Four years ago, the election returns from Iowa ended the presidential hopes of Senator John Kerry. At the eleventh hour, large numbers of evangelical and born-again Christian voters provided an electoral lifeline for an unpopular and divisive president who answered to his ‘higher father’. Supporters of the cerebral senator who had hoped to replace him- Democrats in the so-called ‘blue’ states – were shocked to discover that a few thousand obstinate Christians could sway a general election. It didn’t seem fair that a small, relatively isolated state should be able to hand the presidency to the wrong man. Last week, Iowa provided two further political shocks. The Christians turned out again to provide an easy victory for the long-shot candidacy of former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, even though the Republican frontrunner, Mitt Romney, had spent millions more on his campaign. Romney’s distant second place finish has checked his momentum sufficiently for the race to open up for Senator John McCain, a candidate whose hopes seemed to have run aground several months ago. Now that he has won in New Hampshire McCain is firmly back in contention for the nomination. If he wins it, the Republicans will have a far less ideological candidate than any they have seen for some time. Huckabee and McCain’s upset victories have also provided the faltering campaigns of Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson with much-needed breathing room.
The Democrats are adjusting to their own surprises. A record turnout among young voters in Iowa gave Senator Obama a wide margin of victory over his two closest rivals and the result seems to have humbled Senator Clinton somewhat. Her sudden softening demeanor, and the victory that flowed from it, suggest a new awareness in her camp that charmless efficiency and hectoring confidence may not be enough to see off the charismatic Senator from Illinois. After Iowa, Mrs Clinton tried her best not to seem annoyed and deflated, but it was difficult not to notice that that was exactly how she felt. In New Hampshire, at least her elation was genuine. Senator John Edwards, by contrast, came out fighting both times and gave rousing speeches about the economic injustices that have led him into politics. But the best speech so far has come from the hoarse and tired-looking Barack Obama who spoke after the result in Iowa. Sounding comfortably familiar with the rhythms of Dr Martin Luther King, he wasted no time on empty celebrations. He spoke with quiet conviction about the necessity for change in America, and he judiciously changed the terms of the race ahead by promising to unite the country instead of simply taking over Washington and fixing it, as Mrs Clinton keeps saying she will do.
Obama’s victory in Iowa is fascinating in several ways. First of all, it shows that a state renowned for its conservative white Christian population, can also declare itself ready for a black president. It shows that hope can still trump experience in the American psyche, and that young voters may have an unusually large part to play in the upcoming general election. All of these are welcome developments, and each of them is altering the rather formulaic calculus that Washington has relied on for recent campaigns. If, for example, Obama looks set to become the Democratic nominee by early February, the Republican party is far more likely to choose a moderate like John McCain to run against him. (Mrs Clinton would be fair-game for the old Rove strategies of wedge-issues and negative campaigning, but Obama has proved curiously resistant to smear campaigns.) That, too, is good news after the political extremism of the Bush years.
With the race in both parties still wide open, the public has the chance to watch all the major candidates endure their emotional roller-coaster rides for a few weeks more. The weeks ahead demand versatility. Both sides will have to tweak their messages for Latino voters in Nevada and black voters in South Carolina and their ability to do this, without being undone by the endless cliche-mongering about being an “agent of change” will be a fascinating political game all by itself. By February 5, the newly-christened “Super-Duper Tuesday” on which twenty states will hold primaries and caucuses, the nominations in both parties should be a formality. Until then, however, this campaign season is likely to produce some of the most memorable political theatre for several generations.