said, though, I was quite taken aback during Saturday's debate to hear her explicitly cite her gender as a reason that she's a "change" candidate. It's always seemed to me that Hillary's gender and Obama's race were self-evident, and things that didn't need to be explicitly stated. Obama's a presidential candidate who happens to be black. Seems to me that with her paean to people that her gender implicitly makes her an agent of change, Hillary Clinton's become not a presidential candidate who happens to be a woman, but a woman who happens to be a presidential candidate. I think Obama's got the right strategy (obviously). Only by downplaying the issues of race and gender can we get past them. Obama's is a candidacy, not a black candidacy. But Hillary's is explicitly a woman's candidacy. And while I have no problem with a woman being President, I don't think that someone's gender should at all be a reason to vote for or against them. I wonder if Hillary would argue that Condoleezza Rice would be an agent of change.

I can't wait to see what happens tomorrow night in New Hampshire, but I have a feeling I already know. I was pretty dead-on with my predictions last time, so I'll make some again today (one day early, and even with percentages!), and see how I fare this time.

Democrats

1. Barack Obama - 40%
   
2. Hillary Clinton - 28%
   
3. John Edwards - 22%
   
4. Bill Richardson - 3%
   

Republicans

1. John McCain - 34%
   
2. Mitt Romney - 26%
   
3. Rudy Giuliani - 14%
   
4. Ron Paul - 10%
   
5. Mike Huckabee - 7%
   
6. Fred Thompson - 2%

I feel OK about the orderings, but this is my first time playing with percentages, so don't hold me to them so strictly.

Fargus...

Iowa Predictions

I'm not really in any place to be playing the prediction game in a serious way, which is why I don't put money into such things as those Intrade prediction markets, fascinating though they may be. Still, I have my hypotheses about how things will turn out tonight in the Hawkeye State, and I'm gonna man up and share them with you, dear readers, and let my powers of prediction be judged by time.

Democrats

1. Barack Obama
2. John Edwards
3. Hillary Clinton

Why that ordering? Well, it feels right to me. Obama's got the lead in Iowa right now, though opinions vary on how wide that lead is (or whether it exists at all, actually). The latest Des Moines Register poll shows him seven points ahead of Clinton and eight points ahead of Edwards, but that's just one poll, and could be an outlier. And all of this says nothing of the fact that these polls may not end up having sample populations that are truly representative of the tiny, tiny percentage of people who will actually show up tonight to caucus. Regardless, the three are running at least neck and neck by any reckoning, and I put Clinton at third place because I don't think that she's almost anyone's second choice, which counts significantly in Iowa. Add to that the fact that Kucinich has explicitly suggested that his supporters put Obama second, and the additional fact that the Biden and Richardson campaigns have been making motions in the same direction, and I come away with Obama taking the thing.

Republicans

1. Mike Huckabee
2. Mitt Romney
3. John McCain

The Republican process doesn't involve second choices, so the race is slightly easier to predict, but with all the volatility in the terrible, terrible Republican field, predictions are dicey at best. Romney and Huckabee seem like locks for first and second places, in some order, and McCain seems to be resurgent, especially with the promised support of Fred Thompson.

I'm no professional, and I'm certainly not a political insider, so take these predictions with the grain of salt they deserve. It's fun to play, though, isn't it?

Fargus...

P.S. Though I think that there's a lot about the Iowa Caucus, and about the Presidential Primary process in general, that's silly, as an Obama supporter, I can't help but be happy that it's there in this case, as it represents the absolute best chance he's got to gain the momentum he needs to catch Clinton. If we had a national primary, the contest would likely be over.