I have not been writing much about the Iowa Caucus, so here goes a little blurb to let you know what I think about the results.
Even though Kerry won on paper, to me the big winners were Edwards, Gephart, and the Democrats in general.
Edwards came off in his speech as positive, confident decent, and with a coherent message, and I think he has a chance in the south (where Kerry has no shot in hell).
I think Gephart is a winner, because he is clearly too decent a man to have to put up with all these other clowns. His speech exuded class.
The Democrats as a whole win, because the crackpot, wingnut left was bitchslapped back into place with the performance of Dean, Kucinich, and the other idiots.
drew
Count the GOP as a big loser. Kerry and Edwards would certainly put up more of a fight than Howard Dean.
lowercase h harry
As much as the Deanies are big losers (and I don’t think there can be much doubt about the size of this defeat for Dean), the DLC old guard got a bit of a smack, too. While Gephardt lacks their trade stance, he was otherwise with them. His loss signals that the Democrats aren’t looking for a hardline foreign policy candidate any more than they aren’t looking for a Dean type dove.
I’m sorry to see Gephardt go. He’s a great, great guy who never had any ambition other than to serve his country in the highest role possible. No scandals, no wealth, and no ego.
Ksec
You really should stop relying on Rush for your views. Hes got you believing a bunch of garbage about leftists He singlehandedly brought the right up to where it is today and he based it in half truths and revisionist history. In other words, you guys are treadin on really thin ice .
John Cole
What on earth are you talking about?
HH
If Dean is right and a Kerry nomination means a Nader candidacy, this may not be so bad for the GOP after all.
HH
Gephardt was decent, relatively speaking, but Best of the Web did note the irony that he came up with the term “miserable failure,” which would better describe his candidacy.