It’s been the longest run-up to a presidential primary in American history, but finally on Thursday January 3 somebody, somewhere in these United States gets to vote on something relating to the 2008 presidential elections.
It has hardly seemed fair that we’ve had to sort through the seemingly endless supply of dem and republican candidates without the help of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. Fortunately for our collective sanity, all that will finally change, but not soon enough for Iowa.
(More vexing still, on the day of both the Iowa primary and the New Hampshire primary the following Tuesday, I’ll be in Vermont at Bennington College for the next residency pertaining to my MFA program, a situation that worries me a bit as, when I was there this past summer, I don’t remember ever seeing a single television.)
With all this in mind, my favorite source of commentary in the run-up to Thursday is coming from my esteemed pal and blogfather, Marc Cooper. I know many readers and commenters here are also Cooper readers. But for those of you who are missing his daily Iowa reports on Huff Post, do your self a favor and get on over immediately.
Today’s report has him hanging out with Dave “Mudcat” Saunders at the Edwards camp and trying to determine if dark horse John Edwards can really win with his strategy of working the rural districts, as some of the new polls predict he might. (I notice that Mark has worked a Saunders quote into as many Iowa reports as possible—- simply, I suspect, for the sheer joy of writing “Mudcat.”)
Early bets anyone? Is the Edwards surge real? If so, what does it presage—an Edwards win or a derailing of an Obama win, giving Iowa to Hillary? Or is Barack’s momentum strong enough to blow past ‘em both in these two early states?
And who’s likely to take Iowa on the Republican side now that Huckabee’s surge–not helped by his bad Pakistan answers— seems to have fizzled?