As I write from Asuncion, Paraguay, I should be calculating the probability that there is a "Hooters" restaurant showing the NFL playoffs within a mile of my apartment.
Instead, I am attempting to catch up on North American news via the web, kicking myself for forgetting to register at the Town Hall of Hanover as an absentee voter for the presidential primaries -- and I am not even one of those politically obsessed students who has been canvassing my hometown for local campaigns since age nine.
This election cycle is destined to be one that students of American history will be citing in midterms and senior theses down the road. The Huckabee-Obama phenomenon is hitting the American political landscape, generating such fervor and excitement that even someone who has only witnessed a Clinton or Bush living at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue can foresee the imminent resonance.
As New York Times columnist Gail Collins wrote, "How could you be 21 and not be for Barack Obama?" Discussing the ongoing battle between youth and experience, hope and pragmatism, is nothing short of trite at this juncture.
After the Iowa caucuses, however, there is something real to talk about: these charismatic victors, Huckabee and Obama, are not going to pass by as distant "bleeps" on the radar. Political persuasions aside, Collins' assertion merely echoes the sentiment of columnist David Brooks: that Obama is doing to America's liberalism what Huckabee is doing to its conservatism.
Up until now, the two had not been given enough credit for their very real understanding of many core issues. That being said, even a superficial knowledge of each candidate reveals oft-cited flaws.
Obama is driving a campaign that has been continually attacked for its suspect grasp of foreign policy; then again, Huckabee is one of the few who trails Obama in this aspect.
Huckabee's rhetorical populism includes extensive farming supplements and tax reforms that will not hold up because of their potential economic pitfalls. Also, his deep evangelical roots (he does not believe in evolution) will most certainly hurt him on social issues in a general election.
On the other hand, Obama is running amidst a Democratic party that leverages universal healthcare as a major selling point, but his plan does not provide coverage for everyone. In fact, Obama's fiscal plans are more theoretical optimism than they are concrete solutions.
But in Iowa, few seemed to care.
Although it is difficult to compare candidates of opposing parties during a polarizing primary season, Obama remains the superior "candidate of change." Whether he will defeat Hillary Clinton, and whether Huckabee has a real shot at emerging from the flux that is the Republican pool, it is tough to say. But in the battle of the young upstarts -- Obama and Huckabee -- I choose the articulate liberal over the spunky evangelist.
The inefficiencies and irrational decisions in Washington that stem from our two-party system are well documented, and I admire Huckabee's adamant refusal to succumb to many of the pressures associated with seeking the Republican Party's nomination, the most notable example being his unapologetic criticisms of Bush's policies.
Huckabee's Chuck Norris advertisements are brilliant, tapping into younger and less affluent demographics with a popular icon (even if said icon is a far cry from Oprah, Obama's superstar endorser). This creativity is likely what made him successful as an evangelist minister, but it will not work on the main stage as the elected leader of the free world.
In contrast, Obama can arouse a crowd without cheap jokes. He too evades many substantive questions, but he does so without the pop-culture references and puns.
I appreciate (and sometimes attempt to practice) Huckabee's brand of cheekiness and wit, and maybe he has the capacity to switch rhetoric as the scrutiny increases, but in the battle of non-substantive idealists, Obama's intelligence, confident demeanor and eloquence fit the role a bit more...ideally.
We will know shortly which candidates -- McCain or Huckabee, Clinton or Obama -- New Hampshire picks. If the Granite State is looking for the ethereal "change" that drove Iowan politics last week, however, Huckabee is probably not the answer, if only because Obama seems to have a better grasp on the political reality than does Huckabee. Demographics alone may suggest that Huckabee has seen his best days in Iowa.
Only a few days ago this sort of issue-deficient analysis would have been nothing short of vapid, but after Iowa it seems that merely distinguishing one man's (or woman's) approach towards the immaterial could be the key to this election. Strange? Certainly. But it is real. Kind of like a Hooters in Paraguay.
