It looks like everyone is calling the Democratic caucuses for Barack Obama. Predictions are futile, of course, but that would seem to bode well for an Obama victory in New Hampshire. And if that happens, wouldn’t Clinton’s campaign be close to over? Especially if John McCain’s uninspiring finish in Iowa moves New Hampshire independents to pick up Democratic ballots next Tuesday? I know, I know. I’m getting away ahead of events here. But still.
Mapping the candidates
This map on WashingtonPost.com is a hoot. Click on the candidate, and you get lines showing where he or she has been and a brief explanation of the campaign’s geographic strategy. But why so sparse? I’d have loaded in any previously published stories, photos and videos from those locations in order to turn this into something readers would stay with for a while. Still, it’s a good example of graphical journalism.
Here it comes
With slightly more than half the Democratic caucuses reporting, it looks like Obama is starting to pull out to a definable lead, with Edwards and Clinton virtually tied — but Edwards slightly ahead.
What Comcast hath wrought
According to this, C-SPAN is carrying the Democratic caucuses, and C-SPAN2 is hanging with the Republicans. So if you’re a Comcast customer — at least in my blighted suburb — you can watch the Democrats but not the Republicans. (Except online or if you pay extra for digital cable, of course.)
Funny, but I’ve never heard anyone accuse Comcast of liberal media bias.
Huckabee wins?
I just heard Keith Olbermann from the other room saying that NBC News has called the Republican caucuses for Mike Huckabee. A very bad night for Mitt Romney, although not as bad as it could have been if John McCain comes in fourth.
Democrats tied
Chris Matthews and company were very excited earlier tonight, claiming that Barack Obama was going to win, followed possibly by John Edwards, with Hillary Clinton coming in third. Not that anyone had actually voted.
Now, with nearly a quarter of the vote counted, Obama, Edwards and Clinton are virtually tied, with Edwards holding a slight edge — 32.62 percent to 32.2 percent apiece for Clinton and Obama. (The numbers are being continually updated, so they’ll have changed by the time you click.)
Mike Huckabee is beating Mitt Romney 36 percent to 23 percent at the moment. But John McCain may have a hard time claiming he’s the real winner if he comes in behind sleepy Fred Thompson.
WaPo TV
WashingtonPost.com is running live video from one of the Iowa caucus sites.
Counting chips he hasn’t cashed
The Boston Globe’s Matt Viser today repeats the not-entirely-new news that Gov. Deval Patrick may build $800 million into his budget proposal that will materialize only if the Legislature approves his socially irresponsible plan to license three gambling casinos. Viser writes:
With a big budget gap, including casino licensing money would put pressure on lawmakers to pass the governor’s proposal or find other ways to balance the budget as required by state law. When the governor introduces his budget, within three weeks, legislators will spend months reshaping it.
I continue to find it amazing that Patrick has decided to stake his reputation on this. Why? He has only guaranteed that his reputation will suffer if he loses, and suffer even more if he wins, since he’ll forever be associated with casinos and the sleaze and corruption that they bring.
I also think the governor’s proposal is a lot deader than his realizes — that, when the time is right, House Speaker Sal DiMasi is simply going to crush it and that will be the end of it. But we’ll see.
Celebrating Bhutto’s death (II)
Alert Media Nation reader T.A. has called my attention to Imaduddin Ahmed’s blog, in which he discusses his offensive op-ed about Benazir Bhutto. He writes: “A couple of readers have stated their unease about my pointing out Bhutto’s flaws so soon after her death.”
No, no, no. That’s not it at all. It’s obviously fine that he pointed out her flaws. What’s offensive is that he wrote about how glad he is that she was assassinated — as in, “Benazir’s death may offer new hope for democratic values.” It really doesn’t get any clearer than that.
Ahmed also lunges for the moral high ground and misses, writing, “I’m also offended that the deaths of artist Gulgee, 50 train passengers and over 200 flood victims didn’t mean as much to the media.”
Well, if you’re going to go all John Donne on us, Mr. Ahmed, let me just say that I’m offended that you can celebrate Bhutto’s death without bothering to note that 23 other people (in addition to the gunman) were killed as well.
And I continue to be offended that the Boston Globe and the International Herald Tribune would provide a forum for his piece.
The trouble with Bill Kristol
In my latest for the Guardian, I take a look at the New York Times’ decision to give an op-ed-page column to William Kristol. The problem, I argue, isn’t that he’s a neocon who was wrong about Iraq and who’s being irresponsible about Iran. Rather, it’s that the Times has bent its ethical rules to give a platform to someone who sees journalism as just another form of political partisanship.