by JAMES TARANTO
Friday, January 4, 2008 4:32 P.M. EST

	Today's Video on WSJ.com: Paul Gigot interviews Joe Lieberman on Fox News Channel's "The Journal Editorial Report" and Dan Henninger discusses the Iowa caucus results.
	Best of the Tube Tonight: James Taranto discusses the Iowa caucuses on "Lou Dobbs Tonight," CNN, 7 p.m. EST, with a repeat showing at 4 a.m. Saturday.

Bye-Ku for Joe Biden and Chris Dodd Combined

Yes, they've really spent
68 years in Congress
It just seems longer

(Earlier bye-kus: Tom Tancredo, Sam Brownback, Tommy Thompson, Jim Gilmore.)

The Content of His Character
Barack Obama is black, and it doesn't matter. In the long run, the implications of that could be enormous.

After decisively winning last night's Iowa caucuses, Obama has taken on an aura of inevitability. An aura is not the thing itself, as New York's junior senator, who finished a humiliating third, can attest. But unlike Hillary Clinton during her inevitable phase, Obama has won actual votes, even making good on his seemingly implausible promise of bringing younger Americans to the polls. It's easy to chart out his path to the White House--easier, at least at this moment, than it is for any other candidate.

The polls tracked by RealClearPolitics--all completed before the Iowa caucuses--show Obama gaining on Mrs. Clinton in New Hampshire, and easily within striking distance. Unlike her, he appeals to independents, who are allowed to vote in either party's Granite State primary. (As an aside, this makes Obama's Iowa victory bad news for John McCain, who similarly appeals to independents.) Unlike her husband 16 years ago, Mrs. Clinton would be in no position to benefit from a second-place showing in New Hampshire. She is just too superannuated to call herself "The Comeback Kid."

If Obama wins New Hampshire, that is surely sufficient to make him the front-runner for the nomination. Mrs. Clinton will win Michigan, but only because she's running unopposed. Then comes South Carolina, which could be another disaster for Mrs. Clinton. John Edwards (who won his only 2004 primary in the Palmetto State) has the regional edge, and Obama seems likely to do well among the state's heavily black Democratic electorate. Even then, you couldn't quite count Mrs. Clinton out, as a Florida and California comeback wouldn't be out of the question. But the odds would be strongly against her.

Could Obama win the general election? Why not? He is obviously a more attractive candidate than either Al Gore or John Kerry, both of whom came close to beating George W. Bush. Bush, of course, will not be on the ballot, but this points to another advantage of Obama's upbeat style of campaigning: He seems less likely than Mrs. Clinton or Edwards to make the mistake of running against a lame duck.

Recently we were chatting with a left-leaning friend, who dismissed Obama's chances on the ground that America will not elect a black president. We don't believe it. If Obama's race is not a liability in Iowa and New Hampshire, neither of which has a large black population, there is no reason to think it would be a liability nationwide.

What interests us, though, is what an Obama victory would mean for the political culture of black America. As we noted in 2004, black Americans have become extreme political outliers, voting heavily Democratic at a time when the country has become more Republican. But it was not always thus. After the Civil War and until the New Deal, blacks voted overwhelmingly Republican, during an era in which the GOP dominated nationwide. Blacks shifted toward the Democrats with FDR's arrival, as did the country. In 1964 they overwhelmingly supported Lyndon Johnson, who won in a landslide. Then--just after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 made good on the promise of equal citizenship--blacks' political behavior and that of the nation as a whole diverged.

White Southerners, meanwhile, had long been outliers, voting solidly Democratic through the postbellum years, then turning Republican in 1964. Many voted for George Wallace four years later--but after that, they moved into the political mainstream, as preserving segregation lost its salience as an issue.

An Obama victory may do for blacks what the Civil Rights Act did for white Southerners--break the Democratic Party's hold on them. This sounds counterintuitive, and we are not predicting that blacks will break from the Democrats this November. In fact, if Obama is on the ballot, ethnic pride would be an additional attraction for black voters. The usually tiny black Republican vote could well become even tinier.

But if Barack Obama can grow up to become president, the notion that America is an irredeemably racist society is absurd on its face. The perpetuation of this notion--and of the corollary that the GOP is a racist party--has been crucial to maintaining the Democratic hold on the black vote. By defusing fears of racism, an Obama presidency would make it harder for future Democrats to exploit those fears. Democrats wouldn't necessarily lose the black vote, but they would no longer be able to take it for granted.

Life Imitates the Onion

• "Man Finally Put in Charge of Struggling Feminist Movement"--headline, Onion, Dec. 3, 2007
  
  
• "The result sent waves of apprehension across Mrs. Clinton's camp, and she turned her attention to New Hampshire. Aides said that former President Bill Clinton would go there immediately and spend the next five days campaigning in a state where he has always been strong."--New York Times, Jan. 3, 2008

How the Media Hurt Mrs. Clinton
We have long argued (most comprehensively in The American Spectator) that in the 2004 election, the liberal media helped George W. Bush by acting as an echo chamber for John Kerry*, particularly by uncritically repeating his claims to have been a war hero in Vietnam, which led him to become complacent, leaving him unprepared when men who served in Vietnam with him raised questions about his record.

It now looks as if Mrs. Clinton has fallen victim to the same sort of media-induced complacency. The notion that her nomination (if not her election) was inevitable was substantially a media creation, and one that must have given her great, though false, comfort. This Associated Press dispatch from last night shows a definite reluctance to concede how badly Mrs. Clinton lost:

Obama, 46 and a first-term senator from Illinois, scored his victory on a message of change in Washington. Nearly complete returns showed him gaining 37 percent support from Iowans. Former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina appeared headed for second place, relegating Clinton, the former first lady, to a close third. . . .

[Mike] Huckabee's triumph was more robust than Obama's. He was winning 34 percent support, compared to 25 percent for Romney. Former Sen. Fred Thompson and Sen. John McCain battled for third place. . . .

The Democratic race was as close as the Republican contest was not.

That last sentence seems to be saying that the Democratic race was much closer than the Republican race. But was it? Here are the percentages, according to the Washington Post:

Obama finished eight points ahead of second-place Edwards; Huckabee, nine points ahead of second-place Romney: not a huge difference. The battle for second place was closer among the Democrats, but only because the battle for third place was closer among Republicans.

Obama beat Edwards almost as soundly as Huckabee beat Romney. Mrs. Clinton did worse than Romney--finishing third and nine points back. Does the AP's portrayal of Obama as a lesser winner than Huckabee reflect a reluctance to acknowledge that Mrs. Clinton was the night's biggest loser?

* Widely reported to have served in Vietnam.

MRS. CLINTON LIED, NO ONE DIED!!!!
" 'We had 300 people outside, literally freezing to death,' Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton marveled on Tuesday before a crowd in Iowa City. (No deaths were reported, in fact.)"--New York Times, Jan. 3

(Hat tip: Literally, a Web Log.)

Ron Howard and Paul Dean
Our item yesterday speculating on who would be the Howard Dean of 2008 brought this response from reader Brian Liston:

I live in Brookline, N.H., a small town that voted 60% for Bush in 2004. In this town, there were a few very vocal supporters of Howard Dean. They were easily identified (among other means) by the 12-foot signs they displayed in their front yards.

I found it interesting that you say Ron Paul will be the Howard Dean of 2008. Presently most of these same households have huge Ron Paul signs in their front yards (I can get you pictures if you like). The slogans have gone from "Dean for America" to "Hope for America," but the sentiments have stayed largely the same.

"Hope for America"? Hope is dead!

What's Missing From This Report?
From an Associated Press story on Iranian "supreme leader" Ali Khamenei's speculation that one day his nation may establish diplomatic relations with the U.S.:

The United States and Iran have had no diplomatic ties since shortly after the 1979 Islamic Revolution, when militant students seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and published sensitive documents they found inside documenting American intelligence-gathering in the country. The embassy, labeled the "Den of Spies," is occasionally open to public as a museum documenting American misdeeds in Iran and the region.

Ah yes, we were in high school in 1979, and we remember well what was universally known as the "Iran documents crisis."

Brave New World
"The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that a woman who promised a sperm donor he would not have to pay child support cannot renege on the deal," the Associated Press reports from Harrisburg:

The 3-2 decision overturns lower court rulings under which Joel L. McKiernan had been paying up to $1,500 a month to support twin boys born in August 1994 to Ivonne V. Ferguson, his former girlfriend and co-worker. . . .

Ferguson and McKiernan met while working together at Pennsylvania Blue Shield in Harrisburg and had a sexual relationship that waned before Ferguson persuaded him to donate sperm for her.

Courts found that the two agreed McKiernan would not have to pay child support and would not have visitation rights, but Ferguson later changed her mind and sued.

A county judge said it was in the twins' best interests that McKiernan be required to support them. In addition to monthly payments, McKiernan also was ordered to come up with $66,000 in back support. The appeal reverses that order.

It does seem unreasonable to force McKiernan to pay child support. After all, they had a deal. On the other hand, it also seems unreasonable to allow him to withhold it:

Justice J. Michael Eakin, in a dissent, said a parent cannot bargain away a child's right to support. "The children point and say, 'That is our father. He should support us,' " Eakin wrote. "What are we to reply? 'No! He made a contract to conceive you through a clinic, so your father need not support you.' I find this unreasonable at best."

The majority made clear that "reproductive rights" trump the rights of the child:

"Where a would-be donor cannot trust that he is safe from a future support action, he will be considerably less likely to provide his sperm to a friend or acquaintance who asks, significantly limiting a would-be mother's reproductive prerogatives," Justice Max Baer wrote in the majority opinion issued last week.

Maybe some limits on "reproductive prerogatives" are not such a bad thing. A lack of them produces cases like this in which no good outcome is possible.

What'll They Do, Dip Them in Alcohol?
"Unemployed to Sterilize Monkeys in India"--headline, Associated Press, Jan. 3

What About the 13th Amendment?
"Owner of the Weather Channel May Be Sold"--headline, Associated Press, Jan. 3

What About the 19th Amendment?
"With Few Options, Colorado Considers All-Mail [sic] Vote"--headline, New York Times, Jan. 4

World Ends, Etc.
"Elderly, Poor Hardest Hit by Switch to Digital TV"--headline, Daily News of Newburyport (Mass.), Jan. 3

Things Move Slower in Minnesota
"Christmas Almost Here in One Part of Minneapolis"--headline, Star Tribune, Jan. 4

Sick and Tireds Can't Be Bothered to Bid
"Fed Ups Auction Amount to Aid Banks"--headline, Associated Press, Jan. 4

All Your Base Are Belong to Us
"USC Commits Watch Future Team Roll in Rose Bowl"--headline, ESPN.com, Jan. 1

Take Off Every 'ZIG' Off!!
"NASA Hopes to Launch Space Shuttle Launch This Month"--headline, Reuters, Jan. 3

News You Can Use

• "Cell Phones Cause Traffic Jams, and Other Problems"--headline, InformationWeek, Jan. 3
  
  
• "Happiness May Be Good for Your Health"--headline, Reuters, Jan. 3

Bottom Stories of the Day

• "Suri Cruise Won't Be Acting Anytime Soon"--headline, MSNBC.com, Jan. 3
  
  
• "Letter Carrier Hanging Up Bag"--headline, Times-Picayune (New Orleans), Jan. 3
  
  
• "Rescue Team Searches Canal, Finds No One"--headline, El Paso Times, Jan. 4
  
  
• "Money Woes Add to Saskatoon Symphony's Troubles"--headline, CBC.ca, Jan. 3

She's Got High Apple Pie in the Sky Hopes
You're probably wondering why we haven't had much to say about the Republican results from Iowa. It's because they're just not as interesting as the Democratic ones. Whereas all the major Democratic candidates competed in Iowa, two Republican ones, Rudy Giuliani and John McCain, didn't. On the GOP side it was really a Huckabee-Romney race. We can write about Romney if he wins New Hampshire, but if he can't even do that, why waste the effort? As for Huckabee, we wrote a lot about him last month and are plumb huckered out.

Anyway, whatever you think of Obama--and although we like him, we have serious misgivings about both his toughness and his policy positions--there is something delightful about watching Hillary Clinton lose. With that smug sense of entitlement, she deserves it. (We just hope she gets around to blaming the "vast right-wing conspiracy.") Even if she comes back and wins the nomination after all, it will at least be somewhat less galling than if she had simply steamrolled all opposition.

What are the chances that she will come back? Erstwhile Bill Clinton consultant Dick Morris describes Mrs. Clinton as "down but not out":

With the limelight comes the spotlight. Obama will be subject to the scrutiny that comes with being the leader. Can he weather the examination?

Perhaps not. Democrats may turn on him, worried that he may not win in November. The doubts about Obama, up to now hidden behind concerns about Hillary's candidacy, will be on center stage.

Then again, the "electability" argument seems much weaker this year than four years ago. Although John Kerry was not electable, he was less not electable than Howard Dean. Can the same be said for Mrs. Clinton vis-à-vis Obama?

Here's a list of the winners of past contested Iowa caucuses:

• 1972: Edmund Muskie (D.)
• 1976: Gerald Ford (R.), "Uncommitted" (D.)
• 1980: George H.W. Bush (R.), Jimmy Carter (D.)
• 1984: Walter Mondale (D.)
• 1988: Bob Dole (R.), Dick Gephardt (D.)
• 1992: Tom Harkin (D.)
• 1996: Bob Dole (R.)
• 2000: George W. Bush (R.), Al Gore (D.)
• 2004: John Kerry (D.)

Only one of these caucuses--the Republican one in 2000--actually produced a president. (Jimmy Carter finished first among actual candidates in 1976.) Of course, political trends like this one go on only until they end, and this one already has an exception.

The Washington Times looks ahead to next week's Granite State primary and notes:

The voters of New Hampshire, fiercely independent and, right now, mostly undecided, don't much care what happened last night in the Iowa caucuses, and they often flaunt their independence at the ballot box.

Only twice since 1976 has the same Democrat won both Iowa and New Hampshire in a contested nominating campaign; no Republican candidate ever won both. And more often than not, the winners of the Iowa caucuses--not the New Hampshire primary--went on to win their party's nomination.

On the other hand, if Mrs. Clinton somehow wins New Hampshire, will people say that is a sign of fierce independence?

ABC News reported Wednesday that the Clinton campaign was already trying to spin a third-place finish:

As the presidential candidates engage in furious pre-caucus spin, one of Sen. Hillary Clinton's most prominent Iowa supporters said Wednesday that she's already accomplished what she needs to in Iowa and can declare success even if she finishes in third place.

Former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack told ABC News that Clinton has shown that she can appeal to a wide swath of Democrats, which is what she came to Iowa to do.

"She has done what she needed to do here," Vilsack said shortly before a Clinton campaign event in Indianola. "When she started the process she was way behind--it's now by all standards a competitive race."

In a story that seems to have disappeared from the Washington Post Web site but appears here, the Post reported that the Clinton campaign was trying to "control the fallout from a leaked memo advocating that she pull her campaign out of Iowa's first-in-the-nation caucuses":

Once the missive leaked, . . . Clinton campaign officials went into overdrive to distance themselves from Henry's memo. . . .

"There's no question she's playing in Iowa and playing to win," said former Iowa governor Tom Vilsack, who dropped out of the presidential race earlier this year and endorsed Clinton.

Come to think of it, Vilsack did drop out to endorse Mrs. Clinton. He must be ruing the day he did that. Just think, he might have given Bill Richardson a run for his money!

(Carol Muller helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to Mordecai Bobrowsky, Michael Segal, John Nernoff, Daniel Winston, Arnold Nelson, Donald Walker, John Williamson, Larry Tanner, Mike Driscoll, Matt Irving, Ron Ackert, Robert Gessner, Lewis Sckolnick, Eric van der Walde, Jerry Rhoden, William Bixler, David Waghalter, Jeff Stephens, Anne Schlesinger, Michele Schiesser, Daniel Foty, Stacy McCain and Peter Huntsman. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)

Today on OpinionJournal:

• Michael Barone: Voters seem less interested than usual in Washington experience. Is it the 16-year itch?
• Peggy Noonan: Obama and Huckabee rise; Mrs. Clinton falls.
• Kim Strassel: The Reagan coalition is down, but not out.
• The Journal Editorial Report: Tune in this weekend for a discussion of Iowa and New Hampshire and an interview with Sen. John Sununu.

And on the Taste page:

• Steve Moore: Video games have sucked the life out of my kids.
• Richard McKenzie: An economist explains his weight-loss plan.
• David Sanders: Mike Huckabee is more religious left than religious right.