In a few hours, we'll all be subjected to a barrage of dueling interpretations of what the Iowa caucus results mean. And as we are, we should remember to take every interpretation with a gargantuan grain of salt.
Case in point: today's
above-the-fold, front-page Globe story, which casts Iowa's GOP caucuses as a test of money's significance in the campaign. I guess I understand why the Globe took this tack; after all, Mitt Romney has money and Mike Huckabee doesn't.
Still, it's an overly simplistic reading. It's not just the efficacy of money that's being tested; it's the efficacy of
Romney's money. Put differently, we're about to get a sense (a non-representative, small-midwestern state sense) of whether Romney's fundraising prowess can trump his assorted negatives (
fibbing,
flip-flopping,
being Mormon).
By the same token, Huckabee's outcome--whatever it is--will have a resonance that goes beyond cash. It'll offer a sense (similarly circumscribed) of whether Huckabee's
denial of evolution gives Iowans any pause; or whether people think he tried to have it both ways with that
Romney-attack-ad-that-wasn't; or whether his critique of Romney as a
freakishly calculating politician resonates with the broader electorate.
In sum: clarity is nice, but let's not overdo it.