Not the stategy I would have picked for an election...

Hmm... So before I make my newest point on Election 2008, please let me again state that I am not currently endorsing a candidate from any political party for President. I have someone I am and have been leaning towards, but this is not a place for me to share who that is or why I think they would be a good candidate and President. During the general election, if that person is still a candidate, I may disclose who I am supporting, but until that time, it doesn't matter. I will, however, make fun of candidates if situations warrant. ('cause why not?)
I truly think that anyone reading this should put more into learning about each candidate and focus less on what the media portrays. You owe it to yourself to do so as images and perceptions are scewed and there is a lot of information out there if you choose to find it.
Now, my thought about the Michigan primaries. I was half right about the New Hampshire primaries, but Michigan has me a little baffled. On the Republican side, there surely is a battle and with the results just hours away, it still appears to be Mitt Romney and John McCain fighting it out to the end. Romney, with strong ties to the state, says he doesn't "need" Michigan to continue, but I think that a lose here may set spell the beginning of the end. McCain, who pulled out the upset in New Hampshire, has said he's in it for the long haul and whereas he was all but done a few months back, he is now perceived as the possible front-runner, especially with the financial issues within the Giuliani camp. My prediction is that Romney pulls out a win in Michigan and gains a much needed 30 delegates.
It's a little stranger for the Democrats and two of them aren't even on the ballot. With all the back and forth between Clinton and Obama, you'd think there was a hotly contested vote in Michigan, but the reality is that in some sort twisting logic, the DNC decided that a good punishment for Michigan moving their primary would be to strip the state of its' delegates. From a democratic standpoint, that is just absurd, but in my opinion, not as absurd as taking your name off the ballot because there are no delegates available. We know clinton left her name on and will win, pretty much by default, but I think she sends a much better message than a couple of the other candidates. My question to Obama and Edwards would be why residents of Michigan should think about voting for you in the fall if you didn't care enough about their state in the primary? Yes, it's more complex than that, but it just seems a little strange.

A negative endorsement for Obama?

Former Presidential candidate and current junior US Senator from Massachusetts, John Kerry, threw his two cents into these early primary elections. Nope, he didn't opine as to weather he was pulling for Romney, but instead made a surprise endorsement of Barrack Obama. While many may have expected Kerry to come out and support John Edwards, I think we all know that Kerry may have already flip-flopped and changed his mind about the endorsement, but I would hedge a bet that his second choice would be Billary. Why? This is a two person race, regardless of how long the other democratic candidates stay in it and Kerry would love an appointment of some sort. That's not gonna come from Edwards. As for Obama, this may have been more negative than positive, but realistically it was most likely neither unless he were to campaign with Mr. Botox himself.

Huckabee and Obama winners, but will Iowa be the answer?

Hmmm. Sorry if I again sound a little cynical, but quite frankly, I've already heard too much about the primaries/caucuses and the first one just happened. The mere fact that New Hampshire had to move up their primary to remain first in the nation is just proof that politics is still far-more about perception that actuality.
For example, let's look at tonight's winner in the Iowa caucuses. I've heard some reporters saying that Barrack Obama's and Mike Huckabee's wins were upsets... Really? Perhaps these journalists haven't spent much time out in Iowa, I know I haven't, but I'm well aware of the political landscape there and I know how important religion is to the voters there. So sure, there was going to be a huge advantage for Mike Huckabee. Yes, Romney was an early leader, but he swayed lately, to take jabs at John McCain, which may have made sense starting tomorrow, but I think it cost him some votes in Iowa. More importantly, his attacks on Huckabee cost him all of Iowa. On the democratic side, the winner is no surprise. Obama speaks to the Midwestern voters more than Hillary Clinton could ever, but the true surprise is that as of this hour, Clinton is actually in third behind the ever-charismatic, but rarely substantive John Edwards.
Regardless of any the results from tonight, I don't think that Iowa will do much of anything to shape voters minds prior to other caucuses and primaries. The leader on the GOP side, Rudy Giuliani, didn't even campaign in Iowa and on the democratic side, are there people who really don't have a Clinton/Obama preference? Perhaps, but I doubt it. What this could do is really fire up the Clinton political engine. A third place finish would not sit well with the former first family and you can bet that the attack ads would start flying.
I'll continue to watch, read, and follow the election season because I find it interesting, but let's not get too carried away with tonight's results to think that anything very definitive, aside from Chris Dodd (D-CT) dropping out this evening, will happen before Super Tuesday when many of the delegates for the respective conventions will be decided.