So what do the Iowa caucus results mean?

George Santayana: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

Were this to be applied exactly, the Iowa caucus results would be irrelevant. New Hampshire often breaks differently and the New Hampshire primary winner has been a better predicter of the eventual nominee in recent contests.

However, there’s a more apt reminder for 2008.

Mark Twain: “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme.”

While events in recent years regularly invite historical comparisons, we cannot look for exact historical replications. For example, the War on Iraq is not the Vietnam War. Despite its smaller US casualties, it’s worse. For all its flaws and horrors, the policies that drove us into Vietnam were rooted in a reasonable aim - containment of Soviet expansionism - while no clear rationale of similar import was utilized in the decisionmaking to invade Iraq. Utilizing an unjustified ‘pre-emption’ doctrine, many in the world now worry about US expanionism.

Also, Bush is no Nixon. In most ways, again, he’s worse. Almost every dirty trick of the trade employed by Nixon has been utilized by Bush, but Bush has employed them more broadly, more thoroughly and has faced less resistance because he had a compliant GOP-led Congress greasing the skids and advancing his anti-Constitutional royalist executive agenda for the majority of his seven years in office. And even now, the slim Democratic majority in the Senate is insufficient to do much to reverse the destruction of human liberties. Some doubt that they would even if they could.

I won’t sidetrack into all of that. Analyzing the Iowa caucus results, I’m largely convinced that Barack Obama now has the best odds of winning the Democratic nomination, even though national and most state polls indicate most voters still heavily favor Clinton. Four major factors entered into this calculation, even before fresh New Hampshire polls came in today.

1) There certainly are plenty of historical parallels to the 1968 election. Instead of Bobby Kennedy and Eugene McCarthy divvying up the anti-status quo vote, Obama and Edwards are doing that now. Though their rhetorical emphases and campaign strategies differ, their appeal is greatest to those who feel marginalized or feel their shot at reaching the American Dream is being threatened.

2) The exit polling: 80% of Obama’s support in Iowa came from voters older than 30. The young he attracts provide extra rally enthusiasm but overshadows the reality that his largest base of support comes from those born between 1947 and 1977, more than half of them Boomers. He’s the only one of the top 3 demonstrating strong support across generational lines. Only in the generation older than the Boomers does he fare worse than Clinton.

3) His support is very strong among independents. The very few moderate Republicans left in the media punditocracy also have expressed positive feelings about him.

4) In the past 30 years in American politics, only two great orators stand out: Jesse Jackson and Mario Cuomo. And Obama’s speechifying definitely exceeds Jackson’s.

So, overall, we have a candidate who is in the same league as our best speech giver since the Kennedys, appealling across most generational lines, across political lines and across economic class lines. And the downside is?

His theme of non-partisanship sounds a bit wimpy and naive to folks on the left who know success requires a capacity to fight.

While I understand the concern and continue to prefer Edwards, I really don’t buy that Obama lacks any fight. In fact, rather than a brawler, I suspect he’s a formidable boxer… see him sting like an Iowa bee. He runs to the middle not out of naivete, but out of some degree of necessity. But is he just another DLC candidate, like Bill Clinton was? Will he govern from the center, pandering right of center to big business? Will he be paralyzed by the vicious Republican attacks to come?

I think too many overlook what any Black man endures in our country and the world. Despite not growing up in an urban ghetto, Obama is neither a neophyte, nor stupid, nor shows any history of shrinking from a fight. Pandering to big business? Possibly. Possibly he shares a trait common to the majority of the men and women in Congress. So he’s not Malcolm X, Muhammed Ali, Paul Wellstone, Mario Cuomo, Cesar Chavez and FDR combined.

But this is not Depression-era America and he’s not running a race in a few of the bluest states in the country. We can’t accurately predict exactly how he’ll govern anymore than we can predict how Edwards or Clinton or Howard Dean would. But if he shows half the mastery of that task as he has towards campaigning, the odds remain high that he’ll bring a progressive agenda of hope and vision to more fruition than we’ve seen in several decades.

I prefer Edwards, I’m enormously appreciative of Dodd, but my gut says Obama’s still more progressive than many liberal activists currently think.

I’m more concerned about whether he can withstand Clinton’s popular support than any Republican challenge. Romney, Huckabee, McCain, Congressional Republicans, Rupert Murdoch, Roger Ailes, the VRWC? They’ll barely lay a glove on him. My sole fear is not about where Obama’s conscience or capabilities are. But I still worry about what a small group of extreme haters can do to his candidacy or presidency with a gun.

Do you think Barack Obama is unaware of the history in this country of practically every politician and civil rights leader that has aided the advance of Black Americans? Aware of the personal risks, he’s running to win. That suggests there’s way more content to that character than some are giving him credit for.

I think we’ll be well-served by Edwards and Obama, whether either wins or loses this campaign. And to have a primary that offers two progressives among the three frontrunners? In my 55 years, I’ve seen no campaign as promising as that.

(And yeah, Obama’s well aware that all the hatred won’t come from the tip of a gun).