Good news, bad news....

The good news is that the Hillary Clinton Inevitable Juggernaut ran aground in Iowa. Third place, behind Obama (convincingly) and Edwards (just barely). It's always nice to see the establishment's anointed dashed on the rocks.

And it's even better when it happens to someone like Mrs. Clinton, who claims to be the most accomplished and experienced of candidate, but can't seem to point to any "accomplishment" in her adult life that wasn't really something that was given to her because she was married to Mr. Clinton. And, of course, her claim to "experience" is based entirely on her having shared a residence with Bill.

But much as I enjoy seeing Mrs. Clinton get thumped, I'm afraid it's bad news for the only candidate I actually like. And the reason I think that is because I think there are a lot of voters in New Hampshire who'd just love to pile on. And a lot who would like vote for Obama, but only if he demonstrated in Iowa that he actually had a shot. But I can't really complain. Maybe if enough of them kick her when she's down, she won't be able to get back up. And that would be a good thing.

But, unfortunately, a lot of those folks who would only vote for Obama if it looked like he had a chance would have been voting for Ron Paul (or possibly McCain) if they weren't voting in the Democratic primary. In short, I think Obama's thumping of the former First Lady is going to shift a lot of the independent vote over to the Democratic primary, and that's bad news for the anti-establishment Republican candidate. (Probably bad news for McCain too, but I don't care about him.)

And speaking of McCain, the polls have him first in New Hampshire, followed by Romney. I'm guessing that'll be reversed by next Tuesday. But I wouldn't put any money on it. If Mrs. Clinton had won in Iowa, I'd have been willing to bet real money on McCain, Romney, Paul to win, place, and show in Hew Hampshire.

On the other hand, Ron Paul got a lot more more votes than the polls said he should have gotten in Iowa. Although most polls show Giuliani and the Rev. Huckabee 2.5-3% points above Paul, if he beats the spread by the same margin in New Hampshire as he did in Iowa, he'd still be very close to a third place finish in New Hampshire. I'd be happy with that. I'm still hopeful, but I'm expecting another fifth place finish.

And while a fifth place finish would be disappointing, it's really the message and not the man that counts. And as long as he's getting the message out, that's all we can really expect. The Ron Paul Revolution might not bear fruit in 2008 but we might have at least planted the seed that will ripen in 2012 or 2016. I just hope my fellow Americans wise up before Fred Thompson's dream of a mushroom cloud over an American city is realized.

But if he can just beat Giuliani again, it'll all have been worth it. I don't think Il Duce can recover from two consecutive losses to a "kooky" "fringe candidate" like Dr. No. Too bad he won't get almost three times Giuliani's total in Hew Hampshire like he did in Iowa.

-------------------------------------

And since I wouldn't want to appear sexist in singling out Hillary for criticism on her over-hyping of her supposed resume-- What's the deal with Rudy's supposed foreign policy / terrorism expertise? Did he anticipate or prevent the 9/11 attacks? Did he prepare for such an eventuality by providing the firefighters with the necessary equipment to respond to such a situation? Because I though I heard that a whole lot of firemen died because they didn't have working radios. And locating the anti-terrorism command center in the World Trade Center complex was a stroke of genius. Did Rudy actually do anything other than pose for pictures and make speeches?

And how 'bout the Rev. Huckabee claiming to have some sort of special understanding of "Islamofascism" because he took a few Bible classes in college. Isn't it enough to know that they hate us for our freedom and they'll follows us home and all that?

-------------------------------------

Speaking of polls-- The polls say that, of the Republican candidates tested (which naturally does not include Ron Paul), McCain is the only one who stands a chance. Any Democrat beats any Republican except McCain. But the polls say McCain would beat Hillary, that it's a toss-up against Obama, and that he'd lose to Edwards. Edwards. Can you believe that?

I don't know who's going to be on top, but I have a feeling the Democratic ticket is going to have Obama and Edwards on it. And that doesn't scare me nearly as much as the prospect of a Republican ticket featuring Giuliani and Huckabee.

--------------------------------------

Update: It seems my punditry-fu may have been weak that day. The latest Rasmussen poll from New Hampshire has McCain (31%) with a commanding lead over Romney (26%), and Ron Paul (13%) comfortably in third place. Bring up the rear are Huckabee (11%), Giuliani (8%), and Thompson (5%).

One other interesting tidbit:

The Republican race remains fluid as nearly a third of GOP voters say they could still change their mind. Sixty-four percent (64%) of McCain’s voters say they are “certain” they will vote for him. Sixty-two percent (62%) of Romney supporters are that certain along with 83% of Ron Paul voters and 66% for Mike Huckabee.

Only 17% of Ron Paul supporters think they might change their mind, while the figure is about twice that for any other candidate list.

In other news, the Rasmussen poll of the other side shows Obama with a ten point lead over Clinton in Hew Hampshire.