The Iowa results did surprise me. The three Democratic front-runners each had their own method to attract voters, and all three succeeded to varying degrees.

Hillary Clinton took the safest route, going after 50+ voters. She succeeded...there just weren't enough of them.

John Edwards went after the "angry" voters, and got them.

Barack Obama had a high-risk, high-reward strategy: go after the under-30 vote. He won because he convinced record numbers of young people to turn out for him. Along with independents (80% eventually went Democratic), he won comfortably.

Overall, the Democratic message of "hope and change" seemed to appeal to voters more than the Republican's tired mantra of "all fear, all the time".

On the Republican side, Mike Huckabee got the nod from the evangelicals and it was enough to propel him to victory.

Poor Mitt Romney spent a fortune in Iowa and the best the Puppet of the Prophet could finish was a weak second.

John McCain, still the darling of the media, basically tied for third with Fred Thompson.

Judy Ruiliani ignored Iowa and Iowa ignored him.

The whole Republican strategerie in 2008 was centered around "We Hate Hillary", and it will be very interesting to see how this plays out if Hillary does not get the Democratic nod.

Obama vs. Huckabee?
This would be a dream match...for the Democrats.

It's interesting to note that the third place Democratic finisher got more votes than the Republican first place finisher.

Such clairvoyance. I'm curious, what role do you think Ophra Winfrey will take in his administration given her bias as seen by the theme of her Katrina story?
-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.