Folks, one state had its caucuses. One rural state. One disproportionately white state. If you haven't already, you need to reject the idea that the results give you extremely significant results, because this is only the case if the media says it is and if people, in turn, accept this nonsense. Unfortunately, people will probably read quite a bit into it -- especially because there is a very nice storyline about both Obama and Huckabee upsetting frontrunners -- but we shouldn't lose sight of how absurd it is to engage in the exercise of overanalyzing these results.
It is not the case, as David Axeldrod says, that "there was a hunger for change in this country." At best, there was "a hunger for change" among Iowa Democratic caucusgoers. "The country" appears to have a different view of things for the time being. And HRC's "experience" was not "decisively rebutted by the voters." It was rebutted by Iowa Democratic caucusgoers (and hardly "decisively" at that).
There's no point linking to more because you're going to see it everywhere, even from writers who should know better. The complaint here is about precision, about accurately describing the events that just took place, and about hoping (in vain) that we can prevent the insanity of the primary season from further enveloping us.
And for the record, I'd be happy with any of the three three top-tier Democrats winning the nomination, so this isn't a gripe about the results. But Obama supporters beware: There's a media narrative that often follows The Surprise Upset -- and it's The Flame-Out.
Crossposted
