First things first: Happy New Year, everyone! Hard to believe it’s 2008 already. Seems like just yesterday I was watching the Kubrick film, 2010, and we’re nearly there. Somehow, even then, I knew we wouldn’t be living in huge space stations that were hurtling across space, and making encounters with intelligent life.

As I write this, the Corporate Media has anointed Obama the winner of the Iowa caucus, which officially kicked off the compressed primary schedule of 2008. On the GOP side, Huckabee appears to be the beneficiary in this first major contest of the (already lengthy) 2008 election season. While Obama and Huckabee appear to be the clear winners, Edwards and Clinton on the Dem side are definitely still in the race, while I think Romney and the rest of the GOP field will continue to be “viable,” at least until New Hampshire (or beyond).

I think the Democratic field is a lot tighter than people think it is, and I think we’ll be seeing a free-for-all among the so-called “Top Three” right through to February 5. However, the night isn’t even over, and we’re already seeing casualties. One of the candidates I liked, Chris Dodd, is withdrawing from the race. It’s also clear that Obama is benefiting from the “Not Hillary” vote, and given how little he’s done while he’s been in the Senate, and how little a lot of us know about him, allowing him a coronation too early may not be to the party’s benefit down the line.

On the Republican side, since the caucus is a bit of a strange political animal, I think the results tonight are largely for PR– it’ll be from New Hampshire on that we’ll see just how much of a player Huckabee is. His success is largely due to the evangelists, and while I’m sure they’re happy to have a candidate they can support, I don’t think most of the rest of us thinks this election should be about religion, or who’s purer. I think Ron Paul could surprise a lot of people. I haven’t been seeing a lot of signs or support for anyone out here, Democrat or Republican, but when I do see political activists and political advertising, I’m consistently seeing Ron Paul signs and Ron Paul supporters. For better or worse, he’s engaged quite a few people; I have a cousin who has never really been involved in much of anything, yet he’s actively supporting Paul this year. I suspect this is partly due to the fact that out of all the candidates, Ron Paul is one of the few who is taking a firm, active stand against the war. It’s a subject the Corporate Media likes to gloss over, but the truth is, most people are sick of the war, most people are ready for us to leave Iraq, and I suspect most people feel they’re not hearing this from most of the other so-called “front-runners.” I think Ron Paul will be around for a while yet, and could potentially play spoiler down the line. On the other hand, the Corporate Media still enjoys shaping the story, all the while claiming they’re merely just “reporting,” so it’s possible they’ll crown their winners and continue to manufacture horseraces where there are none. We’ll see what happens…

I think the biggest story from tonight, though, is one that has been touched upon in the media, but not given the serious consideration that it should by party bigwigs in both camps: the continued presence of Iowa and New Hampshire in the vanguard every four years.

As this article, “Americans frustrated by influence wielded by Iowa, New Hampshire,” states,

According to national survey conducted for The Associated Press and Yahoo News, just over half of all voters said New Hampshire and Iowa have an extraordinary amount of influence over who wins the two nominations.

Gee, you think?

The story continues by noting that “…nearly 80 percent would rather see other states get their chance at the front of the line.” That’s yet another indicator that the system is broken, and there needs to be some serious reform between now and 2012.

It isn’t just the political reporters for the major networks and news outlets who are commenting on this. Steve Benen over at The Carpetbagger Report has a piece on the undue influence of Iowa on the primaries. Benen posits that Iowa’s system is “undemocratic,” and references the New York Times as part of his argument:

Because the caucuses, held in the early evening, do not allow absentee voting, they tend to leave out nearly entire categories of voters: the infirm, soldiers on active duty, medical personnel who cannot leave their patients, parents who do not have baby sitters, restaurant employees on the dinner shift, and many others who work in retail, at gas stations and in other jobs that require evening duty.

While I find his piece interesting, and the NYT article enlightening as well, it’s still a lot more people involved in making the decision as compared to the 5-4 decision in the Supreme Court in 2000: tens of thousands, versus one individual.

What I find intriguing in the quoted paragraph above is that certain categories of people are supposedly excluded. I’d like to close this posting by asking my deaf readers this: does any of you know of anyone in Iowa who is participating in the caucuses? Are deaf people participating, and if so, are they being permitted equal access? Ke5ster posted yesterday about Obama’s visit to Council Bluffs and the Iowa School for the Deaf; it’s obvious he isn’t completely ignoring the deaf as a potential voting bloc. I’d love to know if there are deaf voters who are helping to shape the electoral process as voters. I hope so; it’s one thing for us to talk about politics on the sidelines, but I think part of gaining visibility for issues that are important to us as a community is to actively participate in politics. Those who live in Iowa have a unique opportunity to do so.

Any Iowans out there? Please share with us your knowledge/experiences!

As for the rest of us, it’s now a mad dash to the finish line. I just hope the race stays jumbled up long enough for most of us to actually have a chance to vote and have it count (somewhat). We’ll see how it goes…