Everyone this morning says that change was the victor and the status quo the loser. The pompous, arrogant press and talking heads couldn't wait to say "I told you so!" whistles barely out of their lips. They have anointed a new Democratic champion - or since Oprah pronounced his 'stardom,' they claim it as so.
Hillary looked like a tired old shoe, and Bill even sounded older than his years.
The message was something that the Press literally lied about, since they had tried so hard to denounce it. This wasn't an establishment anointing but rather, it was a turning out.
I've heard some Democrats say that Republicans crossed over in Iowa to follow Obama. They really didn't have a lot to vote for - it was either the Baptist or the Mormon in Iowa wasn't it? A few devout Christians even said it was “The preacher or the sinner.”
I felt their remarks mostly lacked depth within a political arena and on most days, felt the Republican caucus was better left to a Deacon's meeting. And to that, it was a clear evangelical field day.
He “rode” a message of change with young voters and female voters. He cast a vision of hope. Yet when we review all he has said, there really wasn't much substance to it. Someone had to frame the issues for him to ride on; issues largely contrary to his own votes in the US Senate.
And that 'architect' was John Edwards.
John Edwards came to Iowa a long time ago. He worked harder than any candidate, yet spent less than the contenders. He talked change, and the "two Americas," and listened intently for well over three years.
He listened early when others were posturing.
Meanwhile, Clinton and Obama were still in positions of accountability within the US Senate, so their voting records betray much of their speaking, press clippings and actual promises to Iowans as well as all Americans.
It is the inconsistencies that bother us Democrats most, and there are a wealth of them.
There is one big whopper on the issue of War versus Peace and the conduct of actions in the War on Terror.
Clinton voted for the War in Iraq. Obama did not. Yet BOTH have voted to sustain and even expand it in every measure brought before the US Senate. Does that actually say more about the reality of their position than anything else? I think so. And when the question is asked about how to end the war, neither Obama or Clinton seem to have a clue -- or be willing to step out of the box and even vaguely answer the real question.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).