I know it’s not polite to gloat, but….

I’ve taken so much abuse for my favorable reaction to Mike Huckabee from callers to my radio show, e-mailers, audiences at lectures, comments on my blog, letter-writers and countless others, that it’s tough not to feel some sense of vindication on the outcome of the Iowa Caucuses. Last night, some 18 hours before a single vote was counted (or even cast), I anticipated the results of the GOP contest and concluded with the following fearless prediction on yesterday’s blog….

My best guess: the Huck wins the battle by more than one or two points… possibly even a lot more.

So, who was right about that one?

In fact, who was the first national commentator --a full five months ago-- to declare that Huckabee would emerge as a top tier candidate? Governor Huckabee himself as acknowledge that I was the first guy in the media to take his campaign seriously.

With 85% of the precincts counted, it now looks like the Huck wins with a startling margin of 9% -- maybe even more, when the counting is done. Not bad for a guy who was outspent by a ratio of about 20 to 1. As I noted some time ago, even Tom Tancredo spent more than Huckabee in Iowa – by a ratio of more than three-to-one. And neither Tancredo, nor the candidate he chose to honor with his support (Mitt Romney), will find much cause for celebration in these numbers.

Neither will Fred Thompson – who managed no better than a virtual tie with John McCain, who all but ignored Iowa (where Fred campaigned extensively) and had the guts to maintain his opposition to ethanol subsidies in the top ethanol-producing state in the country.

Now the battle moves on to New Hampshire, with the triumphant Huckabee flying east almost immediately. While McCain (already leading in the Granite State in the three latest polls) got a boost with the Iowa blow to his chief rival, Romney, he might actually get hurt by Huckabee’s newly energized campaign in “Live Free or Die” country. If Huckabee picks up support (above his current 10% level) where will it come from? It’s possible it could come from McCain (who had been surging as the chief alternative to the wounded Romney) or it could come from Romney himself (with conservatives seeking a more viable alternative than the Mitt-man to the Maverick McCain). It’s also possible that Huckabee draws independent and new voters to the polls in New Hampshire, as he did with the caucuses in Iowa.

The point to remember is that all those who dismissed Huckabee as a one-dimensional candidate who appeals exclusively to Evangelicals ought to look closely at the numbers and the enthusiasm he inspired in Iowa.

I believe he won in part due to the fact that he came across as the sunniest, most likeable, least angry candidate in the bunch. Obama’s victory also indicates that voters didn’t buy anger, rage, indignation – they preferred the most positive, uplifting, cheerful of the candidates. In the Snow White Caucuses (yeah, Iowa’s covered with snow) the voters turned away from dwarves like Grumpy (Tom Tancredo), Sleepy (Fred Thompson), Doc (Ron Paul), Dopey (Sam Brownback) and Krazee (Alan Keyes ….all right, I know “Krazee” wasn’t one of the original dwarves but the Keyes-ster deserves an entirely new category). Meanwhile, Huckabee may not exactly be Prince Charming, but he’s charming and funny and cheerful enough.

The irony here is that Mitt Romney (a genuinely nice guy, with a winning, affable, good-humored demeanor) could have easily competed with Huck in the niceness department, but his ill-considered consultants pushed him to turn mean – blanketing the state with negative TV ads (he’s doing the same to McCain in New Hampshire) and viciously irresponsible hit pieces in the mail. Didn’t President Reagan, the appropriate inspiration for all present day Republicans, prove once and for all that kindness and good humor work better than anger, edge and gloom?

The one poll that should have indicated a solid Huck-a-victory more than any other was the Gallup Poll released in late December – showing that Americans reported soaring levels of satisfaction with their personal lives, and sky-high personal happiness. (Republicans remain even happier than Democrats and Independents, by the way—with 90% saying they’re satisfied by with their lives, and 96% describing themselves as “happy”). In this context, it should have been obvious that indignation and negativity wouldn’t work as campaign tactics, even in a crowded field. Romney’s survival in this race depends on his rediscovery of his inner optimist; obviously, with his gorgeous and charismatic wife, admirable sons, huge personal fortune and stunning good health, no one in America has more reason for gratitude and a genial disposition than Mitt Romney. If he had concentrated on his own vision for building our Shining City on a Hill, instead of focusing on Huck’s “pardons and commutations” or McCain’s alleged support for “amnesty,” Mitt might have gotten a better return on the reported $18 million of his own money that he’s poured into the campaign so far (with total expenditures exceeding $80 million). I am certain that Mitt’s collapse from his once commanding lead began at the televised debate in which he and Rudy engaged in that cringe-inducing, angry exchange about “sanctuary city” vs. “sanctuary mansion.”

NOW THIS IS ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT: Key revelations from the Entrance Poll of some 1600 respondents reported by CNN re-enforce the idea that cheerfulness and optimism were crucial to Huckabee’s success.

The Huck-meister built his impressive victory margin almost entirely among younger voters –the group most likely to respond to a positive appeal, and least likely to respond by mean-spirited fights about who can be tougher or angrier regarding illegal immigrants.

Among voters (many of them first-timers, obviously) between the ages of 17 and 29, Huckabee crushed Romney by an almost two-to-one margin (40% to 22%). In this youthful group, the Mad Doctor (Ron Paul) virtually tied Romney with 21%). In the next youngest age group (30 to 44), Huckabee won by a similarly devastating margin (39% to 23%) Only among the oldest (and, presumably grouchiest) segment of the electorate did Romney even come close to matching Huckabee: of those above the age of 65 (a full 27% of caucus goers), the two candidates almost tied (30% for Huck, 28% for Mitt).

One other group that delivered big time for Huckabee involved voters with limited income. Those who reported household incomes below $50,000 backed the former Arkansas governor by 36% to 20%. Those who eanred more than $50 K split almost evenly: 32% to 28%. In other words, Huckabee won a statewide landslide because he held a 16 point advantage from voters who earned below the national average.

Finally, there’s the gender issue: a huge factor in Iowa. I’ve been talking for weeks about Huckabee’s special appeal to women – as a neighborly, unassuming, soft-spoken and reliable sort of guy. According to the entrance polls, Iowa gals agree that they Like Mike – and how! Male voters split almost down the middle 29% for Huck, 26% for Mitt. The ladies, in the other hand, very decisively preferred the rumpled, balding, former fatty from Hope, Arkansas, to the blow-dried, athletic, dazzlingly handsome multi-millionaire from Boston. The Huckabee margin among female voters: a breathtaking 40% to 24%. Watch out, Janet Huckabee: it looks like your husband of 33 years somehow discovered Love Potion Number Nine (I’m sure he could play that song on his bass guitar).

Now, take a moment to add up the impact of these numbers.

Huckabee earned his victory by piling up big margins among women, the poor, and the young.

And where, demographically, have Republicans faced horrible problems in the recent past (particulary 2006)? We’ve lost by giving our opponents huge margins among…. women, the poor, and the young.

The obvious conclusion is that party leaders need to give special respect and attention to a Republican with special appeal to three key groups that normally reject the GOP --- taking a second look at Huckabee for his ability to win women, the poor and the young.

In any event, the process is underway. The Huckabee victory (again, mirrored by Obama’s impressive success) shows that political establishments don’t always win, that message can beat money, that performance (in televised debates) can defeat packaging (in endlessly repeated attack ads).

Even those who despise Huckabee ought to admit that in the wake of Iowa’s boffo opening act, the whole process feels more open, less locked down and mechanical, than ever before.  

And remember: I told you so.