Planet Abell

T he snarky Romney sore losers -- did anybody with a brain think he ever had a chance, really? -- who dissed a winner for thrashing their boy may have been on to a little something: Mike Huckabee was much more appealing than Mitt among Republicans, so, it follows that if he had never been born more conservatives would have voted for the born-again Mormon. McCain, the reasoning went, was able to run up an unprotected middle while Mitt and Mike blocked (both on the ... right? ... time to retire the metaphors). But now there is a new reason to beat up on Mike: by continuing to strongly challenge McCain he is embarrassing the presumptive Republican nominee, showing him to be a weakling even among the people most likely to identify with him. Collegial Mike's presence had given McCain undeserved cover and now the ingrate doesn't have the decency to just step aside. Instead, he is busting another myth by proving that McCain really doesn't have wide and deep support -- Hey! Just li...

O bama will win convincingly. Hillary will place, pushing Edwards to third, but Obama's margin of victory will exceed his eight points over both in Iowa, and his near cornering of the market of self-described independents will be a dominant general election narrative. Hillary will portray the loss as entirely media/momentum driven, citing the only five days since Iowa (she has already begun to put out the message that the race really beings in California). Edwards, who has declared he is in the race through the convention, just needs to stay in the hunt, and he will. If he remains in the race much past New Hampshire it will only serve to emphasize Obama's claim as the more legitimate agent of change versus Clinton. The Democratic nomination is now Obama's to lose. Still, for the superstitious, consider these facts: One -- and only one -- modern-day candidate has lost both Iowa and New Hampshire and gone on to win the Democratic nomination and the presidency: Bill Clinton ...

David Brooks once again distinguishes himself in the New York Times with a brilliant assessment of both the Republican and Democratic presidential races, making note of how rare it is for an "earthquake" to hit both parties at once as expressed by the Iowa victories of Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama. I’ve been through election nights that brought a political earthquake to the country. I’ve never been through an election night that brought two. Both victors are the youngest in their respective fields (Barack, 46; Mike, 52). Both are the most outsiderly of the viable candidates (with apologies to Kucinich, Paul and Gravel). It is a clear repudiation of the establishment, period. It may not be the final word, only a warning shot to be heeded by the wisely humbled -- witness Hillary's team-player, I-get-it concession speech -- but for now it is a shot heard round the world. Brooks makes great sense in handicapping both races. Huckabee, he says, is likely not the GOP standard...

Obama wins with a materially significant number over Clinton. It is not a blowout; Clinton will frame her second-place as a victory of sorts and battle on indefinitely. Edwards is third and will be the first of the top tier to drop out, shortly after New Hampshire. Huckabee wins handily; it is seen as a rebuff to the Republican field in general and Robotman Romney in particular. But his victory is, in the long run, meaningless. The story becomes a very difficult set of numbers from which to extrapolate hope for any GOP candidate beyond New Hampshire. As the smoke clears, the Republican with the most reason to be optimisic, through only slightly, is McCain. That might be fleeting, since Granite State Independents seem to be breaking for Obama -- perhaps a precursor to the "Big Story" of the general election. Full disclosure: I was a McGovern volunteer and was shocked that he lost, and I also predicted a comfortable victory for Kerry. Maybe I'm due ...

(Disclosure: edited 2/26 for typos) Something has been bothering me about the field of Republican presidential hopefuls, and it isn't the absence of Fred Thompson or Newt Gingrich. This is it: Since 2000 (a political eternity) there has been no doubt about an open GOP ticket for '08. Dick Cheney made clear he was not going to run for president after a presumptive two-term Bush administration, leaving no heir presumptive. And yet there is no young, vibrant Republican in the mix or even mentioned as a dark horse. No conservative media darling whose candidacy is so audacious, so presumptuous, it just might work. There is room in the tent -- witness talk of Thompson and Gingrich, who poll better than some announced candidates in some polls, and even whispers of a third-party putsch by Michael Bloomberg and Chuck Hagel . Of the presumed leaders John McCain is a re-tread and, thanks to his support of the of Bush war strategy, a far cry from the "rebel" he was perceived of a...

I 'll have to wait for "The Daily Show" to come up with the official count of how many times Ronald Reagan's name was dropped, but other key facts by my personal reckoning: Chris Matthews lost control at about 8:44 Three questioners, each with his own schtick (reading from a monitor?), is a distraction It is OK to be against stem cell research (even with Nancy Reagan staring you down in the front row), for congressional intervention in matters like the Schiavo case and to use the need for "victory" in Iraq as the catchall answer to any question about the war -- including a very pointed one about dealing with an endless supply of enemy recruits. I had never seen Mitt Romney in an extended forum (if you can call 60 seconds long) or on TV doing anything other than defending himself in sound bites, so I can appreciate now what his supporters see in him: a smooth, prepared, articulate candidate of dare-I-say presidential Why is it that only the fringiest of the c...