obama wins iowa ... now what?

not the winner(photo by doug miles for the new york times)

so it is true, miss hillary lost this state (but then again, so did bill in '92) and now where do we go from here? at a time when the possibility for change is so ripe, in the sense that it is a guarantee that dubya won't be president again, i don't know why i feel so discouraged.

i appreciate obama's supporters saying that he represents change, new direction, and opportunity. but at the same time, i feel like it's the same selling point that supporters of spitzer said here in new york, without admitting the reality that bruno and silver (and their minions) are the ones that make or break the deals. i know that a governorship and a presidency inhabit two very different spheres and dynamics. but still, don't i have a point?

if my primary vote were today, this is how i would want to cast it (in order of wanting): al gore, joe biden, hillary clinton, barack obama tied with john edwards.

could i vote for him in new york's primary?

(photo by jim young for reuters)

quiet honestly, i don't know who i will vote for on february 5th. but i remember reading somewhere in a new york times article on joe biden ... people like him but complain about feeling like they need to vote for who is most "electable" ... and yet, it is US who decide who is electable. somehow the reality that WE have that power (at least in primaries and caucuses, not necessarily the general election, as we saw with al gore's majority win of the popular vote) is lost within the din of the hyperbolic speculation by the news media, pundits, and bloggers.

i have never had the feeling of not knowing who i was voting for ... i hate it ...

update: normally i dislike and disagree with the majority of what david brooks writes and says. but surprisingly, i actually liked his article today on what iowa means.