(Have you seen any other candidates come out against Prop 98? Let us know! – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

I wrote this for today’s BeyondChron.

With no presidential primary on the statewide ballot, voter turnout in June is expected to be abysmal.  Which means that Proposition 98 – the extreme right-wing measure to abolish rent control, basic tenant protections, environmental regulations and water laws – could actually pass.  But with term limits forcing many state legislators out of office, there will also be a number of competitive June primaries – creating the potential to drive up voter turnout in the state’s more progressive pockets.  If Democratic candidates for Assembly and State Senate make the defeat of Prop 98 a central part of their campaign, they could help it go down in flames.  Candidates who mobilize to defeat it would also benefit – as it will help them connect more strongly with the Democratic voters in their district.

“Prop 98 is a terrible initiative, and I will campaign against it loudly,” said Barbara Sprenger, who is running in the 27th State Assembly District (Santa Cruz and Monterey.)  By re-defining “private use” to include when a public agency takes over natural resources, Prop 98 threatens to undermine any public water project in the state.  “I’ve helped organize my community in opposing higher water rates from private water companies,” said Sprenger.  “Prop 98’s effect would be devastating.”

“I expect to have ‘No on 98’ on all my campaign literature,” said Kriss Worthington, who is running in the 14th State Assembly District.  “It seriously questions our environmental policies, and is a very blatant attack on affordable housing and rent control.”  As a current member of the Berkeley City Council, Worthington sponsored a resolution to have the City oppose it – and organized a press rally in November to draw some media attention.  He also will encourage voters to support Prop 99 – a competing measure that deals with eminent domain – as a “far more reasonable alternative.”

Sprenger and Worthington are both running in competitive races – in heavily Democratic districts where constituents are likely to oppose Prop 98.  But unless voters in these areas turn out, Prop 98 could pass statewide – so the burden is on local candidates to make its defeat a rallying cry.  “Prop 98 is horrible,” said Nancy Skinner – who’s running against Worthington in the 14th A.D. – “and it’s a worse poison pill than the last initiative [i.e., Prop 90] that we defeated.  I will have it in my campaign materials, and I will speak out against it at every opportunity.”  If competing candidates make a point of it when they boost their own campaign, they can ensure a healthy progressive turnout.

In San Francisco – where Mark Leno and Carole Migden are locked in a bitter race for the State Senate – the two candidates jointly appeared at a rally last November to defeat Prop 98.  I had previously written that having Leno and Migden run against each other could help progressive measures pass in San Francisco.  To defeat Prop 98, we’ll need similar efforts elsewhere.

Gina Papan and Richard Holober are running against each other in the 19th Assembly District (San Mateo County.)  Both oppose Prop 98, because it hamstrings the ability of local government to advance solutions.  “I believe that it goes way too far,” said Papan, who currently serves as Mayor of Millbrae.  “I will be working to help defeat it in my campaign.”  Holober’s campaign manager said that the candidate “doesn’t think that the state should dictate and tell localities what to do – and he opposes Prop 98.”

I spent much of last week calling many Democratic candidates throughout the state to see who would go on the record opposing Prop 98 – and whether they plan to make it a big part of their campaign.  Many were vague about how they expect to do so (most are just kicking off their campaign right now), but a few were happy to talk about how their background made it important to defeat Prop 98.

“I’m a renter myself,” said Anna Song, who’s running in a competitive race for the 22nd Assembly District in Santa Clara.  “It’s really important for renters to have a certain level of stability, and Prop 98 would take that away.”  Before running for public office, Song worked for Project Sentinel – a non-profit in the South Bay that assists tenants and low-income homeowners – so has encountered this issue first-hand.

A spokesman for Mariko Yamada – who’s running in the 8th Assembly District in West Sacramento – talked about the candidate’s firm commitment to rent control.  “She’s a social worker by training,” he said, “and is very sensitive to the needs of mobile home park residents in the district.  Gentrification has been pushing a lot of people out, and we’ve been working closely with grassroots organizers on these issues.”

Many of these candidates didn’t even know they were running until February 5th – when the defeat of Prop 93 termed out a lot of state legislators, opening up the chance for Democrats to run in the June primary.  As a result, a lot of them have been late in writing their campaign strategy – and some were even unsure about Prop 98 when I first brought it up.  “I need to get more educated first,” was a common response I got from a lot of them.

But now is the time to put them on record – while they’re still introducing themselves to their district – and ask them to campaign against Prop 98.  Because only with competitive races that generate a high Democratic turnout – and an emphasis on the devastating impacts of Prop 98 – will we ensure that affordable housing, environmental protection, rent control and water rights are protected in California.

And who knows?  Maybe we’ll get a more pro-tenant state legislature when it’s all over.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Before joining BeyondChron, Paul Hogarth lived in Berkeley for many years and worked for City Councilman Kriss Worthington.  He has endorsed Worthington’s run for the State Assembly, and donated $400 to his campaign.  He also supports Mark Leno’s run for the State Senate.

I wrote this for today’s Beyond Chron.

Remember when Democrats were pushing George Bush on the War in Iraq?  Remember when presidential candidates were getting heat for having supported the War – or their being wishy-washy about getting us out?  With California’s presidential primary in just two weeks, we were supposed to have a Proposition on the February ballot – making it official policy that the people of California support withdrawal.  State Senate President Don Perata championed the issue and the legislature voted to put it on the ballot, but then Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed it.  If Democrats were serious, however, they could have gathered signatures to put it on the ballot – regardless of what Arnold did.  Doing so would have boosted Democratic turnout, kept the issue alive and held all presidential candidates accountable.  Instead, we have allowed Iraq to slip from the consciousness of politicians – eluding a golden opportunity to help end this quagmire.

It’s no secret why Senate President Don Perata wanted to put this measure on the ballot – the same reason why he and Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez championed moving up California’s presidential primary to February.  They want to extend term limits to keep their jobs longer – and Proposition 93 has been their priority all year long.  If a high-profile issue like the Iraq War were on the state ballot, it would boost Democratic turnout.  Most of these voters were inclined to support Prop 93.

Four months ago, the two Democratic houses of the state legislature passed SB 924 – which calls upon the people to vote on whether the President should get our troops out of Iraq.  It was technically an “advisory measure”- but putting it on the same ballot as the presidential primary would have had a political impact.  California voters strongly oppose the War, forcing the issue on the mind of candidates.  San Francisco voters passed a similar measure in 2004.

In September, Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed it – so it failed to get on the ballot.  Not that his veto was much of a surprise.  The Republican Governor has always supported the War, and SB 924 passed the legislature on a party-line basis.  The California Constitution says that state propositions can either be placed on the ballot: (a) by the state legislature and the Governor, or (b) by collecting signatures from a certain percentage of voters.  If the Governor’s veto was predictable, why wasn’t the latter option pursued?

Of course, Arnold’s veto gave Democrats a chance to do some political grandstanding.  “The self-proclaimed ‘People’s Governor’ owed nothing less to the people of California and our troops overseas,” said State Party Chairman Art Torres, “than to let the voice of the voters be heard on this disastrous war in Iraq.”  But besides that, they just let the issue die.  Now we continue to hemorrhage American lives, American dollars and America’s standing in the world every day – when California had the opportunity to speak loudly.

Granted, it costs a lot of money to gather the necessary signatures to put a proposition on the ballot.  But it can be done.  Community college advocates put Prop 92 on the ballot by petition signatures.  Unions put Props 94-97 on the ballot by petition signatures, in order to repeal the anti-labor gaming compacts.  And the Democratic leadership – yes, the same people who said they want us out of Iraq – put Prop 93 on the ballot by petition signatures.

Nunez and Perata were willing to put in the money to collect signatures for a proposition that will extend their terms in office – but would not do the same for an albeit symbolic measure that would keep the most important issue facing America today in the minds of politicians who want California’s support.  Polling for the measure was sky-high: Californians supported it by a 2-1 margin, and among Democrats it was 10-1.

In April, when Perata and Nunez were still trumpeting the idea of putting this on the ballot, all the Democratic presidential candidates came to the state party convention.  Iraq was on everyone’s mind, and we had the time to hear from candidates about how they will get us out.  But now that they’re coming back to ask for our vote, it is less of an issue.  Beltway pundits are now proclaiming that the presidential race is less about Iraq, and more about the economy.

Why was this not a priority?  Could it be that Nunez and Perata, along with U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein and the bulk of California’s Democratic establishment, have endorsed Hillary Clinton?  Senator Clinton voted for the Iraq War Resolution in 2002 while Barack Obama opposed it – and if Iraq becomes the central issue for California Democrats when they pick a candidate, she could be in trouble.  Maybe they just didn’t want to embarrass Clinton, and lose patronage in the next Democratic Administration.

Our leaders in Sacramento told us that an early California primary meant that we would have more “clout” in picking the next President.  In the minds of most voters, that would mean holding candidates accountable on issues – like the War in Iraq – where Californians are more progressive than the rest of the nation.  But it seems like their true motivation was Prop 93 – so that if it passes in February, some of them can run for re-election in June.

The Democratic leadership put their money where their mouth is – by paying to gather signatures for Prop 93, but not for a “Get Out of Iraq” referendum.

I wrote this for today’s Beyond Chron.

As the Democratic Presidential race moves to California on February 5th, Senator Hillary Clinton holds the advantage in part because she leads Barack Obama among two crucial demographics: gays and Latinos.  But if these groups were more “results-oriented” about which candidate would bring about substantive change for their community, Obama could have an edge.  Clinton’s husband signed the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act when he was President, and she has only promised to scrap part 3 of DOMA – whereas Obama would repeal it entirely.  While both have waffled on giving drivers licenses to undocumented immigrants, when pressed to take a position Clinton said “no” and Obama said “yes.”  Gays and Latinos either don’t know such policy differences — or else have put them aside in favor of symbolic gestures, high name recognition or top-down endorsements.  Before it’s too late, LGBT and Latino voters must look at the issues, and decide which candidate would better pursue their interests.

Clinton vs. Obama and the LGBT Community:

It’s quite baffling why LGBT voters would strongly support Hillary Clinton – but the polls show that they largely do.  Queers loudly celebrated Bill Clinton’s election in 1992 because he pledged to lift the ban on gays in the military, but turned against him after he caved on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”  Every progressive group can gripe that President Clinton let them down, but the LGBT community bears the distinction that he betrayed them first.

In 1996, Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) – which banned federal rights like Social Security and immigration for same-sex couples, and allowed states to not recognize out-of-state gay marriages.  He signed it simply to deprive Bob Dole of a campaign issue, and did so at midnight while denouncing it as gay-bashing.  Days later, his re-election campaign advertised on Christian radio that he had signed it.

Like all Democratic candidates this year, Hillary Clinton has pledged to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.  She says that she’s been “on the record” opposing it since 1999 – which raises another question.  Her husband was still President back then, which means that she could have used her influence to have him repeal it.  While one could argue that the Clintons were on their way out, they could have put George Bush in the awkward position of restoring it once he took office.

Clinton says she would repeal Part 3 of DOMA (which deals with federal benefits), but would keep the rest.  That means she would let states discriminate against out-of-state couples, like what California did in 2000 by passing Proposition 22.  Her explanation leaves much to be desired: “marriage should be left to the states, and I believe that states are taking action on their own.”  Unmentioned was that outside of Massachusetts, the “state action” has been to pass anti-gay marriage amendments.

Barack Obama, on the other hand, would repeal DOMA entirely.  So LGBT voters who want to compare the two candidates’ platforms can determine who is better for them on the issues.  But Obama also angered queers last October when he campaigned in South Carolina with Rev. Donnie McClurkin – a black minister and self-proclaimed “former homosexual,” who believes it is his mission to turn gays straight.  Many of Obama’s gay supporters defected to the Clinton camp when they heard about this.

As an openly gay man, I cannot in good conscience defend what Obama did – and adding a gay black preacher to his campaign circuit after the backlash was pathetic.  However, queers must be “results oriented” when choosing a candidate.  Did Obama’s appearance with McClurkin take away any of our rights, and did it make it harder to achieve marriage equality?  What Obama did was symbolically offensive, but was it a substantive setback in getting the legislative accomplishments we strive for?

Due to her longer time in Washington, Clinton is closer to Beltway leaders in the LGBT community – which explains her many prominent endorsements.  The running joke about the Human Rights Campaign is that HRC stands for Hillary Rodham Clinton (though I prefer the moniker “homosexuals requiring cash.”)  But as the recent fury over ENDA have shown, many queers aren’t happy with their leadership.  Hopefully, they’ll take a closer look at the two leading Democratic candidates and make up their own mind.

Clinton vs. Obama on Latinos:

Clinton beat Obama by 2-1 among Latinos in the Nevada caucus – which bodes well for her in California.  Some of that is due to her higher name recognition, and the Clinton family’s longer history with Latinos.  In 1996, Bill Clinton speeded up the INS process for thousands of immigrants to become naturalized Americans – so they could vote that November.  Because Republicans were engaged in racist immigrant bashing, these (mostly Latino) new citizens voted Democrat in droves.

But anyone can see that Bill Clinton did this move out of pure self-interest to get re-elected.  I’m not Latino, but I was one of those immigrants who got my citizenship in 1996 due to the expedited process.  I was grateful at the time to vote in November, but what power do you really have if you just reward the politician who figured you would vote for him if you could?  The better question should be: did Bill Clinton do anything to substantively help immigrants in general, and Latinos in particular?

His record leaves much to be desired.  In 1996, Bill Clinton signed a punitive immigration bill that strengthened the deportation process and imposed mandatory minimum sentences.  He also signed Welfare Repeal – which eliminated Food Stamps and SSI benefits for legal immigrants.  Like DOMA, Clinton signed the Welfare Bill to deprive Bob Dole of a campaign issue – once again taking progressives for granted.

When asked about the Welfare Bill, Hillary Clinton replied that “the positives outweighed the negatives.”  She did not commit to making any changes besides expanding health care for children, whereas even her husband pledged to “fix” the more odious anti-immigrant provisions (while signing the bill anyway.)  How much did the Clinton Administration really fight to restore these cuts in Food Stamps and SSI after they were signed into law?

More importantly, what would a President Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama do to help immigrants and Latinos?  They both voted for the DREAM Act in the U.S. Senate – so that issue is basically a wash.  They also have similar voting records on increasing border patrol.  But there is a substantive difference between the two candidates on an issue of high importance to the Latino community: making drivers’ licenses available to undocumented immigrants.

At one debate several weeks ago, Clinton got in trouble for initially supporting New York Governor Eliot Spitzer’s proposal – and then saying she did not.  After Spitzer withdrew his bill, she said she opposed the idea in principle.  “As President, I will not support driver’s licenses for undocumented people,” she said, “and will press for comprehensive reform that deals with all of the issues including border security and fixing our broken system.”

Obama has also danced around the issue, but to his credit did come out in favor.  “Undocumented workers do not come here to drive,” he said, “they’re here to work. Instead of being distracted by what has now become a wedge issue, let’s focus on solving the problem that the Bush administration has done nothing about it.”  When CNN’s Wolf Blitzer demanded that he give a simple “yes” or “no” answer, Obama said “yes.”

Like the LGBT leadership, Clinton enjoys top-down support from the Latino community’s elite.  Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, California Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, and UFW icon Dolores Huerta have all endorsed Hillary Clinton.  There’s no question that the Clinton campaign has done a better outreach job with Latinos that gave her a Nevada victory, and it’s been helped by having more surrogates.

But Obama’s beginning to catch up – and his Latino support is coming more from grassroots leaders at the bottom-up.  Labor leader Maria Elena Durazo has endorsed Obama, and took time off from her job to campaign for him in Nevada.  State Senator Gil Cedillo, who sponsored the California bill to give drivers’ license to undocumented immigrants, is also backing Obama.  The only question now is whether such support from the Latino community is too little, too late.

On February 5th, California will join 21 other states in voting on Super Duper Mega Tuesday on Steroids.  Candidates are frantically flying around the country to pick up votes – and under such circumstances, the establishment front-runner is likely to win.  But Clinton leads Obama among gays and Latinos who are not voting based upon real policy differences.  If they started to do so, we may get a very interesting surprise in the race in a few weeks.

While everyone’s still in shock about N.H., I wrote this for today’s Beyond Chron.

The polls in the final days showing Barack Obama with a double-digit lead in New Hampshire were not wrong, and I was not unreasonable – though a bit cocky – to gloat that the Clintons were history.  Instead, what happened was 17% of New Hampshire voters made up their minds on Election Day.  And Hillary Clinton’s huge gender gap suggests that last-minute media attacks on her “crying” swayed women to her side.  Just like Iowa, New Hampshire voters said that change was more important than experience – which continues to be her Achilles heel as the race moves to Nevada and South Carolina.  Last week, the New York Senator was in danger of losing because voters saw her as “Clinton” – the establishment candidate who will carry on a political dynasty when voters want something new.  But on Election Day, enough came to view her as “Hillary” who would create change by becoming the first woman President.  This explains the unexpected result, and the tide of public opinion can still shift back.

It’s hard to remember now (since in politics a week can be a lifetime), but two months ago Hillary Clinton was the prohibitive front-runner – who was supposed to grab the Democratic nomination by “inevitability.”  Despite efforts by progressives to show that she is truly not one of us, people were just buying her campaign line.  Women were flocking to her candidacy as a historic first, and attempts to re-invent herself as an “agent of change” were actually working.

But in late November, while campaigning for his wife in Iowa, former President Bill Clinton lied that he had always opposed the War.  This moment reminded everyone what they didn’t like about the Clintons: their disdain for the Left and their efforts to minimize Iraq, and became a turning point in the campaign.  Bubba’s visible presence on the campaign trail – and his inability to avoid the limelight – became the issue, as voters started seriously wondering whether they really wanted to start a dynasty.

On the day before the New Hampshire primary, right after her humiliating 3rd place finish in Iowa, two things events that could have had an enormous impact on the race.  One was when Bill Clinton told a group of supporters that he “can’t make [Hillary] taller, younger, male” – debunking the notion that her status as a woman would make her a “change” candidate.  It also exposed the former President as a jerk who only cares about himself, his legacy, and is delusional enough to think he can save her floundering campaign.

But not enough people heard about this – and the other campaigns never made it an issue.  It had no impact on the result, which could have sealed the deal for Obama.  What instead dominated the news coverage was the famous incident where Hillary Clinton cried.  When asked by a reporter “how do you handle it,” she choked up and gave an emotional speech in a New Hampshire diner – which is very unusual for her to do while campaigning.

The media didn’t know what to make of this.  Some compared it to the Howard Dean scream and said it made her look weak.  Others questioned her sincerity, calling it a calculated, cynical move to make her look human.  I had a different interpretation: it was real, and to suggest otherwise would be tasteless and cold.  The Clintons were just cracking under pressure – after building their dynasty without standing for anything, the Democratic voters were rejecting their agenda.  And Hillary was at a loss on what to do.

But the media’s reaction had a huge effect on women – especially middle-aged women – who generally felt that it was sexist and unfair.  How dare you question whether her crying was sincere, they felt, and women did not appreciate the suggestion that it made her look weak and vulnerable.  For months, my sister had complained to me that Clinton gets attacked in the media in a way that they would never attack a man.  Enough came to see her as Hillary – not Mrs. Clinton – and decided that her status as the first woman president embodied “change.”  So they voted for her as an “agent of change.”

Obama won Iowa by eight points, and beat Clinton among women by a 5-point margin.  For women under 25, Clinton got a pitiful 11%.  But in New Hampshire, women picked her by a 47-34 margin.  Among older women, the gap was even wider — while she still lost women under 30.  It would be way too simplistic – and sexist – to conclude that women voted for Hillary “because she cried.”  But they voted for her because the media attacked her and questioned her about it, which backfired.

In what will go down as one of the stupidest moments in campaign history, John Edwards chose to respond to the crying incident.  “I think what we need in a commander-in-chief is strength and resolve,” he said, “and presidential campaigns are tough business, but being president of the United States is also tough business.”  You do not run against a female candidate – especially one as formidable as Hillary Clinton – and play that card.  Someone should have told Edwards to just shut up.

Barack Obama was wise enough to stay above the fray, which hopefully means that he can pick up support among women.  But Edwards took a hit from what happened, based on his poor third-place showing.  While not all women were swayed to vote for Hillary Clinton, enough did.  My hunch is that her last-minute support came from undecided women – or those who were supporting Edwards.

You know that Edwards really screwed up when Amanda Marcotte, an ex-blogger from his campaign, reacted like this: “Completely unacceptable amounts of sexism. It’s bad enough that the media plays the game with Clinton where if she shows any emotion, she’s too feminine or too scary, but if she’s more stoic, she’s a scary ballbuster, but to have her own party members (if political rivals) play that cheap sexist card is too much.”

But despite the surprising result, it’s naïve to assume that last night changed everything and voters will stay with Clinton as a “change” candidate.  Just like Iowa, exit polls showed that 50% of New Hampshire voters picked change over experience.  Enough women may have rallied to Hillary’s defense for now, but voters are still not comfortable with the idea of “another Clinton.”  Especially if the former President keeps on drawing attention to himself.

Yesterday in New Hampshire, the ex-President again put his foot in his mouth.  When asked about “judgment” at a campaign event when choosing a candidate, Clinton went on a three-minute rant that was defensive, angry and hostile.  He again implied that he had always opposed the Iraq War.  His contempt for Obama was visible, like his infamous interview on “Charlie Rose” last month.  Bubba just can’t help making himself the issue, and it will hurt his wife.

Obama can still take the race to Nevada, South Carolina and Super Tuesday on February 5th – and a narrow defeat in New Hampshire could help him come back.  The Culinary Workers Union is expected to endorse him today – which would make him competitive in Nevada.  Blacks in South Carolina will still turn out for him.  What could stop him is the media rushing to crown Hillary Clinton as the “inevitable nominee,” just like they do for every establishment candidate who gets an upstart challenger.

“Clinton should thank her lucky stars that the race didn’t end tonight,” said a friend of mine who had flown to New Hampshire to help get out the vote.  An Obama victory would have done exactly that, for two back-to-back victories would have ended the Clinton dynasty.  But Clinton’s narrow victory in the Granite State, though unexpected, will not.  We’ll just get tired of hearing she’s the “Comeback Kid.”

Send feedback to [email protected]

Granted, he meant it as a joke to pump up partisan Hillary supporters at a campaign stop.  But seriously.  The guy is a jerk, and he simply can’t help being part of the story.  When people ask me why I hate Hillary Clinton so much, I tell them that 85% is due to the fact that Bill Clinton betrayed everything the Democratic Party stands for.

I got 5 hours of sleep, but managed to write this last night for Beyond Chron.

Barack Obama’s victory in the Iowa caucus last night sent a powerful message of change – as a record turnout (especially among young voters) picked him the winner with 38% of the total vote.  John Edwards, who likewise ran a populist campaign that emphasized change, came in second place with 30%.  When asked what was the most important factor in a candidate, voters picked “change” over “experience” by a 51-20 margin – giving Hillary Clinton’s establishment campaign a humiliating 3rd place finish at 29%.  Obama defied expectations by even beating Clinton among women and registered Democrats, which questions her viability as a candidate.  But while Obama’s insurgent campaign has crystallized the message of change, the dirty little secret in presidential primaries is that the establishment always wins.  As the fight moves to New Hampshire and other states, Obama’s campaign will have to defy historical precedent to dethrone the Clinton dynasty.  I believe he can prevail, but it will be a different story for Mike Huckabee – who won last night’s Republican caucus.

According to the mainstream media, the big story last night was the record turnout in the Democratic presidential caucus – 236,000, well over the 150,000 predicted and more than double the 120,000 in 2004 (which was nearly double the number from 2000.)  Sixty percent were first-time caucus-goers, and they overwhelmingly favored Obama.  Most incredibly, over half of Obama supporters were under the age of 30 – proving that heroic efforts to get Iowa students and other young people to come back from Christmas Break paid off.

But the real message from last night’s result was that voters desperately want change, and Obama’s eight-point victory doesn’t come close to measuring how deeply that sentiment was felt.  John Edwards, who ran a populist campaign that emphasized economic justice and a shake-up of the status quo, came in a strong second at 30% — meaning that 68% of Iowans picked a “change” candidate when the alternative was a former First Lady who epitomizes the Washington establishment.  “The one thing that’s clear from this result,” said Edwards, “is that the status quo lost and change won.”

Even Clinton had to acknowledge this in her concession speech, as she gave credit to all candidates for having presented the case for change.  “We’re sending a clear message that we are going to have change,” she said, “and that change will be a Democratic President.” Throughout the campaign, Clinton had tried to re-invent herself as an “agent of change” – but the voters didn’t buy it.  She was left trying to feebly tie the message of change back to experience – as she stood there flanked by her husband and his former Secretary of State.

Clinton’s only legitimate basis for being a “change” candidate is that she would become the first woman President in history.  Her campaign had sought to use this strategy to bring many first-time women to the caucus, who were supposed to be her secret electoral weapon.  But among women, who comprised a healthy 57% of the Iowa turnout, Obama still beat her 35-30 – with Edwards lagging behind at 23.  There was a small gender gap, but it was practically nonexistent.

Clinton even lost 33-32 among registered Democrats, who were supposed to favor her while independents favored Obama.  The Clinton camp even tried to discredit a Des Moines Register poll earlier this week because its sample included a high number of non-Democrats, even though it made the most accurate prediction for the actual caucus.

But Obama did not win because independents and Republicans showed up to support him, which is what everyone anticipated.  As Chris Bowers pointed out, 76% of caucus attendees were registered Democrats – which was not too different from the 79% figure four years ago.  Despite his broad appeal among independents, Obama would have still won the Iowa caucus last night even if only registered Democrats were allowed to participate.

For Clinton, the front-runner who had hoped to get the Democratic nomination by inevitability, coming in third place was embarrassing and calls into question her viability as a candidate.  Bear in mind that she was not just the party’s anointed establishment front-runner, for every presidential primary cycle has one like that.  She is the wife of a popular former two-term President, and one who had cultivated her own career as First Lady and later as a U.S. Senator to merit her own formidable credentials.  

Obama’s Iowa victory will put to test a long-established rule about presidential primary politics (uninterrupted for over 30 years) that the establishment always wins.  In every cycle, a candidate like Obama captures the media’s attention as he tries to take on the party’s anointed leader.  They may win an early primary or two, but have always lost to the front-runner when Super Tuesday kicks in.  Mondale in 1984, Bush in 1988, Clinton in 1992, Dole in 1996, Gore and Bush in 2000 and Kerry in 2004 all faced insurgent candidates when they sought their party’s nomination.  But in the end, it didn’t matter.

Here is how Obama can defy this trend.  New Hampshire is only five days away, and a clear Iowa winner usually gets a momentum boost.  New Hampshire independents can opt to vote in either party primary, and if they go Democratic are likely to choose Obama. Republican John McCain’s poor showing in Iowa makes me think that independents are now even more likely to vote in the Democratic primary, which will give Obama a solid victory.  Therefore, he comes out of New Hampshire looking like a strong nominee.

South Carolina is on January 26th, and Obama is already tied with Clinton there with its high percentage of African-American voters.  Here is where an Obama victory in Iowa and New Hampshire would have a substantial ripple effect.  In the past year, almost every black person I have spoken to about Obama tells me that they don’t believe America is ready to elect a black man.  After white voters in Iowa have given Obama a solid eight-point victory, we should expect a huge black turnout in South Carolina.

Then comes Florida on January 29th, and the Super-Duper Mega Tuesday on Steroids on February 5th.  Despite favorable media coverage and a solid momentum boost from earlier victories, every insurgent candidate has lost the nomination here – as they simply get overwhelmed by the establishment’s money and institutional connections.  But Barack Obama has something that no insurgent has had – a huge campaign warchest, financed mostly from online donations.  With resources and momentum, he can still win.

Obama’s win can finally end that streak – showing that it is possible to take on your party’s establishment and win the presidential nomination.  I believe that Obama can make history, but I am convinced that the same will not happen on the Republican side.  Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee is also an insurgent who beat the establishment in Iowa last night, but does not have the financial resources that Obama has.  Huckabee will suffer the same fate of other insurgents – he’ll be the media sensation for about a month, but will lose the nomination.

Obama’s victory speech last night felt like we were on the cusp of a historic moment, and the people I was with at the San Francisco victory party believed that this was unlike any other Election party we had attended.  “They said this day would never come,” said Obama in Iowa.  “The sights were set too high.  They said this country was too divided.  At this defining moment in history, you have done what the cynics said you could not do.  You have done what America can do in this new year.”

As Randy Shaw predicted last year, America may be at the forefront of a new progressive era.  And Obama’s victory last night in Iowa could be the beginning of better things to come.  After all, it did show that America is thirsting for a change – now the trick is to keep the momentum going.

Send feedback to [email protected]

I wrote this for today’s Beyond Chron.

Remember the 1970’s game show with Monty Hall called “Let’s Make a Deal”?  Contestants on the program would pick a prize behind one of three curtains, and some would inevitably get stuck with a “gag prize” – such as a high chair with a screaming baby, a giant hot water bottle, or a pet donkey.  Today’s gag prize is the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination, as the political climate for next year should be very problematic for the G.O.P.  While the Republican presidential field is more fluid this year than the Democratic side, that’s because (a) each candidate is seriously flawed, (b) voters aren’t happy with any of them, and (c) unless the Democrats really screw up, 2008 should be a terrible year for Republicans.  Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee can enjoy the sudden burst of media attention that his high placement in the polls has garnered, but – assuming he wins the nomination – how much would that prize really be worth?  Nobody should care who wins the Republican nomination, because it probably won’t matter much in the end.

It is readily apparent why the Democrats are favored to win the White House next year, regardless of which candidates get nominated.  The American people have so tuned out George W. Bush, and want his Administration to be over, that no Republican candidate wants to be his heir-apparent.  I can’t think of any historical precedent where a two-term President leaves office so unpopular that the candidates in his own party don’t want his support.  In 1988, the Republican candidates all ran on the Reagan legacy – and in 2000, Clinton was very popular so that Al Gore could be his anointed successor.

But on the issues, the Republican candidates have learned nothing from the Bush fiasco.  They unapologetically support our quagmire in Iraq, engage in sabre-rattling on Iran that would make Dick Cheney blush, and every debate they have is about who can “out-torture” the other.  On immigration, the Republicans have a ticking time bomb that will cause them to pay dearly at the polls – as the growing Latino population in Texas, Colorado, Arizona and other states will be voting in droves next year.  In the House and Senate races, the Republicans are having a tough time recruiting candidates – and their fundraising has been anemic.

Which brings us to Mike Huckabee, who until recently was a second-tier candidate largely ignored by the mainstream media.  While he currently leads in Iowa, and has a good shot at winning some early states, I don’t believe that such a low-budget campaign can withstand the avalanche of front-loaded primaries on Super Tuesday to win the nomination.  I can only find one explanation for the Huckabee phenomenon: the other Republicans are so bad, that by default he has surged to the top.

Let’s start with Senator John McCain.  One year ago, he was the front-runner for the Republican nomination – due to his maverick nature and good reputation from the 2000 race.  But more than any other candidate, McCain has tied himself to the train wreck that is Iraq.  He now supports the Bush tax cuts he once opposed, sucks up to a Religious Right he once denounced, and is now so delusional that he jokes about bombing Iran.  Once a rising star in his Party, McCain’s stock has fallen to virtual obscurity.

Then there’s Mitt Romney.  He’s got lots of money and delivers red-meat rhetoric to social conservatives, but they hate him because he’s Mormon.  While I think he’s gotten a bad rap for this, it’s hard to generate sympathy for an opportunist who has changed what he believes in so many times to suit his needs.  He was a moderate to get elected Governor of Massachusetts, but now wants to make conservatives think he is one of them.  He wants to double the size of Guantanamo Prison, and says he won’t appoint a Muslim to his Cabinet.  As Michael Dukakis said, the guy is “a fraud with a capital ‘F.'”

Rudy Giuliani?  At first, I thought there was no way that Republicans would nominate a New York Mayor who is pro-choice and supports gay rights.  But his 9/11 talk has helped him with the “national security” crowd, and until recently he was the front-runner.  Then the mistress story hit, which is not your garden variety sex scandal.  Rudy used the NYPD to escort his mistress around, and billed it to other city agencies – so it’s also a taxpayer corruption scandal.  Republicans quickly remembered why they didn’t like him in the first place, and are deserting him like the plague.

The only way I see Republicans possibly winning the White House is if Giuliani survives the scandal to win the nomination, and the Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton.  A nasty general election between these two polarizing figures would be brutal and anything could happen, but I still think that Clinton could pull it off to win.  But it won’t be pretty.

Moving along to Fred Thompson.  The only reason this former Tennessee Senator and washed-up actor is running for President is because John McCain’s campaign has hit rock bottom.  For Democrats who fear that people underestimated another actor who ran for President, Thompson has not exactly proven to be another Ronald Reagan.  His campaign has been described as “lackluster” and “awkward,” and it really doesn’t seem like he wants to be in the race.  And this is who Republicans were pinning their hopes on to be their savior?

Will Mike Huckabee bail out the Republican Party from its woes?  Don’t count on it.  The evangelical Christian may be the “flavor of the month,” but will Republicans still support him when they find out that he allowed the early release of a serial rapist?  Unlike the current Barack Obama surge – which could really help the Illinois Senator win the Democratic nomination and become our next President – Huckabee is the Republican media darling by default.

This is not to say that Democrats should get over-confident and complacent in the general.  Who gets elected President will matter a great deal over the next four years, and whoever takes over the White House will inherit the disastrous mess that George Bush has left behind.  That’s why Democrats and other progressives should be constantly on guard for the next year, although the odds are certainly in their favor.  My intention in writing this piece is not to make Democrats feel good.  It is to call out the mainstream media for continuing to cover the Republican nomination as if it mattered.

Following the Republican field is exciting – if your definition of excitement is watching a car accident and predicting who will have the fewest injuries.  There’s a reason why the Democratic field has been static for months between three front-runners, while the Republican side has been volatile.  Democrats like their presidential candidates, while Republicans are looking elsewhere.  When CNN asked 24 undecided Republicans at the last debate for their opinion, only one had an idea about who she’ll be voting for: John Edwards.

The media is not doing anyone a favor by focusing on the Republican presidential race.  It is an irrelevant sideshow of dysfunctional candidates, and a distraction from the real race: the Democratic nomination.  What will happen in Iowa within the next month between Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards can be decisive about who will be the next President.  But the Republican field doesn’t matter – and the media’s only justification in following it is to cover a “horse-race.”

A horse-race to see who wins the “gag prize.”

Send feedback to [email protected]