Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee showed that it is possible to defeat the establishment — at least in Iowa. Obama (and John Edwards) beat the presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton by bringing in large numbers of new and independent voters. And Huckabee rallied evangelicals to buck Wall Street’s GOP pick, Mitt Romney and his well-financed campaign. As both Obama and Huckabee said, voters want change.
Clinton’s network still will make her tough to beat in the national campaign, but she has to be concerned that Obama won the women’s vote in Iowa and every demographic except older voters.
Meanwhile, Republicans should be concerned that more than 220,000 people attended the Democratic caucuses, compared with estimates of about 112,000 for the Republican caucuses.
112 Comments
I think the key here is how many Democrats showed in comparison to the Republicans. We’re pumped, and we have 3 good candidates. I’m glad that Obama won the Iowa caucus though.
TDT – VERY TRUE!
My candidate came in #4 but I can easily support ANY of the four against ANY of the Republics on their list.
Iowa is not a fair representative of our nation. Women, minorities, and the strong liberal beliefs held by this small midwestern state, does not ring as strong as it does on the coasts and densly populated states.
The results will not be the same as the people are heard throughout the nation.
Unfortunately, some of the voices which didn’t do well in Iowa – will be finished based upon this small island of country folk.
Fortunately, some of the stronger voices will shine later.
But it is a great victory for little ole Iowa. More money was spent in Iowa than at any other time. Every four years, Iowa gets the windfall. Good for their hotels, eating establishments, media links, and convention centers.
But I don’t know if it is good for America.
bush really has been the very best ambassador the Democratic Party could hope for.
Ben, Richardson would be my choice too. I’ve always known I wouldn’t really get to vote for him and I can support any one of the others.
linda – I will probably caucus for him here in Kansas – just to get his voice heard.
Can you blame the Republicans for not wanting to show up? It’s like going out to vote on who was better in a wet t-shirt contest, Bert or Ernie. The choices don’t make the effort worthwhile.
Richardson, the guy that helped clean up after Monica:
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/01/23/richardson/index.html
And, Richarson claimed that Monica filled an existing position, rather than creating a new position for her. He probably lied on that matter:
http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/A3548_0_2_0_C/
By the way, I am not in the Huckabee camp, and I am not yet ready to jump on the “Fair Tax” bandwagon.
However, the “Fair Tzx” true believers had as much to do with Huckabee’s success as the Home Schoolers or the Christian Right.
If that’s the worst thing you can pin on Richardson then he is a great candidate. Compare that to Bush who all his life was given jobs by other people based upon his relation to his pappy.
So true Doug.
‘apparent’ ‘probably’
Exactly what I expect from the haters.
given jobs by other people based upon his relation to his pappy.
Posted by: Doug
Sorta like Hillary (#3).
I’m not familiar with all of Bush’s family members so I don’t know if a Hillary Bush got jobs because of George Bush Sr.
This should be a bad omen for the Republic Party:
Total Iowa Voter Turnout (approximate)
356,000
Percentage of total vote
24.5% Obama
20.5% Edwards
19.8% Clinton
11.4% Huckabee (R)
It the turnout percentages hold up for the next state primary, Repubs. may as well write their obit.
Meanwhile, Republicans should be concerned that more than 220,000 people attended the Democratic caucuses, compared with estimates of about 112,000 for the Republican caucuses.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
In Dec 2006 in Iowa there were:
590,212 registered Republicans
609,322 registered Democrats
738,107 registered Independents
NOTE: The largest voting block is INDEPENDENT.
The fact that twice as many “Democrats” voted compared to Republicans doesn’t point to any one conclusion.
Since you can register at the caucus and change your party affiliation, many Independents go to one party or the other and vote for or against someone.
I suspect many became “Democrats” just to vote against Madame Hillary.
http://www.sos.state.ia.us/pdfs/VRStatsArchive/2006/VRCoDec06.pdf
The little state of Iowa does not cause republicans to tremble because so few showed up at the caucus.
Who cares what Iowans think? It’s like Kansas – who care’s what our little state thinks?
Let’s say the caucus was in Topeka with the same percentages showing up.
In the previous presidential election only two Kansas counties went to Kerry.
Douglas County:
Kerry 57%
Bush 41%
Wyandotte County:
Kerry 65%
Bush 34%
Just fyi Sedgwick
Bush 62%
Kerry 36%
Statewide, republicans outnumber democrats 2to1 (one of the biggest red state totals).
So what if in Iowa, in their EARLY caucus few republicans came out to vote.
The republican candidate will win Kansas regardless.
In the states with the electoral votes, the big states, it will be more obvious by election time the importance (based upon the democrat candidate) of voting.
Are there any statistics which reflect the early caucus numbers of voters relating to the final November election?
Interesting night. I think Philip’s “nonestablishment” tagline is about right.
I do, however, think that The Huckster isn’t going to go over well in New Hampshire–the Fundos aren’t as strong there as they are in Iowa. And, of course, it remains to be seen how the GOP Establishment will try to down him in the bathtub come South Carolina. Econ101 can grumble and try to claim some credit for The Huckster’s showing in Iowa, but the GOP Money Boys can no more support him than they can support the Freedom Socialist Party.
Others, notably Josh Marshall, have remarked on it, but it’s worth noting how pathetic the Media’s fluffing has been of John McCain. I mean, dude comes in FOURTH, behind Dead Head Fred, and he’s considered a contender? Please. Will the Media EVER stop reporting the story it WANTS to report, and ever START reporting the story that’s really happening? Nonetheless, if they want to push McCain, fine with me: the GOP base hates him with an undying hatred, and if the Media wants to insert itself between the mouth-breathing Fundo base and GOP Power Elite Money Boys, fine by CF2K.
The other thing to point out is that if it’s true that Obama made deals with Dodd and Biden to be their delegates’ second choices, that actually puts the race between Edwards and Obama considerably closer than the final point spread. But given Obama’s success in drawing previously nonparticipating voters into the caucus, it looks like there may really be some sort of phenomenon taking place.
However, I think MonkeyHawk gets closest: Iowa bodes HORRIBLY for the GOP. American Way and Max can try to spin this any way they like, but those independents broke Democratic in an enormous way; and in response, all Max and AmWay can do is project their Hillary Derangement Syndrome on the what could well be a generational sea change away from a detested and distrusted GOP.
Can you blame the Republicans for not wanting to show up? It’s like going out to vote on who was better in a wet t-shirt contest, Bert or Ernie. The choices don’t make the effort worthwhile.
Posted by: Doug | January 04, 2008 at 10:44 AM
Have you not seen Jeri Thompson?
http://blogs4brownback.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/fredthompson_jmccarth_8441278.jpg
http://www.depauw.edu/photos/PhotoDB_Repository/2007/9/Jeri%20&%20Fred%20Thompson.jpg
http://www.polichicksonline.com/fred%20and%20jeri.jpg
http://www.coxwashington.com/hp/content/reporters/stories/2007/10/21/THOMPSON_PROFILE_JERI4.html
Thinks about it, the whole “independents voted Democratic to vote against Hillary” line sounds AWFULLY familiar: as in “of course there were no WMD in Iraq: Saddam had them all sent to Syria.”
Confronted with reality, Wingnuts respond with the fantasical. It’s all they’ve got.
He did say that his trophy wife was his greatest accomplishment. How difficult is it for a rich guy to find a gold digger?
Max’s default: when challenged, go straight for the Wingnut Porn.
I imagine he’ll have lots of occasion to be accessing it during these next 11 months.
If you call that porn CF, then you should be voting for Huckabee.
The Huckabee’s love themselves some porn.
http://wonkette.com/politics/notag/huckabees-other-son-loves-him-some-porno-334963.php
“In Dec 2006 in Iowa there were:
590,212 registered Republicans
609,322 registered Democrats
738,107 registered Independents
“NOTE: The largest voting block is INDEPENDENT.
“The fact that twice as many “Democrats” voted compared to Republicans doesn’t point to any one conclusion.”
Actually, it does point to some conclusions being more likely than others. The most disturbing thing for Republicans, at least in Iowa, is that independents are more interested in Democratic politics than Republican politics. It also indicates a likely interest by foul weather voters in a change.
Max, you like to point to the approvial numbers for a Democratic congress being lower than the Bush presidency. Don’t take solace from those numbers, however, because the reality is like this:
The newest congress was elected largely because of dissatisfaction with Bush. However, the Democratic congress has not gotten the job done. This means likely dissatisfaction by the people who also disapprove of Bush Lite. However, since it is now a Democratic congress (at least in the House, the Senate is actually just nominally Democratic), the people who lean republican, much less those who approve of Bush Lite, ALSO will disapprove of the congress. Just because the congress is Democratic and has lower approval ratings than Bush does not mean that the public is rejecting the Democrats, but because the aggregate of people who do not approve of congress includes both Bush supporters and detractors. It also indicates that the same public sentiment that created the backlash vote of 2006 is if anything intensifying.
It also indicates that the same public sentiment that created the backlash vote of 2006 is if anything intensifying.
Posted by: ksagnostic
Ksagnostic, I thought I agreed with your post, then I thought I didn’t. ;-)
I was an angry part of the backlash in 2006. I’m still angry at Congress and the Prez. The Prez is gone. History. Caput.
I still have some building anger at the behavior of the current congress. I will be voting to throw all those rascals out, just like I did last time.
Regardless of the party.
I thought that is what you were saying, but you told Max not to take solace in that.
To me, it’s not the party where congress is concerned.
If more people were like me (party A) but voted party B because of performance dissatisfaction – who is to say which party nationwide will come out on top?
Oh.
ksagnostic,
“It also indicates that the same public sentiment that created the backlash vote of 2006 is if anything intensifying.”
BINGO. It’s too early to tell, but the electorate’s dissatisfaction (to put it mildly) with Bush could well have brought us to the threshold of a generational re-alignment in favor of the Democratic Party.
To mix some metaphors, the GOP’s racist, classist, big-money-loving/little-guy-hating chickens have come home to roost, and the backlash could well be immense. But the Repukes won’t go down without a fight, and I expect they’ll conduct the nastiest, most racist and xenophobic campaign imaginable, and that they’ll pull out all the election fraud stops possible to try to stop the inevitable.
But you know what? America HATES the Republican Party. They’re sick to death of the lies, corruption, and mismanagement. The GOP is going to lose this year, BIG TIME, although of course they will continue to filibuster the Senate and to blame everyone else for their misdeeds. But frankly, I think there are larger social forces at work here that are beyond the GOP’s control–and the desire for change is foremost among.
For the next election, at least, change = the Democratic Party. There’s a widely-shared sense that things, as they have been, simply cannot go on. And that sense favors Democrats.
By the time you finish posting your wet-dream CF, the next half-dozen state primaries’ votes will have been counted.
Then we’ll know for sure what the voters think.
But you know what? America HATES the Republican Party. They’re sick to death of the lies, corruption, and mismanagement.
No, we hate both parties and both parties are guilty of your comments.
We are gaining strength and we will continue to do so. It will take a few more elections, but it will happen. Americans are tired of the partisan bickering.
Max,
But even then, Max, we still won’t *really* know, will we? At least, not if “what the voters think” doesn’t conform to your Wingnut nocturnal emission.
If it sounds like I’m challenging your intellectual honesty, Max, it’s only because I am. Your Wingnut denial forbids you from ever acknowledging what everybody else can see plain as day, and your lack of argumentative integrity forbids you from ever admitting you were wrong if there’s still some line that you can spin.
But beyond that, Max, I base my argument on America’s changing demographics–and that fact that the GOP’s racist strategy has forced it to alienate the one constituency–Hispanics and Latinos–that it would have needed in order to avoid becoming a Southern, regional, Fundamentalist party.
Karl Rove understood that; Hispanic/Latino outreach was a central project of his. But because the only way you racist losers can think to win is by hatin’ on brown folks, you’ve had to consolidate your white racist base by driving away the one voting bloc who might have kept you viable.
So, Max, while you’re right that more primaries will be needed to get a full read on what’s really going on–and Hillary could well win in New Hampshire, but Obama still secure the nomination–the trends I’m sketching out didn’t come out of nowhere. It’s going to suck to be a Republican–even more than it already does.
Partisan bickering has been going on since Jefferson and Madison. I don’t think 200 years will make any difference.
The year of the independents,
“Americans are tired of the partisan bickering.”
Oh, really? And was there ever a time in American history when there wasn’t “partisan bickering?” Name one.
I think what Americans are tired of is that nothing gets done: and the current gridlock is exclusively the REPUBLICANS’ fault. EXCLUSIVELY.
Partisan bickering has been going on since Jefferson and Madison. I don’t think 200 years will make any difference.
Posted by: Doug
Not as bad as the last 30 or so years and both parties are contributing to it.
Some of you yearn for the demise of the Republicans, another party will spring up to take its place and the Democrats can choose to return to their roots or keep taking the big bucks from big business. Check out the numbers of large corps supporting the Democrats. Before the Democrats lost to the Republicans, they were receiving more money in Congressional races. After the win, the Republicans started getting more, now the Democrats are getting more. The corps pay the bigger party the more money. They still pay the other party but not as much.
TYOTI,
I don’t yearn for the demise of the Republicans. I yearn for an effective counter-strategy to the unconstitutional abuses of power and willingness to erode the Constitution.
As for “both parties are contributing to it,” there simply is no comparison between the GOP’s willingness to shut down the Federal government, demonstrated in the late-1990’s and again this year in the GOP’s record number of Senate filibusters, and the policies or practices of the Democratic Party. And in fact, the Democrats continue to appease Republicans and to give up on their own agenda. Unless you can provide counter-examples to the present and historical situations I’ve listed, your insistence that “both sides do it” is either naive or intellectual dishonest.
I agree that corporate money is the ultimate problem. But the fact that both sides take the money doesn’t mean that both sides are equally culpable in partisan gridlock. “Partisanship” per se isn’t the problem: monkeywrenching the system is. And at this, Republicans are without peer.
I think what Americans are tired of is that nothing gets done: and the current gridlock is exclusively the REPUBLICANS’ fault. EXCLUSIVELY.
Posted by: CF2K |
Post your proof. It is both parties fault and if you took off your blinders you would see it. You wont because you love blaming Republicans as much as some of them loving blaming your pets.
We enjoy your blinders because you wont see whats coming until it is too late.
A very special New Years wish for Republicans and Democrats: may your worst political nightmares come true and may your best political dreams be shattered. Or put another way, may the truths be revealed in such mighty ways you cant deny them.
My prediction, Obama wins the nomination and the election. Obama wins again in 2012.
Agreed, Doug & CF2K–
I’m looking forward to MORE partisan bickering actually. IMHO that’s why Kerry lost–the opposition smacked him around with the worst kind of despicable lies and Kerry remained stoically above the fray.
Kerry lost, remember?
The way to win is for the Democratic party to do unto others as they have been done unto, not cave in the name of compromise.
The only compromise I want to see is whether Bush does his jail time in his cell or through work release . . .
“No, we hate both parties and both parties are guilty of your comments.
We are gaining strength and we will continue to do so. It will take a few more elections, but it will happen. Americans are tired of the partisan bickering.
Posted by: The year of the independents”
I agree. I am Independent and I am looking forward to hacking both of the old parties to death.
CF2K
“Econ101 can grumble and try to claim some credit for The Huckster’s showing in Iowa, but the GOP Money Boys can no more support him than they can support the Freedom Socialist Party.”????
HUH?
The Establishment “money boys” in the Republican and the Democrat Party do NOT support the “Fair Tax”.
I will admit some “establishment” bias against the Fair Tax idea.
I simply admire, at the same time, the hard work of the Fair Tax supporters.
CF, the “Fair Tax” is anti-establishment to the core.
Grafitti troll posts “A very special New Years wish for Republicans and Democrats: may your worst political nightmares come true . . . ”
My worst political nightmare would be an unelected CONservative president who because of his own incompetence allows a horrible terrorist attack on American soil and then uses it as a pretext to embroil us into another Vietnam-like quagmire.
Oops . . . too late.
Cap’N,
Agreed. “Partisanship” = “having principles that won’t be bargained away.”
TYOTI,
My proof is posted above: the Republican government shutdown of 1995, and the Republican minority in the 110th Congress, which has almost tripled the previous record for filibusters:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/18218.html
If you have hard evidence for your claim, TYOTI, produce it: otherwise, quit bleating.
Wiseman–
Good luck pushing the button for the I candidate.
You’ve got a choice of either R or D. If you don’t like it, you can reform one of those parties or you can start your own.
However, no President has ever won office with an I after his name . . .
You are the one bleating.
Capn your worst nightmare is Bush declaring himself dictator, so for you I will lower it to your next worst nightmare, a Rep Pres and Congress.
The attack you refer to was 8 years in the making and was unavoidable unless you are one of the idiots who thinks our govt faked it?
“Partisanship” = “having principles that won’t be bargained away.”
If this is what you consider partisanship the Democrats fail it as much as the Republicans. They take as much money from big business as the Republicans.
To Graffiti Troll capn, you are the biggest GT around. Being your usual bullying self. I have made some of my own requests to the powers that be.
If the Democrats had the backbone they would force the Republicans to filibuster but they dont, making them as guilty. By forcing the issue, the Republicans would have to go on record for filibustering or they would have to hold the vote, again going on the record.
I hoped the Republicans would have used the nuke option on the filibuster because there is NO Constitutional basis for this procedure and it should NOT be allowed by anyone. Failing the Republicans doing it, the Democrats should have nuked it for the same reason.
Your link doesnt disprove my point nor does it prove your point.
Econ101,
If “Fair Tax” is “anti-establishment to the core,” then I guess that’s why Alan Greenspan AND John McCain support it?
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?id=11606
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/05/politics/main3333938.shtml
However, I WILL concede that other “establishment” economists–the sane ones, anyway–deride the idea for any number of reasons, not the least of which is that it would, overnight, create a massive black market.
As for the basic point, I’ll also concede that the “Fair Tax” folks had a hand in Huckabee’s Iowa victory. But unless they can exhibit the same sort of ground organization as the Fundos, they aren’t entitled to the lion’s share of credit.
However, no President has ever won office with an I after his name . . .
Posted by: CapnAmerica
Before 1860, no R had won the WH and if the Democrats hadnt split themselves so badly that year, no R would have.
Also, just because noone with an I hasnt won, dont mean it wont happen. Before Reagan, it was believed a divorced person would win the WH. Before JFK, it was believed a Catholic would never be President. It was not believed a black person would win the WH and I can think of at least three other blacks that could win in addition to Obama. It was not believed a woman could win, and I can think of several women in addition to Hillary that can win.
Perhaps the victory of the classic “non-viable” candidates will show media outlets like the Wichtia Eagle that they need to cover all serious politicians.
TYOTI,
In your universe, the Democrats’ failing to act in a “partisan” fashion (by not forcing the filibuster) demonstrates that they were acting in partisan fashion. So, if they obstruct, they’re partisan: if they don’t obstruct, they’re still partisan.
Forgive me, TYOTI, if I treat everything you have to say from here on out as a word salad. Your own incoherence is beyond your ability to grasp.
And your desire to blame the Democratic victim shows what we all know: scratch a self-proclaimed “indepedent” and one nearly always will find a REPUBLICAN.
Sorry meant to say divorced person would not.
“However, no President has ever won office with an I after his name . . . ”
Actually, in a way that HAS happened. Abraham Lincoln won in 1860 running on a fairly new ‘third party’. The key, however, is that a party structure must be set up and Electors chosen to run in each state.
Election College = Independent
CF2K you dont grasp your own words so I will ignore you.
Ah, the victim card, a typical Democrat card.
Also, the typical everyone else is a Republican if they dont agree with the Democrats.
At least the independents know how to think for themselves and not drink some red or blue flavored Kool-Aid.
I cant wait to hear the Democrat defense when they do win both Houses with a clearer majority and the WH. Who will you blame then?
Per the word partisan, you cite no reference to your defintion. 1 below sums it up nicely.
“par·ti·san” (Dictionary.com reference)
1. an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause, esp. a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance.
2. Military. a member of a party of light or irregular troops engaged in harassing an enemy, esp. a member of a guerrilla band engaged in fighting or sabotage against an occupying army.
–adjective 3. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of partisans; partial to a specific party, person, etc.: partisan politics.
4. of, pertaining to, or carried on by military partisans or guerrillas.
Remember, Iowa picks losers and N.H. picks winners. A shoe in for office was G.H.W.B, why not “our God” reagan’s right hand man should have never been challenged in 1988. Pat robertson won Iowa because TA DA He played the God card, it works in Kansas and Iowa, but rarely anywhere else. Kuckabee is already in the single digits in S.C and N.H.; I think he just held off the inevitable Romney or Guiliani. This years’s Iowa caucus should be a poster child for rotating primaries. BTW, did anyone ever wonder WHY they are so early this cycle?? is it because Bush is sooo hated that if primaries are held early that the end of his presidency might seem to come quicker?
“Word salad” hehehe . . . well put
Here’s more:
“The attack you refer to was 8 years in the making and was unavoidable . . . ”
What the hell. It was unavoidable that BushCo loved everybody from Saudi and had no interest in pursuing the Al Qaeda connections. That was a ‘Clinton thing,’ according to Bush insiders.
Clinton put out the word to scrutinize everybody with Jihadist terrorism ties. That’s what foiled the New Year’s Eve plot in 1999. (See Rashid Assam)
Bush’s dad worked for the Bin Laden family (see Carlyle Group) at the time 9-11 happened.
Bush said to back off the Saudis, and law enforcement did.
TYOTI,
I refuted your claim: you ran away. And now you can only call me a nasty “partisan” by throwing some lame internet definition at me.
FYI, TYOTI, “bipartisan” is the ULTIMATE Kool-Aid word in American political culture: if it’s “bipartisan,” it’s good–by definition! And it certainly seems to be leading YOU around by YOUR nose.
Mindless bipartisans are at least as bad as mindless partisans, and maybe worse, since they deny the existence of substantive disagreements.
TYOTI, I may be partisan, but I’m definitely not mindless. Can’t say the same for you and your facile equivocation between Democrats and Republicans.
If Clinton had taken care of OBL, 911 wouldnt have happened, but he didnt.
I didnt see Clinton addressing the Saudi issue. As long as we rely on Saudi oil so much no party is going to mess with the Saudis. Even if we stopped getting oil, they still arent going to mess with the Saudis. Why? The two most holy Moslem cities are in Saudi Arabia and messing with them would cause an Islamic Jihad that would make the earlier ones look like child’s play. Islam comprises about 1/6 of the worlds population.
Can the President (regardless of political stripe) do more to encourage Saudi behavior? Definitely, but they wont. Should we wean ourselves off foreign oil? Yes. Do we do it by using our reserves? Debateable, some say yes, some say no. Alternatives will help, but many alternatives rely on earth unfriendly sources (coal, etc.) or will take a long time to become viable.
TYOTI,
And just like that, you reveal yourself to be the Republican you are by attacking Clinton.
I called it: scratch any self-proclaimed ‘independent’ and it’s odd-on that you’ll find a self-hating “Republican.”
Hmmm, my college dictionary has similar definitions to Dictionary.com, but makes a stronger case.
General comment, nonRepublicans attack Clinton and I did not see any attack on Clinton.
People find I also make comments against Bush, Reagan, Lincoln, and any number of Republican officials, the same as I do for Democratic officials. I also say positives for both members of both groups when they do positive things. I have yet to see anyone refute the big corp donations for Democrats or how these donations are different when Democrats receive them instead of Republicans.
I tend to vote third party most of the time including presidential races (my candidate was not in the top three last election), and the only time I vote Democrat or Republican is if the race is close and I am trying to vote out the incumbent.
If Democrats who claim to think for themselves did, they would join the independent movement, or start a third party, as several Democrats have considered here.
Admittedly, I have not read this entire thread. What do the Liberals think about Hillary’s third place finish? Will her campaign get dirt(y)(ier)?
But you know what? America HATES the Republican Party. Posted by: CF2K
More rantings by the hatemonger him/herself.
Nice sound bite and very sincere. But sincerity is no guarantee for the truth.
Since there is no truth in his statement, CF2K can only be viewed as a fanatical and prejudiced segregationist.
Sol,
At present, Hillary leads Obama in New Hampshire by six percentage points.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2235541,00.html
She may not have to extend herself much in order to maintain that lead. But she will have to defeat him soundly in NH if she wants to undo the damage done in Iowa. And if the numbers start to close up over the weekend, things could get a bit ugly in the stuff going on below the radar.
Still, as for Hillary herself, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I’m fine with any of the three Democratic front-runners, although I’d prefer Edwards to the others.
I don’t mind having a race for the nomination; I think it actually helps the party. Of course, I feel this way at least partly because the position of Democrats is so strong going into this year’s election. If I was a Republican, I’d be pretty anxious about the lack of a clear-front running, and fretting that the internicine pressures would begin to crack my coalition.
Sol – very good question. My guess is that she will not – I think she knows it would likely back-fire. Instead I’m looking for her to stress more a combination of experience and the ‘good old days’ of the 90s.
On the other side, though, I DO expect to see the mud and the blood flow.
Edwards made a good point last night – that the differences among the Democratic candidates is mostly style rather than anything major.
“If Clinton had taken care of OBL, 911 wouldnt have happened, but he didnt.”
That’s a common article of faith among the “Bush always right, Clinton always wrong” school of useful reich-wing idiots.
However, it’s pure speculation.
OBL was the money-man of the organization. Later, as his facile “piety” became apparent, he emerged as the so-called spiritual leader.
Operations like 9-11 were probably masterminded by underlings like Ayman El Zawaheri and Khalid Sheik Muhammad.
When Ramzi Yusif bombed the WTC in 1993, OBL was not even in a leadership position for instance.
I am in favor of attacking Al Qaeda at any place and any time. That’s why I supported Clinton’s missile strike on Afghan bases, which was widely derided by the right-wing at the time (and still is).
But clearly the best way to prevent 9-11 is to arrest and interrogate Saudis with Al Qaeda ties.
This is what BushCo was not interested in doing. He was one of the right-wing who derided Clinton’s obsession with Saudi terrorism after all . . .
I wish to be as well informed as possible.
Does anybody else but me see Obama as kinda too nice? Maybe even a little wishy washy up against the right? It could just be me. But we don’t need that.
Admittedly, I have not read this entire thread. What do the Liberals think about Hillary’s third place finish? Will her campaign get dirt(y)(ier)?
Posted by: SolDevVB
I hope it doesnt. Dirty politics backfires about as often as it works.
I care more about what your view as the candidate is than I do about how muddy you make your opponent. I will check your views with your voting record and I will do the same with your opponent.
Senator Clinton or Edwards will probably take NH, but the experts predict Obama will take SC. I was surprised at how 2nd and 3rd turned out in the Democratic race, but I was fairly confident Obabma would win IA. Americans want a president that they can relate to, and Obama has done a great job of showing he can.
Of the three, I would support Obama. Hillary seriously scares me. I foresee massive tax increases and massive increases in social spending. I hope she would be diligent enough to reduce the monolithic government that GW has built.
Edwards? Is it because he is too pretty? Nah, I think he is a little too soft for what is going on today.
Obama does seem swayed by polls, but much less than Hillary. It seems as though Hillary hasn’t answered a direct question directly for at least 6 weeks. Obama dances a little, but at least you still get a grasp of his position, if not a steadfast position.
My two cents.
I am in favor of attacking Al Qaeda at any place and any time.
(Exactly what we are doing today in Iraq. So you support the war?)
That’s why I supported Clinton’s missile strike on Afghan bases,
(derided because they hit a few unoccupied outhouses in the mountains. Took the heat off Clinton at home. But Clinton never took the terrorist seriously. He could have acted strongly. Instead he whimped out.)
Dirty campaigns will only lessen voter turnout IMO. No one likes the mudslinging.
The mud is already flying on the Right. Over God of all things. Or a person’s faith. Now I don’t want a crucifix hanging in the oval office, but I would MUCH rather hear about physical and foreign policy vs. religion.
Even abortion when you get right down to it. Pro-life/pro-choice, I can almost guarantee that it won’t change no matter the candidate’s conviction.
“I am in favor of attacking Al Qaeda at any place and any time.
“(Exactly what we are doing today in Iraq. So you support the war?)”
AmWay–
Do you get any news that isn’t from FAUX?
Even five years occupying Iraq, and there still isn’t a shred of evidence linking Saddam to Al Qaeda. In fact, the only Al Qaeda presence BEFORE we invaded was the dude shielded by our “allies” the Kurds in Northern Iraq that Saddam did not control.
By toppling Saddam, we creating a breeding ground for Jihadists like Al Qaeda.
Mission accomplished . . . if you’re Worst. President. Ever.
Union thug activism took a blow.
Hillary has the Union endorsements locked up.
Hillary lost badly.
Huckabee crossed a picket line.
Hucabee won!
Actually, I like Obama, personally. I think he has class. I think he is funny. I think he is far more ethical than the Clintons.
I know I will fight Obama, on policy.
However, thus far, I respect the guy.
I fear Obama, primarily, because I will not have the easy target of the unethical Clinton team to shoot at.
And btw, if you really want to topple Al Qaeda, exterminate the Saudi government . . .
Interesting insight on Kansas Days and the republican presidential primary.
http://thekansasrepublican.blogspot.com/
Clearly Obama is not going to be some one I can vote for.
If he is nominated I will probably vote Green. I’ve had enough of Republican lite.
“Even five years occupying Iraq, and there still isn’t a shred of evidence linking Saddam to Al Qaeda. In fact, the only Al Qaeda presence BEFORE”
(Let me quote you: “I am in favor of attacking Al Qaeda at any place and any time.”)
(I was not referring to past history. It is behind us, as Bush will be thank goodness.)
Al Qaeda is in Iraq today. So you must support the war there today – or your original statement was not factual.
Paul – Hillary got more votes than Huckabee:
Percentage of total vote
24.5% Obama
20.5% Edwards
19.8% Clinton
11.4% Huckabee (R)
Yea – Huckabee won on the GOP side – against Republics considered even WORSE!
capn, did Clinton arrest and interrogate Saudis?
I didnt have a problem with Clinton bombing the base even though it missed the target. Thats life, very few military missions go as planned and collateral damage is a part of combat. I strongly support his global initiative, http://www.clintonglobalinitiative.org/NETCOMMUNITY/Page.aspx?pid=1399&srcid=-2 . These types of programs are much more helpful than most government programs trying to do the same thing. I didnt have a problem with most of his presidency.
Initially, OBL’s money was more important than his leadership, nothing like several hundred million to fund something. My solution for AQ is simple and effective. I seriously doubt any president would try it since there is a slight risk of misinterpretation by certain groups.
On the pure speculation, so is much of what you have mentioned. If nothing else, removing OBL would have dealt with his large stash of cash.
I dont think President Bush has gone far enough in dealing with terrorist groups, including a number of our allies (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan for examples), but as a realist, I understand he is hamstrung. The next Democratic president will be similarly hamstrung because they wont be willing to force the Saudis hands.
I would love to see us out of Iraq, but I dont see Hillary, Obama, Edwards, or their Republican opponents doing it quickly. At the least, we do need to set timetables and benchmarks for the Iraqi government, and then follow through if they miss them.
Sol,
Your perception of Edwards is interesting, particularly because he’s the Democratic front-runner who’s taken the hardest, most uncompromising line about the need to limit corporate money and influence. I see Obama as having purchased his inclusive tone at the possible price of appeasing forces on the Right who ought not to be appeased.
AmWay,
Clinton “wimped out?” Like the way Bush let OBL escape, time and again?
Oh–and Al Qaeda wasn’t a presence in Iraq until we made them one. And getting them OUT of Iraq will be a matter of getting OURSELVES out of Iraq. When we go, their rationale for being there–fighting the Great Satan–disappears as well.
Econ101,
While I do appreciate your candor, to compare Hillary’s finish with The Huckster’s by connecting these to their respective positions on organized labor is meaningless: the same people didn’t caucus for both candidates.
Oh the right IS very nervous about those numbers Ben.
VERY Nervous.
Fatmouth Rush was lamenting the death of conservatism! I thought he was gonna cry.
insight into kansas days and the repub nomination http://thekansasrepublican.blogspot.com/
And btw, if you really want to topple Al Qaeda, exterminate the Saudi government . . .
Posted by: CapnAmerica
CapnAmerica, I agree with your sentiment, but are you willing to turn a large part of the billion plus Moslem population against us? It would a bloodbath that would make WWII look like a cakewalk. Mecca and Medina are there and are two of the holiest Moslem sites in the world. Do you seriously think a fair part of the Islamic world wont be a trifle ticked if we took out the Saudi govt? I know a lot of Saudis would approve, but they dont speak for most of the Islamic world.
Since they also control a large part of our oil imports, it could be difficult to fight.
How do we know the new Saudi govt would be better than the current one? America’s track record in regime change over the last 100+ years doesnt promise much hope.
Clinton’s retooling:
http://www.kansas.com/wireupdates/story/271306.html
Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton tried to recalibrate her campaign in New Hampshire Friday by promising to answer as many voter questions as possible.
With a new urgency to her voice, the former first lady dispensed with much of her lengthy campaign stump speech and took her case directly to New Hampshire voters, whose state primary is Tuesday’
I don’t know how she will do in NH but it looks like she has decided she must do a more ‘informal’ campaign.
When we go, their rationale for being there–fighting the Great Satan–disappears as well. CF2K
I don’t agree. The extremist muslim movement is to occupy Islam countries and create their harsh Islamic states.
More women stoned to death in former soccer parks.
(and before you go there, I’m no fan of the war or Bush)
Except that Bush will go down in history as the Best President Ever!
J R – I bet it was fun listening to Rush. Who is he backing anyway? I would guess Giuliana based on “family values” (sic)
“Except that Bush will go down in history as the Best President Ever!”
ROFLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The more I hear from the right, the more I am convinced I am for Senator Clinton. Her or Edwards.
And the candidate the Republicans don’t like SHOULD be the Dem nominee.
Americans are ready to punish Republicans.
Rush won’t call a favorite.
He was clearly NOT happy about Huckabee. He lamented that Republicans were confusing conservatism with populism.
Brilliant guys. The number of folks from each party that showed up to caucus in Iowa is related to the national vote numbers in a general election 11 months later, HOW?
Boy, I bet if you guys got a pile of manure on Christmas day you were happy because you just knew there was a pony around somewhere!
Outlander,
Most of the rest of the presidential campaign will be “wholesale politics” instead of “retail politics.” Getting through Iowa and New Hampshire shows a few things:
1. Viability in fund-raising
2. Organizational strength at the “grass-tops” level
3. The ability to motivate the “grass roots.”
4. Physical and emotional endurance
5. Most important: The ability to run a local, door-to-door campaign where direct personal contact with the voters is what it takes to win. Any candidate for President who can’t get through that process does _not_ deserve to be elected.
If it wasn’t Iowa and New Hampshire, it would be two other small states.
AmWay,
Well, if it’s “harsh Islamic states” you don’t like, Iraq’s Shia majority doesn’t need any help from Al Qaeda in imposing one of their own. It’s simply wrong to think that Iraq would be a modern, western-style democracy save for the presence of Iraq.
J R,
Indeed. Huckabee is the leper messiah of the GOP’s unwashed massess-the folks who Limbaugh regards as his to dictate to. As always, Digby has what may be the definitive take:
“What we are seeing is the three wings of the conservative movement fighting for supremacy: Romney from the money wing, McCain (or Rudy) from the hawk wing and Huck from the God wing. The first two are part of the political establishment and rely on it for guidance. Up until now, the God wing did too. But now they have one of their own and they really don’t need the permission of the money boyz or the hawks to vote for him. And they sure don’t care what the pointy headed TV gasbags think about it.
Huckabee won big last night with no money and no organization. Maybe he can’t replicate it anywhere else. But I think he might. The religious right is the biggest single voting bloc in the GOP — the people they cultivated and trained to vote en masse for the Republicans. They have a very specific agenda of social issues that they care about and understand very well. They are true believers. And they are the only constituency in the party who actually likes their candidate and feels inspired by him. He’s one of them. I think he can win it and win it in spite of the many unforced errors he’s bound to make. His followers just don’t care about stuff like that. Unless he suddenly goes soft on abortion or gay rights or one of their other signature issues, he’s got them.
They’ve been voting for religious phonies for a couple of decades now in the hopes that he would advance their religious agenda and represent their values. This time they have the real thing and they know it. And they could not care less what moneyed elites like Chris Matthews and Joe Klein — or Rush Limbaugh — think about it.
If the Republican establishment goes full out to destroy him they are going to risk suppressing that religious right in the general election. Which means they’d better hope they can get McCain (or ?) to draw heavily from the independents to make up for it. What a difficult spot they are in.
This could be their 1972.”
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/
outlander,
Way to go with the non-analogy, non-analysis. Keep up the (good) work!
The Iowa caucuses are indicators of what Iowans and perhaps even the nation are thinking here in January of 2008. True this opening “game” contained lots of national TV, speeches, newsprint, and publicity.
But Iowa was like the first game of the baseball season … lots more games to follow. And to carry that metaphor further, now the real hardball gets underway.
For me, none of the leaders in Iowa were speaking to me and I think I’m a middle of the road person.
I want to see a real resume of progressively more responsible experience. And for President of the U.S., the experience must be really responsible.
What’s interesting is that nearly 10 percent of the registered Republicans voting on caucus night…showed up at Democratic caucuses!
What is the take of our conservative friends on this?
Tom,
“Any candidate for President who can’t get through that process does _not_ deserve to be elected.”
I question this claim. It’s been conventional wisdom for a couple of decades now, but it isn’t clear to me that the ability to win elections has much to do with the ability to govern. If anything, the last two presidencies pose the greatest challenge to this supposed equivalence.
HSU, the Clinton money man, is going to prison:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8TV9C6O2&show_article=1
CF2K,
Looks like my response to your 3:01 post disappeared in the move. But essentially I said,
Aye, and there’s the rub. Either leaders get elected, which is all very messy and all that, or we get a dictatorship, or we drop the monkey from the plane.
CF2K
“They’ve been voting for religious phonies for a couple of decades now in the hopes that he would advance their religious agenda and represent their values. This time they have the real thing and they know it. And they could not care less what moneyed elites like Chris Matthews and Joe Klein — or Rush Limbaugh — think about it.”
________________________________________
This is what I’m always confused about, why do the religious right voters have the will to advance their religious beliefs into our government. I’m sure most every voter is religous, but why is it, that its only the religious right that vote based on moral religious reasons, is that their only reasoning in politics?
WE – because they want their religious beliefs enforced on the rest of us by the force of law. They are too insecure in their beliefs to go it alone.
Whiteelephant, that is why some years ago I labelled them the Kansas Taliban. They want to force the rest of society to conform to their beliefs and live within their restrictions. Both groups think they are acting in/on God’s behalf.
I am just really glad. Obama is a candidate that I can actually LIKE. Edwards is too for that matter and either of them would be fine but Obama has a “JFK quality” about him that seems to bring out the best in people. It is rare for a presidential candidate to do that- at least with me. My usual attitude is “how can you tell when a presidential candidate is lying? Their lips are moving”. But I honestly think this guy is for real and wants to do the right things for the country even if his goals are a bit lofty. I will be voting for him.
What I am hoping for is that Hillary will again be resoundly defeated in NH and again in SC. Hopefully she will see that the United States is a Democratic Republic and that we do not have royal familes nor do we crown queens here. Hopefully her and Bill will go away and retire somewhere and let the torch be passed. And I would say the same for Bushs. Don’t want to hear anymore from them either. And it would be nice if Hill and Bill would return the silverware to the White House too!
I’m glad that Obama and Huckabee won.
I’m tired of the old “hippie mindsets” like the Clintons and flipping n flopping mindsets like the Giuliani, Romney and others.
The Republicans don’t hate and fear Obama.
Good enough reason for me NOT to vote for him.
But the Republicans do fear 1 Republican, Ron Paul, you’ve got a little bit of a catch 22 for yourself there JR.
Not exactly how I plan to choose who I vote for JR. But understandable when you have no positive reasons to choose a Dem candidate…!
If you call that porn CF, then you should be voting for Huckabee
That may not be porn, but it is obscene.
I just heard that Rush L. does not like Huckabe, well Mike look at the bright side you are about to find out you had friends and acquaintances you did not even know you had!
“THE PIOUS PASTORS FOR THE FACTS”, after a brief stint in the Navy on small river patrol boats. this group of men went into the ministry where they met Pastor Mike Huckabe at a seminar where he was drunk, naked and listening to heavy metal music.
We told him he should put some clothes on, he shouted “WHAT NEXT YOU WILL TELL ME I HAVE TO STOP LOOKING AT INTERNET PORN TOO!”.
Tom,
My response, too, was eaten. But essentially, it was to deny that the choice is between dictatorship and the personality-driven horse race that currently masquerades as democratic process.
Any number of things can be done to restore our electoral process: public funding of elections, free candidate airtime, etc. Whether the political will is enough, well, that’s another story. But I refuse to concede that there’s no way to move from our current beauty contest model, that only serves the personality-profile driven media and the big corporate donors.
As for this new format, well, I guess the big challenge will be to time it so that my words end up in the neato blue background.
Econ, shhhhhhhh.
This is supposed to be a secret.
(Bill and Hillary’s friend is going to prison!)
Econ101
Posted January 4, 2008 at 4:58 pm | Permalink
HSU, the Clinton money man, is going to prison:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8TV9C6O2&show_article=1
Anybody look and see that most of the canidates recieve contributions from special interest groups, but Ron Paul recieves more from indivdual citizens.
The Republicans don’t hate and fear Obama.
Good enough reason for me NOT to vote for him
JR
The only one that the Republicans hatred and or fear for is Hillary. In fact the extreme Right WANT Hillary to get it, they bank on her being such a hated figure by all Republicans. It would work in their favor to get the base to vote for whom every they push through. It is apparent tonight that Fox has already figured out their hand-picked boy Giuliani is a losing cause. They have started talking up Mc Cain and Down Huckabe and was actually making fun of Huckabe’s win in Iowa! It appears that sweet marriage between the Neocons and the R.R. is heading for Divorce court! But by in large, even against Hillary the GOP will have trouble coming up with a Candidate that would united the party. Mc Cain might be able to draw in enough of the differing select of the GOP together. Except for the Compassionate conservatives(R.R.) they will hang on to Huckabe till the second coming.
Now depending on the GOP candidate, Obama may not be enough to draw moderates and the more liberal from the party. Someone like Biden or Maybe Edward would, I will go out on a limb and say that Biden would definitely do it. But like Ron Paul and the GOP, the Democrats have been ignoring him. There is still enough power from the extreme of both parties to effect the choice of Candidates. That effects the MSM and both of them are not getting enough of a chance to get their messages out on the air.
I think the Republicans that are NEO-Cons and the Religious Right, are starting to realize that most people don’t like them. We would do this country good to continue calling them nutcases. If they don’t realize that most moderate Americans have an strong diskike for them, they don’t have the IQ or the emotional stability to be leading our country.
Mitt wins:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8TVVMKG0&show_article=1