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...

How much power does it suggest when a black man wins a lilly-white state whose coronating power has been criticized because it is so unrepresentative of the country as a whole? Has it occured to institutional Republicans yet that seducing and then abandoning evangelicals might have created their worst nightmare: a populist they have already demonized but may have to back as the lesser of two evils -- first in their primaries and (heaven forbid) perhaps even beyond? Has either party establishment correctly identified that sound as repudiation, and do they know the color of new blood?

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 ...

S ome short clips since I’ve been away for so long, hunkered down on a project. With the WGA writer’s strike these ought to be salad days for people who think they’re funny, but, as the writers would concur, making money is job one: So glad Mitt Romney accepts Jesus and that the unchristian Christians from one end of a tiny spectrum may be appeased by the unchristian Christians from the other. Still waiting for the day that an atheist can run for anything or for a single candidate to have the courage to say faith informs no life decisions except whether to sleep in on Sunday. Disgusted by Romney's declaration: “Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom." Actually, freedom only teaches us to tolerate religion so that our private behaviors may be tolerated in turn, as we should other private behaviors we may personally disapprove of, like a gay lifestyle, abortion ... oh. There is nothing to the argument that only religious people possess the values to govern...