A funny thing happened on the way to New Hampshire

Barack Obama won the Iowa caucuses.

As a big-time supporter of Sen. Obama, I was extremely excited. It was happening. While I've been passionate about politics for many years, and as a primarily partisan political junkie have taken up the banner of most Democratic candidates no matter how lackluster (see Kerry, John, presidential campaign of), Obama has been the first one I have truly believed in and been inspired by. He was gaining momentum, and with John Edwards becoming less relevant (he carries the same "change" banner as Obama, but with less money and less charisma), a win in New Hampshire could strike a big blow to Hillary Clinton and give Obama a significant advantage heading into Super Tuesday.

But then another feeling came up: sadness. I began to see the double-edged sword that has resulted from the Democrats' stacked deck of candidates this year. A win for Obama, the first African American with a serious shot at the White House, means a loss for Clinton, the first woman with a serious shot (and, to a lesser extent, Bill Richardson, the first Latino).

While the Republicans race has been primarily a bunch of Protestant (with the exception of Roman Catholic Rudy Giuliani) white guys arguing amongst each other over who is most like that popular Protestant white guy who was the president during the 1980s, the Democrats were busy putting together a line-up of candidates that looked more like the new America.

The new America is one in which whites are becoming less of a majority (they have already been relegated to a mere plurality in California and Texas). It is one in which the Latino vote is becoming more and more crucial. It is one in which blacks and women are gaining more and more leadership positions. Last election, Devan Patrick became the first African-American governor of Massachusetts. We have a black woman as the secretary of state. More and more women are breaking the glass ceiling to become powerful business leaders.

But with all the potential "firsts" on the Democratic side - first woman, first African American, first Latino - only one can be the nominee, and then he or she must do battle with the white guy from across the aisle.

I began to look at things from Clinton's perspective. The first student commencement speaker ever at her alma mater, Wellesley, and a graduate of Yale Law School with incredible potential, she put aside her personal ambitions to marry Bill Clinton. She waited as his political star rose, and she endured his many marital infidelities. In 2000, her turn finally came. She was elected to the Senate in New York, and was re-elected in 2006. She was smart, talented, and in the Senate. Nothing could stop her ascendency to the presidency; she was going to make history.

Until Obama. You can understand why she got a little choked up while campaigning yesterday. All her hard work and patience may be over as soon as today if Obama wins in New Hampshire.

And therein, again, lies the double-edged sword. As much as I want to see an Obama win and an Obama presidency, part of me will always be sad for the lost chance, at least for now, of Clinton breaking the ultimate glass ceiling. If Clinton steadies and pulls out the win, I will support her enthusiastically. If trends continue and she loses, I will be happy that it was not because she was a woman. It was because she was faced with a new, often-times more inspirational rival who is also trying to make history, and Democratic voters simply went with him instead. And I will hope that she will have inspired other women to realize that the most powerful position in the world is no longer off-limits to them.

And then I will cheer on Obama, as he goes head to head with yet another white, male Republican.

The GOP's '08 enthusiam problem

Sure, its a bit early to take a look at the 2008 election. I personally thought it ridiculous when Wolf Blitzer was dedicating a segment of his show to analyzing polls for an election 21 months away.

So understanding that things will almost certainly change, I think one of the initial observations one can glean from the early, early stages of the campaign is what may turn out to be a huge problem for the Republicans: enthusiasm.

If there is one thing that is true about U.S. elections these days, it's that they're close. Bush 43's majority in 2004 was 51% to Kerry's 49%. He didn't win a majority (or a plurality) in the well-scrutinized 2000 election. Clinton never won a majority. Bush 41 won 53% in 1988. So for the past twenty years, the difference in elections has been mainly about two things: winning the independents and turning out your base.

Disregarding the fact that the 2006 election showed that independents are leaning Democrat these days, the GOP may be setting itself up for a large turnout problem in 2008.

If you look closely at the top three Democratic candidates right now - Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards - along with the top three Republican candidates - Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Mitt Romney - an interesting pattern emerges.

All of the candidates have their flaws. On the Democratic side, Clinton is too cold and calculated, Obama too inexperienced, and Edwards has been out of office for two years. With the Republicans, Giuliani is too liberal, McCain too wrong on the war (at least currently), and Romney a Mormon - not a flaw of course but sadly more of a problem in the eyes of the evangelical Christian Republican base than, say, Clinton's being a woman or Obama's being black is to the Democratic base.

The difference comes down to the fact that despite their "flaws," each of the Democratic candidates seems to elicit an enthusiasm among the Democratic base that the Republican candidates do not. All of the Democratic primary talk is focused on how each of these candidates can overcome the overwhelming support of the other two. All of the Republican primary talk is focused on how each of these candidates can garner any Republican support at all.

Obama and Edwards voters may not support Hillary in the primary, but they will almost certainly vote for her in the general election should she be the candidate. If Giuliani wins the Republican primary, it's harder to see supporters of the more socially conservative Romney voting for him rather than just staying home, and visa versa.

Essentially we have a reversal of the 2004 election, magnified. John Kerry was not a candidate who could excite Democrats who would otherwise stay home to vote. Bush, on the other hand, rallied his conservative base to the polls and they carried him to victory. Bush was thus able to win despite even the fact that independents leaned slightly towards Kerry.

Again, it's important to remember that a lot can change in 21 months. But if enthusiasm continues to be a problem for the Republican candidates, give an early advantage to the Democrats in 2008.