The audacity of hoke

Alternate title: “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly”

THE GOOD

It was, indeed, “a great night for Democrats:” a record turnout in Iowa!

Perhaps the overriding result of the Iowa caucus is the indication that in Election 2008 Iowa might move from red state to blue state.

My personal conviction is that the potential for quality leadership among the Democratic hopefuls far outweighs that of the GOP slate.

THE BAD

The Iowa caucus is a media event – particularly in years when no incumbent is seeking the presidency. Historian and journalist Bob Woodward, in a post-caucus interview, called the caucus “a snapshot.” A wise hobbit I know correctly calls it “the results of the deliberations by one-sixth of one percent of the American electrorate.”

Only two candidates, excluding incumbents, have won the Iowa caucuses and gone on to win the presidency – Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush. In recent years, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton did not win in Iowa.

Ultimately, what we saw last night is not a viable indicator of things to come, so let’s not confuse our “audacity of hope” with the “audacity of hoke.”

Finally, as a result of what happened in Iowa, two good men, longtime public servants with hard-hitting convictions, have dropped out of the race – senators Joe Biden and Christopher Dodd.

THE UGLY

Whether the wins of Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee represent a groundswell of populism or merely the result of media manipulation remains to be seen.

My faithful readers know I support Hillary Rodham Clinton. I will fully and happily support the Democratic hopeful who ultimately tops the ticket.

Regardless, I hope another result of the Iowa caucus is a clarion call for public discourse on journalism ethics (that’s not an oxymoron).

Since Election 2006, MSNBC, which I have watched regularly for years, has leveled personal attacks against Hillary Clinton with dogged determination. From her “clap” to her “cackle” to Chris Mathews’ “Evita and the little people” rant (VIEW VIDEO), MSNBC’s “swift-boating” has been transparent.

Even as the polls opened last night Matthews and Tim Russert were characterizing her supporters as “90-year-old women.” If constant references that she cannot do the job without Bill’s help aren’t sexist, I don’t know what is.

Media Matter for America has documented 455 instances where MSNBC has distorted facts or outright lied about Hillary Clinton. Don’t take my word for it, take a minute to go HERE and scan down the headlines.

If this is OK with you because it might have helped your candidate win, then you are no better than the folks who found the Supreme Court’s decision in “Bush v. Gore” OK because their guy was declared the winner.

If it’s OK with the candidates, take another look at the candidates.

Now, read this part carefully and don’t misconstrue my words: apparentently its safer today to use gender slurs than to utter racial slurs. In my opinion, one is as bad as the other. As sexist remarks go, Don Imus can't hold a candle to Chris Matthews or other stars of the very network which fired him.

In 21st Century America one would hope neither race nor gender would determine support. The unknown in this election is what voters will do within the secrecy of the voting booth.

In the months ahead, we really don’t know where the road to the White House will wind.

I do know this for certain: if we wake up on the morning of 5 November 2008 with a Republican from this field of hopefuls headed for the White House, the path our nation will take might be uglier than can be imagined.

That’s how important your vote is. Sadly, although touted as the highest turnout since 1968, only 60.7 percent of voting-age Americans cast a ballot in the 2004 general election.

THE AUDACITY OF HOPE

That the remaining 39 percent – more than one-third of voting-age Americans – will step up and be counted in shaping America’s future.