Photo: Barack Obama (Creative Commons)
So, Obama won in the end; and Hillary Clinton was beaten narrowly into third. It's not surprising that Hillary's team is already downplaying the importance of Iowa, but in one way, she's right. Only about a quarter of a million people actually took part on the Democratic caucuses, and the difference between Clinton and second-placed John Edwards only equates to about 2,000 votes. Not much on which to build a narrative of momentum, or negative momentum sufficient to dent Clinton all that severely.
And yet. And yet. The importance of Iowa is simply that it's the first state to show in the White House stakes, and today's politics being all about perception and momentum, it's no good pretending Iowa didn't matter. Its significance? Well, the boring bit first: barring a miracle result for one of the lesser candidates in New Hampshire, the Democratic contest has been cut to a three-way fight. Already Iowa has made Joe Biden and Chris Dodd throw their hands in; more will surely go the same way after next Tuesday. At the business end of the race, the key is not that Hillary Clinton is really behind: I think nationally we'll now have a close contest between her and at least one other candidate. It's simply that she has failed to establish herself as the obvious nominee at this stage. After Iowa, it looks as though she has to fight many hard rounds against Barack Obama if she's going to win on points. He does not look like a man who'll easily be knocked down. I've certainly not given up on Hillary at this stage - I reckon she'll benefit disproportionately if and when Edwards falls behind. But I will start to worry if she comes behind Obama in New Hampshire by a clear margin.
What I can't understand is why she's so keen to emphasise her "experience" (how much more of it does she have than Obama? I don't see how being First Lady really counts, and I expect a fair few Americans agree with me) and why she's not coming up with a more positive appeal, instead of her negative approach that, I agree with R.J. Eskow, surely must now change. If she insists on campaigning for fear rather than hope, Barack Obama will surely be delighted - and as the most idealistic-looking option, he'll surely benefit, too.
The Republican race is a mess, I just heard Justin Webb say on BBC Radio 4, and he's dead right. Huckabee won, yes: but as Iain Dale says, he'd be a joke nominee. Romney's been dented; Giuliani's been obscured. Perhaps this is the turning point for John McCain, who, if he wins New Hampshire, might just emerge as the only electable candidate. But unless he does, it's possible others might enter the race even at this stage. I really think the Republican field looks that weak. Or, of course, Republicans may start to conclude that the White House is unwinnable for them in 2008. I think that's spot on.
Photograph: Barack Obama, under a Creative Commons license.
Have your say - join the discussion