Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Iowa: Hillary Looks Shaky in a Pivotal Contest

By Matt Taibbi, RollingStone.com. Posted December 10, 2007.


After months as the front-runner, Hillary Clinton suddenly finds herself in a three-way heat.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Are the "New Atheists" As Bad as Christian Fundamentalists?
Frank Schaeffer

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
How a Public Jobs Program Could Put America Back on Track
Julianne Malveaux

DrugReporter:
Pot Is More Mainstream Than Ever, So Why Is Legalization Still Taboo?
Steven Wishnia

Environment:
Why We Need Bees and More People Becoming Organic Beekeepers
Makenna Goodman

Food:
The Raw Milk Revolution: Behind America's Emerging Battle Over Food Rights
Makenna Goodman

Health and Wellness:
New York May Stop Heartless Health Insurers from Dropping Coverage When It Stops Being Profitable
William Ehart

Immigration:
NYC Marathon Raises Question of Who Is American Enough?
James E. Johnson, Jr.

Media and Technology:
Focusing on Fort Hood Killer's Beliefs Is an Easy Out to Avoid the Deeper Reasons for the Massacre
Mark Ames

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
What Michelle and Barack's Marriage Has in Common with 56 Million Other Ones
Annabelle Gurwitch

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
Fetus-Shaped Potatoes? Going Undercover Inside the Weird World of Right-Wing Abortion Foes
Ann Neumann

Rights and Liberties:
"My Kids Want to Hide Their Identity; They're Scared Someone Will Attack Us": U.S. Muslims Being Targeted
Jaisal Noor

Sex and Relationships:
Instant Sex: Has the Digital Age Destroyed Relationships or Made Them Better?
Vanessa Richmond

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Why Natural Gas Is Not a Clean Energy Panacea
Stan Cox

World:
With Unemployment at 40 Percent, Afghan Teens Enlist in Army, Police
Lal Aqa Sherin

More stories by Matt Taibbi

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Iowa is not like other states. There's fuck-all to do here, and unless you just love dirt or barnyard sex, you could easily die of boredom -- except in an election year, when suddenly you become the center of the universe. Iowa political events sometimes seem like meetings of Athenian elders; every last audience member seems to have read the text of the Military Commissions Act, and even the best-prepared candidates come out of town-hall meetings looking harried and tested. And these days, the candidate who looks the worst for wear in Iowa is Hillary Clinton.

Here's how bad it's gotten for Hillary of late: Rival candidates are literally tripping over each other in an effort to knock her wobbling campaign off its pedestal. For the first time since this race began, three major candidates are in a three-way tie at the top of the Iowa polls. A primary season that looked like a prolonged slam-dunk coronation a month ago has morphed into a scene from the Spike TV classic Predator, with her seven pursuers fingering the green blood on the ground and whispering with a weary smile about the once-invincible monster:

If it bleeds, we can kill it.

It's Wednesday afternoon in a public library in Monticello, Iowa, a windy little two-saloon town south of Dubuque, and the foxily dressed Michelle Obama ("Jimmy Choos," she says, pointing to her sleek brown boots; they stand out like a set of Ferrari headlights in this room full of bundled-up farm-town housewives) is about to read a story to a bunch of local kiddies. What elevates the event beyond the standard issue campaign-wife-with-kids schtick is what's happening downstairs, on the floor of the library directly below Obama: There, a crowd of clean-cut twenty-somethings almost identical in appearance to the Obama team is setting up a meeting room for a campaign appearance by John Edwards. The way it's being arranged, Edwards will be exactly underneath Michelle Obama when he takes the mike. Only in the stretch run before the all-important Iowa caucus can two presidential campaigns land on the exact same geographical pinpoint on the vast planet Earth at exactly the same moment, entirely by accident. The whole state is like a supercharged game of political Battleship.

"It's crazy," says Newsweek's Holly Bailey, who is seated next to me at the Edwards deal. "I show up here to follow Edwards, go upstairs to charge up my computer. Next thing you know, I'm staring at Michelle Obama."

Not only are the Democratic hopefuls crawling all over Iowa, nearly all of them are pimping the same message. In the wake of a nearly catastrophic two-week run in the Hillary Clinton campaign -- a period that saw the stone-faced former first lady rocked by a series of spastic missteps just shy of "Dean Scream" magnitude -- the campaigns of John Edwards, Barack Obama and the other Democrats are each attacking a different recently exposed flank of the Hillary Express.

You can clearly see that dynamic at work in the Monticello logjam. Upstairs, in her thirteenth visit to this state, Michelle Obama is playing the same game her husband has been playing of late -- hammering Hillary without mentioning her by name. She refers pointedly to politicians who voted to support Bush's invasion of Iraq: "There were a lot of people with a lot of experience," she says, "who marched right behind that drum."

The reference isn't lost on anyone. "Yeah, I caught that," says Molly Pisarik, an Iowa voter sitting in the audience. "Obviously she's talking about Hillary."

Downstairs, John Edwards is being even more explicit. After whipping the crowd into a frenzy with an impassioned speech blasting the influence of lobbyists and corporate campaign contributors, he turns the gun on his own party. "The presidential candidate who has raised the most money from Washington lobbyists is not a Republican," he says. "The candidate who has raised the most money from insurance companies isn't a Republican. The presidential candidate who has raised the most money from defense contractors isn't a Republican."

He pauses, then smiles. "The answer to all those questions, you probably already know, is Hillary Clinton," he says.

This scene in Monticello takes place exactly fifty days before the January 3rd Iowa caucus, which means we've entered the white-hot weeks of the primary season. In a presidential campaign dominated almost from start to finish by gobs of corporate money, a captive commercial media and reams of computer-generated rhetorical bullshit, the frenzied stretch run in this tiny first caucus is one of the last bastions of real democracy left in the process; it's a state so small and so rife with opportunities for intimate politician-voter communication that even the richest and most powerful front-runner can't cruise to victory on endorsements and name-recognition alone.

Advances in campaign tactics mean that nearly every campaign now has enough reach to score at least one face-to-face with every voter in the state, a fact reflected in the experiences of those attending the events in Monticello. Pisarik, who is still undecided, was led to Michelle Obama's appearance by a volunteer handing out fliers on the street; that chance meeting in turn led to her checking out (and being impressed by) Senator Obama himself when he made a local stop. Molly's mother, who is also in the audience, says she is bombarded daily by phone calls from the rival campaigns -- presumably, she says, because she is registered on the party's list of previous caucusgoers. ("It's only my second time," says Molly. "They aren't onto me yet.") Finally, there's Molly's twenty-three-year-old friend Jnee Offerman, who was turned on to several candidates via political outreach groups contacting her on Facebook, now a common method of reaching young voters. "I had people contacting me months ago," says Offerman.

Downstairs at the Edwards event, Harold and Patricia White -- an elderly couple who liked Edwards very much, despite taking issue with his "anti-religious language" when he promises to give lobbyists and special interests "hell" -- both say they couldn't get away from the campaigns even if they wanted to, because of the sheer quantity of TV ads. "You see 'em ten times a day," grumbles Harold.

At both events, the campaigns ask everyone coming through the door if they're planning to caucus -- and if they are, could they please fill out cards with their contact information, so the campaigns can hit them again and again before the all-important vote after the new year. There's simply no place to hide in Iowa at this time of year. Not for voters -- and not for front-runners, either.

Saturday, the day before Veterans Day, Des Moines. I'm in the upper deck of the local veteran's hall, a cavernous, convention-center-type complex, trying to keep my head down during the introduction portion of the Jefferson-Jackson Dinner, a massive event at which some 9,000 state Democrats turn out to see six of the party's top candidates speak. The setup here is reminiscent of a giant high school pep rally, with each section of the audience turned out in bright uniform colors and placards and screaming like dipshits for their respective candidates. I'm up in the Hillary section, trying to get some video of the politicians entering the hall down on the first floor, when a girl next to me suddenly whacks me on the head with an inflatable Los Angeles Angels-style HILLARY rally-stick.

"What the fuck?" I say, frowning and rubbing my head.

"Sorry," she says curtly. Then she turns back to the floor, where Hill is making her entrance, and starts pounding her silly fan-stick again. The Hillary section starts in with their slogan:

"TURN UP THE HEAT! TURN UP THE HEAT!"

But the chant peters out quickly. "Sucky slogans this year," observes reporter behind me.

"Yeah," his colleague agrees. "Obama's got the only good one."

And sure enough, when Obama himself enters the hall a few minutes later, the whole place vibrates with his two-part chant:

"Fired UP!"

"Ready to GO!"

"Fired UP!"

"Ready to GO!"

Obama's slogan seems just as dumb as Hillary's to me, but I must be wrong, as the "Fired Up!" chant inspires dead silence in the Hillary section, which is suddenly full of long, envious faces. There would be accusatory whispers in the press in the days following that suggested that the Obama campaign trucked in "ringers" from Illinois to this Jefferson-Jackson deal to rig the noise levels at the event, which was widely pronounced a big win for the Illinois senator. Obama's speech -- unremarkable in its policy specifics but effective in its open echoing of a Dr. King-esque forensic style -- was hailed as the evening's class performance.

Obama is a tough guy to figure. He's a tremendous, magnetic speaker when he is facing a big crowd and has a prepared address in his pocket, but his extemporaneous stumpery in smaller settings is sometimes weirdly nervous and maladroit (in Grundy Center, he recently barked at an elderly town-hall questioner, insisting that he takes terrorism "deadly serious"). His much-hyped decision to take a "forceful stand" against Hillary in recent weeks smacked of the worst kind of hot-air horse-racing bullshit, with the candidate suddenly jumping through hoops to prove to the media that he could exhibit the requisite "aggressiveness" before he'd even decided what issues to "take a stand" about. The overall impression is of a soft-spoken intellectual who's suddenly desperate to show that he's ready to be as full of shit as it takes to win the White House -- a psychological state that put Mike Dukakis in a tank, John Kerry in a duck-hunting costume and killed off many a highbrow candidate who blinked in the punishing glare of The Process.

Whatever his shortcomings, Obama is very effective at using his relative freshness as a politician to highlight Hillary's almost Belichickian level of smugness, the reptilian air of inevitability surrounding her candidacy. In Iowa, all of Hillary's weaknesses as a candidate are on display -- her short fuse, her instinctive pandering, her fierce desire to control every aspect of her environment, her familial penchant for smoking issues without inhaling them and her reflexive paranoia, doubtless brought on by a lengthy stint serving as the human whipping post of the conservative right. In person, Hillary sometimes comes across as a caricature of the modern career woman who's had to go too far to prove that she's tough enough to hang. Now, with all of her traits thrust under the media glare, the Iowa race has quickly returned to wide-open status; the week before Thanksgiving, polls showed Hillary in a statistical dead heat, with Obama edging into the lead for the first time. Only three months ago, she led Obama by eleven points.

The trouble for Hillary actually started in early October, at a campaign stop in New Hampton, Iowa. Clinton teed off on an audience member named Randall Rolph, who asked her a pointed question about her vote to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. "The premise of the question is wrong," Clinton snapped. "Somebody obviously sent it to you." Rolph angrily objected to the implication that he was a plant, leading to a poisonous exchange.

Things got worse. During a Democratic debate at Drexel University in Philadelphia on October 30th, Clinton -- who is nothing if not scrupulously prepared and on-message in debates -- fumbled a question about a New York proposal to give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. Hillary appeared to support the plan, then backtracked after Chris Dodd blasted it -- opening the door for Edwards to rip her one. "Unless I missed something," Edwards cooed, "Senator Clinton said two different things in the course of about two minutes." From that point forward all of her rivals, as well as a predictable assortment of media assassins, began pounding the flip-flop theme. The sudden wave of negative attention seemed to throw Hillary off her game. First she reportedly forgot to tip a waitress named Anita Esterday at a Maid-Rite diner in Toledo, Iowa. Then her campaign made matters worse when it went back and left $20, inspiring yet another run of ugly headlines.

And it didn't stop there. A few weeks later, after Hillary outlined a renewable-energy plan during a town-hall event in Newton, Iowa, she called on a Grinnell College student named Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff, who asked a question about global warming. Gallo-Chasanoff later told her campus newspaper she'd been asked by the Clinton campaign to lob the softball. Not long afterward, a minister named Geoff Mitchell revealed that the Clinton campaign had asked him to pose a question at a different event about how Hillary would be tough on Bush about funding the war.

By then a full-blown controversy over the planted questions was raging, and Hillary seemed to be stepping in shit every time she went outside. On November 11th -- ironically in Waterloo, Iowa -- Hillary experienced the kind of unscripted fuck-up that can derail a campaign in the media age, getting entangled with four American flags, Chevy Chase-style, as she tried to leave the stage following a Veterans Day campaign stop. "I think that the bases are not weighted," Hillary screeched as she frantically tried to right the toppling flags.

All of these on-the-trail mishaps were accentuated by some starkly unattractive strategic moves emanating from her campaign headquarters -- including the much-decried decision to play the female-victimhood card after being ganged up on at the Philly debate. Even worse, at the Las Vegas debate on November 15th, Hillary took a page directly out of the Karl Rove with-us-or-agin-us playbook, accusing her rivals of resorting to Swift Boat-style tactics in their criticisms of her. In the world of Democratic rhetoric, that's akin to calling peace marchers a bunch of warmongering baby killers.

"Hillary had a really, really bad couple of weeks," says Joe Trippi, the famed campaign Svengali now lurking behind Edwards. "It gave everybody a chance to get back in the campaign."

I run into Trippi in Monticello, where he's easy to spot; if there's a guy who looks like he borrowed his clothes from a sleeping vagrant standing behind a fist-shaking populist, it's probably Joe Trippi. But even without actually seeing Trippi at an Edwards event, one might have deduced his presence. The campaign of John Kerry's former yes-man running mate has been transformed into a "Give 'em hell" insurgency -- rhetorically, at least, a strong echo of the last presidential horse Trippi rode in this derby, Howard Dean.

On the campaign trail in 2004, Edwards struck me as a hardworking pretty boy hack, a working-class kid who'd chosen to make an inoffensive career for himself waving pompoms and carrying water for the team. He reminded me of a teenage townie caddy grateful for a summer internship in the big-city firm of the country-club president. But the 2008 version of Edwards looks like a completely different animal. Spurned by a Clinton-dominated party apparatus that has emptied its treasure chest for Hillary, Edwards has reinvented himself as a whistle-blower candidate, railing against the corruption in his own party. His stump speech sounds almost desperate in its ambitious earnestness, a balls-out broadside against a party establishment that left him behind.

"I have seen the seamy underbelly of what happens in Washington every day," he says in Monticello. "If you're Exxon Mobil and you want to influence what's happening with the government, you go and hire one of these big lobbying firms. This is what you find. About half the lobbyists are Republicans. And about half of the lobbyists are Democrats. If the Republicans are in power, the Republican lobbyists take the lead. They're lobbying the Congress, they're passing the money around. If the Democrats are in power, the Democratic lobbyists take the lead.

"Here's the point," he adds. "They're pushing the same agenda for the same companies. There is no difference."

When Edwards is done making his point, he hurriedly reaches for a copy of that day's Des Moines Register to wave an example -- a front-page story about drug companies lobbying the Democrat-controlled Congress to stall legislation that would have prevented brand-name firms from delaying production of cheaper drugs. It is just the latest example of the pharmaceutical industry buying off the Democrats who, when Edwards was the running mate four years ago, were all too happy to let Bristol-Myers Squibb hire the Boston Pops to play a Ted Kennedy tribute at the Kerry convention while drug legislation they opposed was on the table.

Watching Edwards raise the curtain on this stuff now, I am struck by how he can't fucking wait to show the crowd the newspaper story. He has the same look on his face I once saw on Dennis Kucinich -- another lower-class kid who made it to Washington -- when Kucinich was scrambling to show me the ugly details in the fine print of NAFTA. By the time Edwards finishes his presentation -- in which he promises unequivocally to bring all combat troops home from Iraq within a year -- he has the crowd standing and cheering.

Watching this, I can't help but think that this electoral phenomenon had been willed into being by the overreaching arrogance of the Clinton campaign. Hillary's machine plays the power game so flawlessly that it leaves the casual observer with the unmistakable impression that, just as it rigs the questions in town halls, it wants to leave nothing about the election to chance. You see the candidate trotting back and forth across Iowa with former governor Tom Vilsack in her pocket (and, most likely, the vice presidency dangled in front of his lumpy forehead), dragging with her a giant mercenary army of support staff (in recent weeks the Hillary campaign hired 100 new workers in an effort to visit 50,000 homes in Iowa by Christmas) as she spends mountains of money from her vast war chest ($360,000 for advertising in one week alone).

And when Hillary errs, as she has done many times in recent weeks, she tends to err on the side of burning the ordinary schmuck and sticking to the inside play. You don't see too many Fortune 500 CEOs complaining that Hillary stiffed them on a tip; no, that only happens to some Iowa diner waitress, at the same time the lavishly funded Hillary is out on the trail trying to explain her support of the Wall Street crowd's sweetheart Peru Free Trade Agreement (to Midwest audiences that already know all they need to know about the NAFTA her husband passed). This is the significance of all the stumbling and audience-rigging and Rove-ing of debate opponents and carping at the Randall Rolphs of the world that we saw in recent weeks; they have exposed Hillary as a New York Yankees-style villain who buys all the best players but seems to resent having to actually win it between the lines.

That palpable anger at being disrespected as an opponent seems to be what's driving the Obama and Edwards candidacies, which have both scored points of late by hammering Hillary as a control-obsessed insider (Obama assailed Hillary's refusal to release records from her time as first lady; Edwards ripped her in the Vegas debate for rigging the town-hall questions). While Obama is essentially attacking from the center, criticizing her not for being a part of a corrupt system but for simply being a flawed candidate, the anger displayed by Edwards appears to have an ideological component that threatens to bring the Ned Lamont-Joe Lieberman dynamic into the Iowa race; his candidacy opens the door for the caucus to be a referendum not just on Hillary, but on the corporate-dominated agenda of the Democratic Party.

When Clinton backers told the New York Times recently that Hillary is moving from "primary mode" to "general election mode," it was not only an infuriatingly premature declaration of victory, but a surprisingly candid admission that their candidate has two faces. What's happening now is that Hillary is taking punches in both of those faces, with Obama punching her general-election face and Edwards hitting her in her primary face. Not a good place to be, with a month to the vote.

Even without all the punching, it's a bit premature for Hillary to be taking Iowa for granted. Given the curious procedural rules of the state's caucus, even third-string candidates like Joe Biden and Bill Richardson can wind up swinging the race. The way this deal works is that on caucus night, meetings are held in each of the state's ninety-nine counties to divide all the caucusgoers into groups supporting this or that candidate. If any candidate group scores less than fifteen percent in any given precinct, members of that group can move to a viable group, or move to a nonviable group to make it viable, or just walk away and not be counted.

In a dead heat like the current race, that means a fringe candidate could virtually dictate the outcome by swinging his groups to one of the three leaders. Biden, whose new swept-back white-haired look almost completely obscures his plugs on the trail, has managed to go many months in a row without insulting Indians or Negroes or otherwise jamming his foot in his mouth, an amazing show of restraint that might win him the job of secretary of state. Dodd, the Connecticut senator who has one-upped the field by actually moving with his family to Iowa, has made serious gains here, winning the support of the firefighters union, whose organizational strength was a key factor for Kerry the last time around. Bill Richardson's goofy-ass yukster TV ads (showing him sitting with a long face before an indifferent job interviewer unimpressed with his long résumé) are among the most overplayed in the state, and although his massive emphasis on Iowa has not thrust him into contention, he is still running at about eleven percent in the polls. Even Dennis Kucinich, selling a message very similar to Edwards, is retaining a small but insoluble percentage of the vote.

That's a real problem for Hillary, whose base in Iowa may be thinner than it looks. More than sixty percent of Hillary's supporters here say they have never participated in the state's caucuses. That, strategists say, suggests that many of the party's more reliable, rank-and-file caucusgoers have thrown their support to other candidates. When January 3rd rolls around, many of Hillary's "name recognition only" voters may be at home, while the Athenian zealots pack the halls with their own lists of hand-picked, not party-picked, choices. All of which means that there are a lot of votes still in play in the first vote of the primary season. Somebody is in line for a third-place death blow -- and for the first time since this race began, it's not a given that it won't be Hillary.

"Whoever comes in third," Trippi tells me, "will be in for a world of...." His voice trails off. "If Hillary comes in third after spending all that money," he finally concludes, "how does she explain that?"

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: barack obama, hillary clinton, john edwards, election 2008

Matt Taibbi is a writer for Rolling Stone.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Bill Richardson
Posted by: kgs1947 on Dec 10, 2007 3:12 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think more attention needs to be focused on Bill Richardson as a viable candidate!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Bill Richardson Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
» RE: Bill Richardson Posted by: carlon
» RE: Bill Richardson Posted by: truegreencore
How does Hilllary explain that....?
Posted by: johnp on Dec 10, 2007 3:28 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The way Hillary explains it is by reference to the remarks of baboons like you, that are out the get the First Lady. We all know that media have been anxious to dethrone her, and your tediously long essay is simply another example of something most activist democrats foresaw. You're either a republican, or a very dumb democrat. If you succeed in knocking Hillary out of the game, the net result will be that who ever remains standing will be vastly easier prey for the republicans. How can you fail to see this? It's not possible, unless you're even more dimwitted that I thought.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» WRONG! Posted by: Eat Politicians
If you can't find "fuck-all" to do in Iowa...
Posted by: Wexler on Dec 10, 2007 5:33 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... then I suppose the best question to ask, Matt, is what the fuck did you want to do? Fuck all? I'm sure you might be able to get that done if you knew where to look. BTW, I personally appreciate any ink you can give Iowa that makes us look like provincial hicks, because with your help, perhaps we might be able to stave off the invasion of fucking know-it-all assholes who are so obviously superior to us for a bit longer. So keep it up, we're all about pig shit and ball caps that have brands of corn seed on them. Thanks in advance.

My wife and I are precinct captains for Barack Obama's campaign, and I've actually been on the telephone speaking with people who are actually going to caucus on January 3. Guess what? Hillary is going to lose Iowa, and she's going to lose it badly. People I have spoken with don't even mention her as a 3rd choice, let alone a 2nd choice. Her problem with Iowa Dems is that she is perceived to represent a continuation of Bush's policies and "business as usual". Whether or not that's a fair rap, it's the perception.

So anyway, Matt, next time you're in the Cedar Rapids-Iowa City area, send me an email and we'll go out on the town. But you have to promise not to tell.

-Wexler

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE:Lol, great comments Wexler. Posted by: Techubus
Not to worry
Posted by: tkwilson on Dec 10, 2007 5:39 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There should be plenty undercover Repugs salting the caucuses in Hillarys favor since running against her is the only chance most of the Rethug candidates have of winning.

Hillary, and most of the other candidates on both sides are whores of the corporate machine. Anybody the MSM puts on top should be automatically suspect. The candidate with the most corporate money is the dirtiest. Shame on you if you're stupid enough to vote for her.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Not to worry Posted by: tommy_slothrop
» RE: Not to worry Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: Whoa...Not to worry! Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
Two Party System
Posted by: frank69 on Dec 10, 2007 7:24 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Are we saying the People Party is going to win in Iowa? Well, how about the rest of the nation? I cannot foresee the People Party defeating the Money Party in the long run. If you read electoral history, the Money party always wins!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Two Party System Posted by: VZEQICVA
» Well, gee... Posted by: greenman
All I Want For Christmas
Posted by: NoPCZone on Dec 10, 2007 9:47 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is for the Clinton Campaign to melt down and be forever gone from American politics. And a 4th place finish in Iowa & New Hampshire. That would make it a really Happy New Year.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: All I Want For Christmas Posted by: truegreencore
tigesgirl
Posted by: tigesgirl on Dec 10, 2007 12:40 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You are not nice to and you underestimate the honesty and experience of Joe Biden. Unlike Obama--who inspires some as a preacher does, but who has little content in his speeches and less experience than is acceptable at this critical time in our history--Biden has always stood for his principles, and his principle are sound. Indeed, you really do a disservice to Biden, Richardson, and Dodd, who are all more qualified and appealing than the three you talk about. We in the next round of states want a chance to vote for a person with the human rights, anti-crime, pro-women legislation record and stellar foreign policy knowledge and experience that Joe Biden has.
I commend him to all Iowans who will caucus and voters in New Hampshire as the right person for the presidency in 2008.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Biden says the wrong thing Posted by: rjgwood
My Turn To Shill For Edwards
Posted by: dustinblythe on Dec 10, 2007 1:17 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With all of the Obama vs. Clinton talk in the media it is sometimes easy to overlook the candidate that can pick up the pieces and take Iowa: John Edwards. Let us not forget that Edwards is well known in Iowa (especially if you include the time he spent there four years ago), has been very open and forthright on the issues and has a good organization of his own. When it comes to progressive issues, and electability, John Edwards may be the choice of a majority of Iowans and the surprise of 2008.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Anti-Hillary Sentiment
Posted by: truegreencore on Dec 10, 2007 4:58 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author provides a somewhat misleading description of the Caucus process. As an Iowan, perhaps I can clarify.

"The way this deal works is that on caucus night, meetings are held in each of the state's ninety-nine counties to divide all the caucusgoers into groups supporting this or that candidate."

Actually, people gather at the precinct level -much smaller than counties.

There is also very little attention being paid to the anti-Hillary sentiment. The fact that Hillary is being targeted by two very strong challengers is very bad news for her. Because precincts are distributing a set number of delegates, there are very strategic moves to be made to harm an opponent.

Let me provide an example. In my precinct, there are 5 delegates. I'm assuming in my district (based on lawn signs and parade turn-out, etc.) that Clinton, Edwards, Obama, and Richardson will earn a delegate. The fight, then, is over the remaining delegate. If Hillary is close to earning the last delegate, one can expect Obama and Edwards to make a fifth candidate viable, such as Biden or even Kucinich (or in other precincts, Richardson will definitely beneit, as he will be most often the candidate closest to viability). This, in effect, deprives Clinton of earning more delegates, keeping the statewide contest closer for candidates who are not expected to do as well (Edwards) and potentially running up the score for Obama (currently leading in polls).

Of course, the strategic maneuverings work both way, but Obama has a very strong second-choice support throughout the state, and his unfavorables aren't anywhere near as bad as Hillary's. In other words, the strategic voting is less likely to harm other candidates.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Anti-Hillary Sentiment Posted by: Wexler
The single compelling
Posted by: herbal on Dec 11, 2007 3:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
issue of the campaign is the corporate sponsorship and the Israeli sponsorship of Mid East war. Nothing so exposes Hillary Clinton's bankrupt candidacy better than her famous "leave no options off the table" call to nuke Iran that can be seen by googling 'Hillary Clinton AIPAC" on U Tube. Then compare this rhetoric with the virtually identical speech of the Christian Zionist cult radio preacher, 'Rev. Hagge AIPAC'. Turn your people on to Hillary the Hawk.

The candidate who has done more than any other in fingering the dominance of Congress and public policy by multi-national corporations is John Edwards. Even Kucinich and Gravel don't go as far. They all would be well advised to follow Edward's lead. The electorate does not care who wins so much as the educational value of the campaign that falls out for combatting the neo-fascism that has gained a strangle hold on our Republic. Together, less stealth Republican hawks, Hillary and Biden, the Democrats have the opportunity to get some inertia going to reverse the anti-Christ tide of corporatism. Progressives, don't blow it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"He's ready to be as full of shit as it takes to win the White House"
Posted by: kelt65 on Dec 11, 2007 4:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
well said ...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This guy is a Reporter?
Posted by: gary_7vn on Dec 14, 2007 11:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What's left of the free press in america long ago gave up objectivity. But at least most of them still try to get "facts" right. Taibbi the 9/11 truth denying swine that he is, describes the HRC "flag incident" for us. "...getting entangled with four American flags, Chevy Chase-style, as she tried to leave the stage following a Veterans Day campaign stop. "I think that the bases are not weighted," Hillary screeched as she frantically tried to right the toppling flags."

Problem is, for our "reporter" is that the so called incident is on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VvOqUvvO9Y

Even an self promoting sleezebag like tab can't deny that she was not "screeching" but was in fact speaking very calmly, as you can see in video was not at all "frantic". He even got the quote wrong, the sentence ends with "properly". She did not look particularly "entangled" to me either. Does this guy need glasses?

If tabbby gets something this simple wrong, something that he could watch over and over on youtube - what chance does he have getting the rest of the details right?

No wonder that this arrogant monkey is a shill for the permanent government and their lies about 9/11.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Clinton Connection
Posted by: angelofdeath on Dec 14, 2007 1:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
THE TORRES-VIGNALI CONNECTION is explored in detail in a congressional report that resulted from Pardongate, when revelations surfaced that President Clinton granted clemency for Carlos Vignali Jr. — convicted of drug trafficking and sentenced to 15 years in federal prison in 1995 — along with other convicted criminals and one-time international fugitive Marc Rich. The granting of clemency occurred after payments were made to Clinton’s brother-in-law, Hugh Rodham, the brother of former first lady, New York state senator and 2008 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton.


Released in March 2002 by the congressional Committee on Government Reform, “Justice Undone: Clemency Decisions in the Clinton White House” details Hugh Rodham’s involvement in the Vignali affair, as well as the long business history Vignali once shared with George Torres.

The report takes to task top L.A. elected officials, including county Supervisor Gloria Molina, then–state Senator Richard Polanco, then–state Assemblyman Antonio Villaraigosa and U.S. Representative Xavier Becerra, among others, for lobbying on behalf of Vignali Jr., in light of his drug conviction and the fact that DEA agents long suspected Vignali Sr. to be involved in drug trafficking — along with Torres. While a member of the California state Assembly, Villaraigosa wrote the first letter on Vignali’s behalf on May 24, 1996.


Saying Hillary Rodham Clinton was a leader who offered a new path, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa today formally endorsed the New York senator and former first lady in her race to become president of the United States.

Villaraigosa will also serve as one of the four national chairs of Clinton’s campaign for the Democratic nomination for president, it was announced.

At a televised news conference from the UCLA campus in Westwood, Villaraigosa praised Clinton’s approach to domestic issues, particularly education, and her pledge to help end the war in Iraq. The pair earlier toured the preschool at UCLA’s Krieger Center. — La Times

http://mayorvillaraigosasdemons.blogspot.com/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement