KEY POINTS:
Today, in school rooms, church halls and private homes across the Midwestern US state of Iowa, the first votes will be cast that actually count, kicking off the most unpredictable, the most expensive and arguably the most important presidential election season in modern US history.
When the process
at last comes to an end, spending by candidates will have far exceeded US$1 billion ($1.3 billion). The Democratic and Republican fields are uncommonly strong, but in neither is there a clear favourite. And never have the stakes been higher - not only for the US but for countries all over the planet.
Every election in the world's lone superpower matters, but only a few of them qualify for the label of "transformational", those that set the country on a new course. One was 1932, ushering in Franklin Roosevelt, the New Deal and more than three decades of Democratic pre-eminence. Another was 1980, which brought to power Ronald Reagan and the conservatism that has dominated US politics ever since. This year has the potential to be the same.
Iowa is just the start of it. Next Wednesday, New Hampshire holds the first primary of the season, this year more closely watched than ever. On February 5 up to 22 states hold primaries and caucuses. Conceivably, the outcome will be settled then. If not, however, the primary season continues until early June. Then come the nominating conventions, followed by a two-month general election campaign proper that culminates on November 4, when Americans will finally choose their 44th president.
The process, under way in effect since the mid-term elections of 2006, is desperately cumbersome. But this time the wait will be worth it. If ever a country needed time to assess its problems and deliver a considered verdict on how to tackle them it is the troubled, uneasy America of today.
Election 2008 is a turning point. Not just because, for the first time since 1928, no incumbent President or Vice-President has sought his party's nomination. Nor simply because the country yearns for a new beginning after the failures of George Bush nor that, for the first time, both a woman and a black person have a real chance of winning the prize. Above all, the sense is palpable that conservatism, Reagan and Bush-style, has run out of answers.
On every side, problems loom. The war in Iraq may be going slightly better but elsewhere in the Middle East, tensions only seem to grow. At home, the mortgage crisis and ensuing credit crunch, soaring energy costs and a tumbling dollar make recession this year at least an even money bet.
Bush may be the most unpopular President in a generation but the approval rating of the Democratic-run Congress is even lower. Then there are the wider concerns, globalisation, global warming. Almost 70 per cent of the population believes the country is "on the wrong track" - more than at any moment in almost two decades.
And it is not just the locals who have had enough. What the US does affects many countries more than anything their own politicians get up to. Foreign nationals may have no votes in Iowa but, like Americans, they are demanding change. Be it Iran or global warming, the world wants co-operation, not confrontation, from the US.
If the pendulum of US politics is swinging in 2008, it is equally clear it is moving towards the Democrats.
For all three of the party's top tier candidates - Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards - change is the watchword. Their approaches, of course, differ.
Senator Clinton advertises her "experience" as the best means of achieving change.
Former Senator Edwards exudes anger at the ever widening gap between rich and poor.
Senator Obama promotes his youth and freshness, and his ability to transcend partisanship.
With one exception, the issues uppermost in voters' minds are Democratic issues. Soaring healthcare costs, anxieties about the economy and jobs have supplanted discontent with Iraq. On all of them, Americans trust Democrats more than Republicans.
Conservatism, above all as practised by Bush, seems to have lost touch with the country's rhythms. That is one reason the little-known former governor Mike Huckabee - who could be described perhaps as a "liberal" social conservative - has been the surprise of the Republican race so far.
The exception, of course, is the issue of terrorism and national security. A violent new crisis in the Middle East, or another major terrorist attack on US soil, could yet propel Senator John McCain, battle-tested in every sense, or former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, or the former governor and successful businessman Mitt Romney to the presidency. If so, Americans would again have bought the familiar Republican sales pitch that "we can keep the country safe."
Conceivably even greater novelties are in store. The last time the American electorate was in so foul a collective mood was in 1992. That year, an eccentric Texan billionaire named Ross Perot won 19 per cent of the vote. This year's possible independent candidate is the eminently more reasonable figure of Michael Bloomberg, Giuliani's successor and, as of last year, no longer a member of either party. Bloomberg denies such talk, but who knows?
- INDEPENDENT
