According to the New York Times.
A fait accompli, readers:
"2 Newcomers Jolt Parties’ Status Quo" by PATRICK HEALY
DES MOINES — He seemed to come out of nowhere — a former governor who was so little known among Republicans that many of them could not even name the state he once led (Arkansas) — and turned from asterisk-status to giant-slayer in spite of a paltry political organization, slim dollars and a final week marked by gaffes.
Ummmmm.... ??????
Huckabee, a folksy and fairly plain-speaking politician with a sense of humor that many Iowans enjoyed, appealed to Republican caucusgoers who put a premium on a candidate’s Christian faith— and who were deeply wary about a Mormon.
The slaying of Mitt the Monied Mormon by the poor Christian Knight Buckahee, 'ey?
But Iowa voters are not New Hampshire voters, as Mr. Huckabee and his advisers are well aware. Devoutly religious voters do not exist in nearly the same numbers in the Granite State. And the fervent anti-tax sentiment among Republicans there is likely to clash with Mr. Huckabee’s record of raising taxes in Arkansas.
Setting up the next round, and what the MSM will "tell you the results are!"
I don't believe in anything in AmeriKa anymore because the MSM lied too much.
Except the blogs, that is!
Because the rest of this article of the Times website was written, and omitted this:
"Mr. McCain, despite finishing behind the top two candidates in Iowa, now appears to be in a strengthened position in New Hampshire, given Mr. Huckabee's weak operation there and Mr. Romney's failure here.
Really?
"Michael McDonald, an election analyst with the Brookings Institution:.
"If turnout analysis shoes independents were showing up to vote for Democrats], we may think then that McCain will be at a disadvantage in New Hampshire, [because he is depending on unaffiliated voters to buoy his campaign]."
Times just can't help but lie, then cover it up, huh?
The Iowa results could also help Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Thompson, given that Mr. Romney had seemed like such a major foe.
Yeah, well the FIX gave LAZY FREDDY THIRD!
Mr. Huckabee lacks teams of political veterans in New Hampshire, South Carolina and the states with primaries to follow -- certainly nothing to match the operations Mr. McCain, the winner of the 2000 New Hampshire primary, and Mr. Romney, who hails from neighboring Massachusetts, have spent a year building.
Mitt was a transplant that stole the election, because we all hated him even then (I'm a Mass. resident, readers. Surprised at my "conservatism?").
Dante Scala, a political scientist at Saint Anselm College in Manchester, N.H.:
"Huckabee has a skeletal organization in New Hampshire and he's barely up on the airwaves, and despite winnning Iowa he looks like anything like a front-runner here right now. The evangelical vote is a much different animal here, probably only one out of seven of them being Republican vote. Huckabee really has no base to start here."
Nevertheless:
Iowa bestows an advantage on its winners that has trumped bodies and dollars in other states before: political momentum.
This really gets galling after a while, readers, these damn MSM lies!
Mr. Huckabee, who was barely known among average voters just a few months ago, now has substantial wind at his back.
Yeah, thanks to all the FREE MSM COVERAGE and the RIGGING of ELECTIONS!!!
Political analysts say his success in Iowa could translate into a 5 or even 10 point boost in the polls in New Hampshire, which votes on Tuesday, and give him a greater edge in South Carolina, where his roots as a southerner are already expected to redound to some benefit.
Well, what is it? Either he will or won't benefit?
See how they already jigger the "results" before anything happens.
Wait for the "new" C(IA)NN New Hampshire poll tonight!
Betcha Huck will bounce up about 8 points!!!
Steffen Schmidt, a professor of political science at Iowa State University:
"Huckabee could easily struggle in New Hampshire but still try to re-ignite himself in South Carolina, where he has a base. His bigger problem is that he doesn't have a national campaign or money for the big expensive primaries that are coming."
So does money matter or not?
Not when it is Ron Paul, right?
Mr. McCain, who, more than any other Republican, has been campaigning intensely in New Hampshire to win back the independents and party faithful who rallied around his banner in 2000.
Yup, so McCain will be the nominee after winning New Hampshire again, right?
The great "comeback" story for the war prisoner? Left for dead twice?
That's what the Times censored, readers.
Instead, they substituted this:
The Democratic and Republican establishments and their presidential candidates, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and former Gov. Mitt Romney, were brought low in Iowa on Thursday night, shaken seriously by two national newcomers who won decisively on messages of insurgency and change.
Pfffffftttt!
The victors in Iowa, Senator Barack Obama for the Democrats and former Gov. Mike Huckabee for the Republicans, are as far from the status quo as possible.
This type of thing makes me sick, and you can see why I've stopped buying these guys!
One is the son of a Kenyan father and a white Kansan mother who entered the United States Senate just three years ago. The other is a former Baptist minister who was best known until recently for losing over 100 pounds and taking on the issue of childhood obesity.
The two winners burst the aura of strength and confidence that Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Romney had tried to cultivate for months, and left both parties suddenly without a clear path to their nominating conventions, let alone November.
Mrs. Clinton’s loss was especially glaring. Her central strategy for much of 2007 was to appear as the inevitable nominee, but Iowans shredded that notion. She tried in recent weeks to convince voters that another Clinton administration could be an agent of change, but Iowans clearly did not buy it.
Without question, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Romney have the money, the campaign apparatus and the legions of supporters to stay in the hunt for the nomination and to right their campaigns. But Mrs. Clinton’s lackluster finish raises anew questions about her electability, and whether independent voters — twice as many of whom backed Mr. Obama over her — will ever come around to Mrs. Clinton.
And Mr. Romney, who outspent Mr. Huckabee 6 to 1 in television advertising in Iowa, now faces a far more crowded field of rivals in the New Hampshire primary who are eager to tear into his wounded candidacy
All the candidates now move to that primary on Tuesday, which Mrs. Clinton had tried to make a fire wall for her campaign, as it was for her husband’s presidential candidacy in 1992, when he finished strongly in second place.
Robert Shrum, a Democratic consultant who was John Kerry’s senior strategist in 2004:
“If Hillary doesn’t stop Obama in New Hampshire, Obama is going to be the Democratic nominee.”
That's from a guy who has lost every presidential campaign he's been involved in!
Clinton advisers declined to say Thursday night if she would now pursue a different strategy against Mr. Obama. But a shift seems likely now that Mrs. Clinton’s multilayered, sometimes contradictory message — offering an experienced hand, for example, but also running as a candidate who could bring change — fell flat in this first contest.
Howard Wolfson, a Clinton spokesman:
“We built a campaign for the long haul — we feel very good about our operation in New Hampshire, and polling has us up.”
Does it trouble you, readers, that that sounds an awful lot like Rudy's strategy -- and that that's who Israel wants as president!
The danger for Mrs. Clinton, of course, is that those polls may not hold after the outcome in Iowa.
Further undercutting Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama peeled away broad swaths of women from her base of support, and the political potency of baby boomers fell apart in Iowa. Half of the Democrats under 45 said their first choice was Mr. Obama, according to a poll by Edison/Mitofsky of voters entering caucus sites.
At the same time, it was also historic that so many Iowa Democrats voted for an African-American man and a woman. For Mr. Obama, especially, the ratification of his candidacy by Democrats and independents in a predominantly white and rural state suggests that he may be able to build a broad and multiracial coalition in his bid for the White House.
The nomination fights will only intensify from now, though the steel that Mr. Huckabee will deploy in the battle is unclear."
But "moving on," as the Times says:
"Moving On to New Ground and Issues" by MARC SANTORA
DERRY, N.H. — As the race for the White House moves from the frigid plains of Iowa to the snow-capped mountains of New Hampshire, there will be a realignment of the contest, and the focus will shift from social and religious issues to taxes and national security.
While the spotlight has been away from New Hampshire in recent weeks, the competition here has been heating up as Senator John McCain of Arizona has gained ground on the longtime Republican front-runner, Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts. Mr. McCain did not compete seriously in Iowa.
On the Democratic side, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York hopes New Hampshire will be a bulwark after her loss to Senator Barack Obama of Illinois. Mr. Obama, in turn, hopes to replicate his Iowa victory here with the help of independent voters drawn by his inspirational themes.
Former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina is considered poorly positioned here, particularly after his defeat in Iowa, where he had focused much of his attention. All the Democrats, however, have been largely absent from the state for the last month. With only a few days until the voting here, their absence could make the results in Iowa that much more important.
They have been spending heavily on television advertising, not going after one another directly but, instead, promoting lofty themes meant to appeal to the working families who make up a vast majority of voters.
The Republican fight here has been much more pointed — as reflected in cutting advertisements, with Mr. Romney, who has had to spend more time in Iowa sparring with Mr. Huckabee, blanketing the airwaves.
Here, Mr. Romney has focused on two main lines of attack on Mr. McCain, noting his opposition to the Bush tax cuts — while not mentioning Mr. McCain’s stated reason, that there was no corresponding cut in spending — and Mr. McCain’s support for immigration reform.
Bolstering his efforts on the air, Mr. Romney’s campaign has been criticizing Mr. McCain in phone calls to voters across the state. Dozens of voters said they had received more than three calls from Romney supporters, some going after Mr. McCain on the issue of taxes.
Mr. McCain has been the greatest presence here, often having the state to himself. Seizing on his clean sweep of endorsements from 26 newspapers in the area, he has been able to reinvigorate a campaign that six months ago was largely written off.
As if Ron Paul never campaigned there, and never existed at all!!!
Has the Times even mentioned him yet, reader?
I'd have seen it if they did!
New Hampshire, whose voters pride themselves on their independence from party orthodoxy and who are interested in an array of issues not on the agenda in Iowa, is friendly territory for Mr. McCain — a point he is making in a new advertisement released Thursday recalling his victory here in 2000.
A remaining unknown factor will be what role independent voters, who make up nearly half of all registered voters in the state and were critical in Mr. McCain’s victory last time, will play in this election. Voters frequently say they are trying to decide between Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain, which seems striking, given their wide differences on issues, particularly the war in Iraq. But Mr. Obama’s victory in Iowa showed his strength in drawing independent voters to his campaign.
Mr. McCain is also focusing on issues important to many independent voters, like climate change and improving the United States’ image abroad by taking such steps as closing the prison at the American naval base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former New York City mayor, is lagging in the polls here. Mr. Giuliani has made sporadic efforts, spending heavily on advertising here before pulling back.
The Democrats could be more affected by the results in Iowa.
Mr. Edwards was depending on a strong finish in Iowa for a bump of at least five to seven percentage points in the polls in New Hampshire, what his advisers believe he needs to be competitive.
Bye-bye, Johnny!
Notice how they sell the lies of their "polls," too, readers?
He has set up 17 offices and hired 80 field organizers here, but has spent only one-third of what Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton have on television advertising here.
Mrs. Clinton is counting on her formidable New Hampshire operation to right her campaign after her loss in Iowa. She touches down in Manchester early Friday morning. She and former President Bill Clinton, whose second-place finish here in 1992 energized his campaign, will hold a rally in Nashua at 8 a.m.
Many longtime supporters of the Clintons are at the core of her political team in New Hampshire; both Clintons believe that Mrs. Clinton is more widely known and liked here than in Iowa, which they believe will give her an edge over a relative newcomer like Mr. Obama.
Yup, the "Comeback Queen!"
Mr. Obama, her closest challenger, according to recent polls, has courted independent voters, particularly in the southern part of the state. After his campaign began advertising on television a few months ago, Mr. Obama began to close the gap with Mrs. Clinton in polls.
He has been building an organization for nearly a year, with offices throughout the state.
Now this part was cut from the web! Why?
"Mr. Obama is also hoping to tap into the base of Representatives Carol Shea-Porter and Paul W. Hodes, Democrats who defeated Republicans here in the 2006 midterm elections and have endorsed Mr. Obama."
Because Shea-Porter's voters supports Ron Paul?
"Mrs. Shea-Porter and Mr. Paul have very different ideas about how to use the power of government, but both strongly oppose the war in Iraq. And Mrs. Shea-Porter ran last year as a fiscal conservative, so it's possible Mr. Paul could win over many Republicans who voted for her last year."
Now back to the piece:
In a move that could complicate the race, the New Hampshire attorney general released a report Thursday saying an investigation was unlikely to determine who was responsible for anti-Mormon calls made to voters in early November that seemed supportive of Mr. McCain. The McCain campaign had called for the investigation.
The report determined only that Western Wats, of Orem, Utah, made the calls, and that Moore Information Inc., of Portland, Ore., had hired Western Wats. It did not determine who had hired Moore, which said Thursday that it had never been involved in any such calls."
Smells like Buckahee shit to me!!!!!!!!!
And surprise, surprise, AmeriKa's MSM agrees with the New York Times!
Whatta shocker!!!!
"After Iowans Vote, Others Step in to Comment" by JIM RUTENBERG
Mike Huckabee’s win was Mitt Romney’s loss; Barack Obama’s decisive victory was the official end of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s inevitable march, and Fred D. Thompson’s (narrow) third-place finish could save him from the crowded mausoleum of dead campaigns past for which he was supposedly destined.
True or not, so stands the new conventional wisdom of the 2008 presidential race, set out authoritatively and within mere minutes of the first projections by the instant analysts of the news media covering the Iowa caucuses on Thursday night.
For the campaigns, the caucuses were no more about the leanings of the small percentage of Iowans who participated than they were about how the balloting would shape the contours of an unusually long nominating season in the view of the news media, which could finally chew on real results after months of endless divinations.
The political commentators who tried to predict the outcome of the Iowa caucuses four years ago limped back to the Des Moines airport dragging bags stuffed with embarrassing projections that never came to be.
With no decisive polling, and no precedent for such a wide-open race in the history of the Iowa caucuses to guide them, there was hardly any such problem last night, as the ever-expanding world of political prognostication approached the caucuses with a collective and giddy “Who knows?”
It was clear early on that this sense of the unknown would only serve to bolster the state’s outsized role in molding the outlook of the race as defined by the news media going forward — with commentators passing the time by discussing how a win might send Mr. Obama of Illinois on his way to the nomination; how a third-place finish could mean the eventual demise of Mrs. Clinton of New York, or how a poor finish for Mr. Thompson would be a death knell.
It is the sort of analysis that can fill the candidates’ coffers and provide millions of dollars worth of free media attention — or, just as easily, plug their money spigot and give them the sort of attention they would be willing to spend millions to stop.
It is also the kind of analysis that can, and often has, ultimately proved to be incorrect by the next round of voting. But that is four days away.
And by the time the clock struck midnight, Brian Williams and Tim Russert of NBC News were declaring on their Webcast that Mrs. Clinton’s status for months as “presumed front-runner” was over and a virtual unknown, Mr. Huckabee, was now leading the Republican field.
Mr. Williams: “Iowa has changed the course of American politics, in ways we’re just now coming to grips with.”
That's Brian "Mr. Terrorism Business" Williams, readers!
Mr. Obama was beginning to get his due even before any results had come in.
William Kristol, The Weekly Standard editor, speaking on the Fox News Channel, said of Mr. Obama:
“He is now in a position, I think, if he wins tonight, he is in the position to win the nomination.”
Mr. Kristol will begin writing a column next week for The New York Times.
The Iowa caucuses have always been as much a media phenomenon as they are a special exercise in democracy. With only a small percentage of the population of a small state participating in them, the caucuses become the focus of the political world because of the way they set expectations for the early phase of the nominating season.
As Senator John McCain told Chris Wallace on Fox News:
“You and others are the ones who decide how we look coming out of it.”
I thought it was the VOTERS that decided that!!!
But WE KNOW BETTER, don't we, readers?
We KNOW ABOUT THE RIGGING!
And behind the scenes, the campaign war rooms fought hard to spin reporters’ perceptions in real time to mitigate the damage of their losses or bolster the importance of their victories or, at least, their expectations-upsetting finishes.
John King, the CNN chief national correspondent, looking at his hyperkinetic BlackBerry told the anchor, Wolf Blitzer:
“This is called ‘getting spun dizzy.’”
I didn't watch it.
I saw Paul place fifth, and Thompson third and though RIGGED!
The message that he received overwhelmingly, he said, was from the campaign of Mr. Romney, emphasizing that his loss was just one setback in what will be a long nominating season.
But there was little shaking the perception — at least Thursday night — that Mr. Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, was now officially in trouble as he headed on to New Hampshire where he faces strong competition from Mr. McCain of Arizona, who was seen as gaining perhaps the most at Mr. Romney’s loss.
While Mr. Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor, got new billing as a “star” for placing ahead of Mr. Romney in the Republican contest, commentators nonetheless brought up the challenges he is now expected to face.
Mr. Thompson’s third-place finish, though extraordinarily narrow, put to rest predictions he would drop out and endorse Mr. McCain.
Mr. Obama’s win was initially interpreted as especially bad news for Mr. Edwards in some quarters but by the end of the night, Mr. Edwards was widely granted extended life because of his second-place showing above Mrs. Clinton.
But David Gergen, a former aide to President Bill Clinton among other presidents of both parties, was one of several commentators who predicted that Mrs. Clinton, on the other hand, would continue to fight hard and could not be counted out. He found agreement on MSNBC, from the host, Chris Matthews.
The GLOBALIST, Bohemian-Groving GERGEN!
Mr. Matthews also made clear he was plainly aware of how wrong media predictions can turn out to be in the long run. Noting that many had all but written off Mr. Thompson just hours earlier, he said of the third-place finish:
“I think once again we’ve been upset by reality, which is a good thing.”
I don't, because Matthews' "reality" is a MEDIA-CONCOCTED ILLUSION!
