From Walter Shapiro:

"With the (winter) wind at his back heading into New Hampshire, Obama is now the favorite in a contest almost certain to give the Democrats either an African-American or a woman presidential nominee. But Hillary Clinton may soon be reminding voters that one candidate managed to make it to the White House despite losing both the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary -- and that late bloomer was none other than Bill Clinton in 1992."

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/01/04/iowa_dems/index.html

I haven't counted John Edwards out yet, but Salon has. I'm not sure these kind of predictions, at this stage, are smart. Maybe I'm simply being naive or too optimistic (I support Edwards), but I'm tired of the media deciding for us who the candidate will be. I think that's why we have Hillary and Obama in the first place - the media won't report on anyone else.

Gomer just might be the best thing to happen to Democrats since Nixon.

--Anonymous

I agree, and I think the extremely low turnout of Republican voters (in comparison with the much-higher-than-expected Democratic turnout) will also be an issue when it comes to the general. The Iowa voters got sort of energized for Huckabee, but appear to not be too bothered about any other Republican candidates.

It's maddening isn't it? Edwards is far from being out of this race, but no one, not even Salon, is reporting it. He beat the Clinton war chest, for chrissakes, that's huge news. I was really hoping he'd pull off the win last night-

-- curse10

Your point about Edwards beating Hillary's war chest is an important one. Does the media think it's just a fluke? I think Edwards' platform is speaking to a lot of people, and shouldn't go unnoticed. He is a good candidate for the Dems, as far as electability. I think he could also cause Repubs and Indies to go his way.

Along those same lines, I wonder if Chris Dodd's numbers would have been different if the press had deigned to - accurately - report his work on the FISA fillibuster. I know he never had a chance, but it bothers me to think that candidates have no motivation to work on these issues as it gets them zero attention in the MSM and little money/backing.

Still, yesterday's results are great on lots of levels so I'll take it.

-- Wabanatta_3

The funny thing is that I was pretty excited about the results until I started reading all the nonsense this morning. :)

Brooks actually said it was the media's fault, that they hadn't covered them well enough.

Can you imagine?

-- Anonymust

I've been rendered speechless!

Still, if I am perfectly honest, I have to admit that if I were in my 20s, or even my early 30s, I'd probably be supporting Obama over any of the other candidates, just because of the generational difference.

-- Anonymust

I understand the desire of the young'uns to support Obama, but, as a 30 year old, I agree with everything you said about Dodd, Richardson and Edwards, all three of whom are much more palatable to me than Obama. (The only Presidential candidate I've donated to, thus far, is Dodd. After his withdrawal, however, I'm in the Edwards' camp.)

Perhaps the fact that I am not new to politics (versus an 18 year old or a 24 year old who has never registered to vote until now) makes me less susceptible to Obama's message (which I feel lacks a certain depth). Also, when looked at from the perspective of who can actually win, I see someone like Edwards, who grew up in a working class family and is from a Southern state, as a good candidate. Reminds me a lot of another guy who the people adored...

Of course, my actual beliefs mirror Kucinich's, but that's a whole other story...

She's very savvy, my daughter, and you seem to be, too, and at such a youngish age. You make the rest of us (or at least most of us) around here very proud.

--Anonymust

Thanks so much! Like your daughter, I took a break from politics for awhile. It was Glenn and the rest of the blogosphere that really got me involved in politics again.

I worked on campaigns of Democratic congressional challengers in '06, and will be doing so again for '08. (One of them is very anti-establishment and reminds me of Kucinich in a lot of ways.) I am the only one in my group of friends (including my law school friends) who is involved to such an extent. There were very few persons my age working on the campaigns in '06 as well. I'm hoping to get some more "Gen X" types involved for the upcoming election, which, as goes without saying, is so very important.

They hate Edwards, hate his message, and thus rendered him invisible long ago, only now to declare him dead -- after he came in second place in the first caucus of the campaign.

--Glenn Greenwald

This is what is so frustrating to me. The reason I like Edwards so much - his refusal to take money from lobbyists and PAC's - is the reason he'll never get enough press coverage to win the nomination.

Also at issue here, of course, is the fact that voters are so easily swayed by press coverage. That is perhaps the most frustrating thing of all to me, as it provides the media with the motivation to report in the way it does - that self-fulfilling prophecy Glenn describes. It's a vicious cycle. Which came first? The uninformed voter or the poor press coverage?