News-Record.com

I've been flipping news channels and surfing websites for a good three hours this evening and I've come to this conclusion: We scruffy media types need a hobby or something. The breathless projections about what a win or a loss in Iowa does or doesn't mean are just a bit much.

That said, I think there are a few take-aways from tonight:

• *Republicans: you have yourselves a presidential campaign. If Mitt Romney's fundraising and spending advantage can't get him better than a second-place showing over a guy with no money who was an also-ran three weeks ago, this thing really is up in the air.
• *New Hampshire just got a whole lot more meaningful for the GOP. Remember, Giuliani didn't really contest the state - but he better do a darned site better in NH and SC people are going to begin to smell road kill. (No, I don't buy the whole "I'm biding my time for Flordia" thing.)

• *Democrats: It's official, this is a three-way race. The conversation is Obama, Clinton and Edwards, probably in that order.

• *Edwards could be in trouble because he doesn't have as much money as Clinton and Obama, but it looks like he can hang in at least until that first February uber-primary day.

• *It seems to me that Clinton was hurt more by not winning Iowa. The whole premise of her campaign has been, "Of course it's Hillary, who the heck else are we going to vote for?" - that whole inevitability thing. That's kind of out the window for the moment.

Listening to Edwards on the TV right now, he sounds pretty upbeat. Here's what he told the Associated Press earlier:

WASHINGTON (AP) _ Democrat John Edwards told The Associated Press that the Iowa caucus showed that voters are choosing change over the status quo, and he vowed a vigorous campaign into New Hampshire.

Edwards, who lost a close race to Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, said he would continue running as the candidate for middle-class Americans.

"I mean, we were grotesquely outspent in Iowa five-to-one and the fact that I'm as strong as I am now under these circumstances indicates that this message of change and standing up for corporate greed and fighting for the middle class and jobs really matters," the 2004 vice presidential nominee said in an interview with The Associated Press

He said he would distinguish himself from Obama in New Hampshire by arguing that he is the candidate who can deliver the change that voters have shown they want.

"I''m going to fight for that change," he said via telephone from his hotel room in Iowa. "I've fought for it my entire life. I have a long history of fighting powerful interests and winning."

"What's clear from the Iowa caucus results is that change won and the status quo lost," Edwards said. "And the fight is now to see if we are going to get the change we need to save the middle class in this country."

Okay, now it's your turn. What's on your mind after Iowa. To get you started, here's what editorial writer Doug Clark had to say:

I'm not impressed by Mike Huckabee's so-called big win in the Iowa caucuses tonight.

Nor by the whole Iowa experience.

I think Iowa will be forgotten in, oh, about a week.

The real story among Republicans may be Mitt Romney's poor showing after spending so much money. He should have joined Rudy Giuliani in ignoring this insignificant state, concentrating instead on primaries in more representative places. But he has time to recover and blow off this minor setback.

The Democrats, meanwhile, seem to be heading for a three-way tie, more or less, among Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards.

Meaning, none of them wins or loses. So, on to the next stop, and the next and the next.

Iowa attracts way too much attention and signifies very little.

More from: Wx Post, Dome, IH Tavern, Trail Mix