Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Obama and Huck Win; Edwards Takes 2nd, Hillary 3rd; Dem Field Narrows

By AlterNet Staff, AlterNet. Posted January 3, 2008.


Ron Paul gets 10 percent ... Several drop out ... Michael Moore: This was "repudiation" of Iraq war

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 AlterNet Staff

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Michael Moore: "It's the War," Says Iowa to Hillary
from MichaelMoore.com:

There was no doubt about it. The message from Iowa tonight was simple, but deafening:

If you're a candidate for president, and you voted for the war, you lose. And if you voted and voted and voted for the war -- and never once showed any remorse -- you really lose.

In short, if you had something to do with keeping us in this war for four-plus years, you are not allowed to be the next president of the United States.

Over 70% of Iowan Democrats voted for candidates who either never voted for the invasion of Iraq (Obama, Richardson, Kucinich) or who have since admitted their mistake (Edwards, Biden, Dodd). I can't tell you how bad I feel for Senator Clinton tonight. I don't believe she was ever really for this war. But she did -- and continued to do -- what she thought was the politically expedient thing to eventually get elected. And she was wrong. And tonight she must go to sleep wondering what would have happened if she had voted her conscience instead of her calculator.

Read more...

***

Republicans 9:39 PST

via CNN (with 93 percent of precincts reporting):

Mike Huckabee 34%
Mitt Romney 25%
Fred Thompson 13%
John McCain 13%
Ron Paul 10%

With 10 percent in Iowa and a boatload of cash, will Fox News let Paul debate?

***

More go 8:49 PST

CNN reports that Joe Biden will drop out of the race, joining Chris Dodd. Oh, and we hear Mike Gravel is calling it a race.

***

Results Update 8:01 PST

via NBC (with 98 percent of precincts reporting):

Barack Obama 38%
John Edwards 30%
Hillary Clinton 29%

***

Dodd Drops Out 8:00 PST

Chris Dodd, who gained the respect of progressives around the country by taking a stand against Bush's assault on the rule of law and saying "no" to giving telecoms immunity for violating their customers' right to privacy, has announced that he will drop out of the race.

***

Networks call it for Obama in virtual three-way tie 6:40 PST

MSNBC reports:

"On the Democrats side, there was a virtual three-way tie, with Barack Obama holding a slim lead over rivals John Edwards and Hillary Clinton with about half the precincts counted."

[snip]

"About half the Democratic caucus-goers said a candidate's ability to bring about needed change was the most important factor as they made up their minds, according to voters surveyed by The Associated Press and the television networks as they entered the caucuses. Change was Obama's calling card in the arduous campaign for Iowa's backing. Fewer voters cited experience, which Clinton said was her strong suit, or a candidate's chance of capturing the White House or ability to care about people like the voters themselves."

***

GOP Projection: Huckabee, then Romney 6:12 PST

Both ABC and CNN are projecting a win for Mike Huckabee. CNN:

"With 15 percent of precincts reporting, Huckabee had the support of 36 percent of voters, compared to 23 percent for Mitt Romney. Fred Thompson had 15 percent and John McCain had 12.

"On the Democratic side, early results show John Edwards with a narrow lead over rivals Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama."

***

Early reports: turn-out extremely high 6:02 PST

Reports on the ground suggest a surprisingly high turn-out, given the frigid conditions. According to an Obama organizer at one site, the numbers are twice what they had projected.

As Jane Hamsher noted earlier, the conventional wisdom holds that "low turnout favors Edwards (he's got solid union support), mid turnout favors Clinton, and high turnout favors Obama."

***

Huckabee ran attack ads, after all 5:49 pm PST

From factcheck.org:

His attack ad appears on three Iowa stations. We find it somewhat misleading. Another ad makes misleading claims about tax cuts.
Summary
The ad Huckabee said he decided not to run has now appeared at least three times in Iowa anyway. It accuses Romney of being "dishonest" but shades the facts in the process.

In another ad Huckabee claims to have signed the most broad-based tax cut in Arkansas history. But as we've noted repeatedly, he signed bigger tax increases than cuts.

Read more...

***

Early Dem results: Edwards leads in close race 5:41 pm PST

from the Iowa Democratic Party site:

Senator John Edwards : 34.05%
Senator Hillary Clinton : 32.09%
Senator Barack Obama : 30.86%
Governor Bill Richardson : 1.81%
Senator Joe Biden : 0.98%
Senator Chris Dodd : 0.12%
Uncommitted : 0.09%
Precincts Reporting: 237 of 1781
(Percentages are State Delegate Equivalents.)


***

Iowa independents prefer Democrats 2:1 over Republicans
from the Des Moines Register:

Thousands more Iowa independent voters are expected to turn out for Democrat presidential candidates than Republicans at today’s Iowa caucuses.

Iowa independents are expected to follow the lead set by their national peers in 2006. Nationwide, independents backed Democrats heavily in the watershed 2006 elections, in part out of a rejection of President Bush and a loud cry for change that has continued into the 2008 campaign, strategists in both parties agree. ...

The Des Moines Register’s late November poll showed 21 percent of likely Democratic caucusgoers identified themselves as independents, a group that accounted for a surprising 40 percent in the Register’s poll this week.

Meanwhile, the Register’s poll showed independents accounting for 20 percent likely GOP caucusgoers, up from 13 percent in late November.


Read more...



***

McCain irked by Ron Paul the spoiler 4pm PST
from Marc Cooper at the Huffington Post:

GOP presidential candidate John McCain is deeply worried that his resurgent national campaign may be stalled by a relatively strong showing in tonight's Iowa caucuses by the iconoclastic Ron Paul.

The Arizona senator's campaign told the HuffPost that their candidate is concerned that Paul will finish third behind front-runners Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney.

Read more...

***

Is Obama plan B for Richardson supporters? 4pm PST
from John Harwood at the NYT '08 blog:

Barack Obama’s drive to win tonight’s Iowa caucuses is getting a boost from two of his putative rivals. After earlier winning the support of Dennis Kucinich, Obama’s campaign has reached an agreement with Bill Richardson for the second-choice votes of Richardson supporters in caucuses where the New Mexico governor can’t clear the threshold for competition, according to a senior Obama campaign adviser.

Read more...

***

Pat Buchanan's sister: "illegal immigration and faith" will dictate outcome: 4pm PST
by Brian D at Redstate.org:

Bay Buchanan, formerly a supporter of Tancredo, recently joined the campaign of Governor Romney, said that there are two issues in Iowa that are going to motivate voters - Illegal Immigration and Faith.

According to Buchanan, over the last 7 months immigration has been the "dominant theme of most of the candidates" and all of the candidates have promoted "securing our nation's borders and enforcing laws" that are currently on the books. She further said that, "many Iowans share faith with Gov. Huckabee," but tonight's Romney vs. Huckabee battle will come down to "who votes."

Read more...

***

Obama strategist Axelrod: "can't help but be optimistic" 4pm PST

by Marc Cooper from Huffington Post:

Speaking to Huffington Post and other reporters just hours before tonight's Iowa caucuses, Obama campaign top strategist David Axelrod said that, "He can't help but be optimistic about tonight's results."

He described the energy bubbling at the Iowa headquarters as "incredible," but refused to predict exactly where his candidate will finish tonight.

"We're in uncharted waters," he said. "We've never in a campaign like this before."

Read more...

***

Clintons and Iowa reporter argue against college voters in caucuses? 4pm PST

From Rick Hasen at Election Law blog:

We've all seen the cry of "voter fraud" being used for political purposes in recent years, but this latest example would be amusing if it weren't so pernicious: David Yepsen, a leading political reporter for The Des Moines Register, has suggested that Senator Obama's encouragement of college students to vote in the Iowa caucuses amounts to "fraud." President Bill Clinton too has gotten in on the action. Recognizing that such voting could well help Obama who has energized students on college campuses, beat his wife, Sen. Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton has discouraged such voting, telling college students to use their consciences in deciding whether or not to participate in the caucuses. But the bottom line is that voting by Iowa college students is perfectly legal, and indeed such voting could help to compensate for the otherwise anti-democratic nature of Iowa's role in the presidential election process.


Let's start with the law. Iowa residents can participate in the presidential caucuses, and the Iowa Code specifically provides that a "student who resides at or near the school the student attends, but who is also able to claim a residence at another location under the provisions of this section, may choose either location as the student's residence for voter registration and voting purposes." The state Democratic Party agrees that "[a]ny student who attends an Iowa college or university may participate in the Iowa caucuses provided they are 18 by November 4, 2008, and are a registered Democrat in the precinct in which they wish to caucus." Indeed, before raising his charge of fraud, Yepsen conceded in his column that voting by college students is "quite legal."


So what is this really about? Apparently Yepsen is upset that out-of-staters -- particularly college students from Illinois, whom Yepsen says are used to voter fraud -- are going to "skew" the results of the races. This kind of charge is hardly new. Indeed, back in 1965, the Supreme Court considered Carrington v. Rash, a case in which Texas sought to exclude state residents on military bases from voting in elections. Texas argued it had "a legitimate interest in immunizing its elections from the concentrated balloting of military personnel, whose collective voice may overwhelm a small local civilian community" The high Court, while recognizing the state's right to limit voting to bona fide residents, unanimously rejected the argument: "Fencing out from the franchise a sector of the population because of the way they may vote is constitutionally impermissible."

Read more...

***

500+ Pundit survey: Edwards gets nod 4pm PST

from Kari Chisolm at Blue Oregon:

Well, the January 2008 edition of my Punditology Challenge is closed -- and 562 folks participated. It's a group of folks that includes elected officials, local and national political consultants, journalists, bloggers, and plenty of political junkies, activists, and blog readers. ... Iowa: As a group, 45% believe that John Edwards will win the Iowa caucus, followed by 34% who think Barack Obama will, and 21% who are sure it's Hillary Clinton. ... What about the Republican side of things? We're much more certain - 59% say it's Mike Huckabee, while 38% say it's Mitt Romney.

Read more... (with predictions for other states)

Bill in a big downplay of expectations for Hillary? 4pm PST

noted from Taegan Goddard's Political Wire:

"I didn’t win a race until I got to Georgia. You just got to keep going. It is a long process." -- Bill Clinton, quoted by The Politico, in an attempt to downplay expectations for Sen. Hillary Clinton in Iowa tonight.

***

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

See more stories tagged with: iowa, election 2008

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:
Dear fellow Democrats
Posted by: g50 on Jan 3, 2008 6:50 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have to admit, I was really hard on Edwards. But believe me, the reason I was hard on Edwards was not because of what he was saying - it was because, I don't believe that HE believes in what he was saying. In other words, I didn't think he was worthy of your support.

Now granted, I tend to view things from a bit more moderated perspective - all I mean by that is that, it is a large country, with diverse opinion, and you have to appeal to a lot of people who often disagree, if you are to win elected office.

I am a supporter of Obama. I have followed his career from the beginning. He is a liberal and not afraid to say it. But he is also not afraid to step on toes as long as the path is to victory. Sometimes, we liberals need to give up our rhetorical shibboleths and recognize politics, as an intrinsic feature, demands compromise. Usually, we are having to compromise on our beliefs. This time, with Obama, we need compromise only our rhetoric.

Obama appeals to people using rational, and reasonable arguments. He admits what possible, as well as the limits, on a given issue, by rationally assessing what can be done, what the assets to accomplish that goal are, what are the prospects for success. He is a realist.

And realistically, in this political environment, we have a lot of advantages. We don't need the fire-breathing strategies we have tried for in other elections, because people have seen the failures of the other side. We don't need to be vindictive, because when they were vindictive to us, it only made them stronger. We don't need to be stubborn, because we have the advantage of people being sympathetic to our positions.

What we need is the conciliator, the one who will graciously invite those who have not always been with us to join us on a few, necessary, important - and often progressive - government reforms. The objective is reform, right? Better policies? We will get all that.

What I mean by this post is - Edwards, yes he said things that were nice, though I don't think he really was sincere. Hillary, yes, she has been there for us and fought the fights and has the scars, but is kind of wounded. Barack, yes, he is new, but I think he is tremendously skilled, and will make a president who will make us proud of our politics, and proud of our country. I am not some blind partisan. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work. But I have a perspective, and I think I am on to something when I say that this Obama thing - it is for real. It won't be perfect, but it will get a lot accomplished, and isn't that the goal?

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

» RE: Dear fellow Democrats Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Dear fellow Democrats Posted by: mjabele
» RE: Dear fellow Democrats Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Dear fellow Democrats Posted by: johnclark
» RE: Dear fellow Democrats Posted by: EKSwitaj
» RE: Now why doesn't this post have a star? Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
» RE: Dear fellow Democrats Posted by: Jeff Hoffman
the bush/clinton dynasty just might be over
Posted by: Missing Piece on Jan 3, 2008 6:53 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and obama would be a nice change

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

» let us hope Posted by: Tombo
Can Obama Win the White House in 2008..?
Posted by: TJ-stars4peace on Jan 3, 2008 7:49 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I for one am not overly impressed with Barack Obama as he fails voice solutions and specifics as a candidate..

That said if you read this post reply to the question in the Title:

Can Obama win the general election in 2008..?

To be more accurate is Obama likely to win..?

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

The lowdown in my precinct
Posted by: nobody4prez on Jan 3, 2008 7:51 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This evening, I caucused in Ames' 23rd precinct. The turnout was almost a third more than it was in 2004. Yes, the turnout was heavy.

In order to be viable, a candidate in our precinct needed 42 votes. In the initial viability vote, things went like this:

Obama, Clinton, Edwards: automatically viable.
Kucinich: 9 [including me]
Richardson: 28
Dodd: 3
Biden: 1

Next, the voters for non-viable candidates moved to other candidates. Basically, nobody went to Clinton, and the voters split more or less evenly between Obama and Edwards.

The final tally in my precinct was:

Obama: 92 votes
Edwards: 92 votes [including me]
Clinton: 89 votes

Since there were 13 delegates to choose, they were apportioned as follows:

Obama: 5 delegates
Edwards: 4 delegates
Clinton: 4 delegates

The reason Obama got the extra delegate (and won the precinct, so to speak) was because of a coin toss (as stipulated in Democratic party rules).

So -- did Obama win? I'm not sure. I do know, however, that Clinton lost. I can't say what happened in the rest of the state, or even in the rest of Ames, but if it really was as close as this statewide, then I would be especially skeptical about anyone's analysis of the results, particularly regarding Mrs. Clinton.

One side note: C's voters, though well-organized, were noisy, disruptive and rather rude. The Obama people were disorganized but nice; the Edwards people were the most ethical, I think:

At one point, we were supposed to take a full count of all of the voters in the room, and a number of people, mostly from the O and C camps , said 'let's just vote'.... This ended in all sorts of chaos in the second round of voting and we needed to do several recounts. As soon as the Edwards people saw what was happening, they initiated their own recount, using the method which all three groups ended up using. The interesting thing is that whereas all three groups had been overcounting, the O and E counts were off by 2 or 3; the C count was off by more than 10. Just an observation; I'd never actually accuse them of vote-rigging, but considering the degree of organization in the C camp, it was interesting....

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

» RE: The lowdown in my precinct Posted by: hurricane hugo
» RE: The lowdown in my precinct Posted by: EKSwitaj
» RE: The lowdown in my precinct Posted by: nobody4prez
A tongue-in-cheek look at the Iowa Primary
Posted by: thoughttheater on Jan 3, 2008 7:54 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To see a tongue-in-cheek review of the Iowa primary in pictures...link here:

www.thoughttheater.com

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

Pray for Obama
Posted by: US Citizen on Jan 3, 2008 7:58 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Barack Obama is a remarkable man. I pray for him. He can use all the prayers he can get during this next year with all the racists, troubled young people, "shock" capitalists, and "security" consultants around.

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

» RE: Pray for Obama Posted by: Turiye
» RE: Pray for Obama Posted by: dmb8762
It is my hope
Posted by: hurricane hugo on Jan 3, 2008 8:05 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that Obama, Edwards and Clinton can all make it to Super Tuesday. Think about it - the 3 of them EACH got at least 30% of the vote. That's impressive, but it also indicates some pretty serious divisions among us; we need to have this argument on the largest stage possible.

plur

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

» RE: It is my hope Posted by: dantheman99
Cross-Voting?
Posted by: Mystery Solver on Jan 3, 2008 8:15 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama wins by eight points? Very Interesting. Why do I sense Republican cross-voting?

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

» Paranoia? Posted by: hurricane hugo
» RE: Paranoia? Posted by: EdinIowa
» RE: Cross-Voting? Posted by: Cooltruth
» RE: Cross-Voting? Posted by: xbj
This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.
» RE: Hey, Josh Posted by: Wexler
» RE: Hey, Josh Posted by: EdinIowa
» RE: Hey, Josh Posted by: Wexler
» RE: Hey, Josh and ED has MORE P********ke Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
From a precinct in NE Iowa
Posted by: EdinIowa on Jan 3, 2008 8:42 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yeah we had to contend with that coin toss that nobody4prez spoke of in his post in my precinct too.

I was in a small rural town precint in NE Iowa. My precinct had 4 delegates total. Complicating the issue, the adjacent precint was in the same room, they with 3 delegates available.

Total turnout 85 people, 43 from my precint, 42 from the other.

The results were :
Obama got about 22% of the total vote (16 votes) and 2 delegates, one from each precint.
Edwards and Clinton split the rest almost evenly. 35 for Edwards and 34 for Clinton. But thanks to that coin toss Hillary got 3 delegates and Edwards 2.

So the totals from these two precincts with 7 delegates total were:
Obama 2 delegates
Edwards 2 delegates
Clinton 3 delegates

That result in spite of the fact that Edwards actually got one more vote than Clinton and that Obama had only 22% of the vote. Had we been only a single precinct with 7 delegates available the result would've been 1 for Obama and 3 for both Clinton and Edwards.

I'm sure this all sounds like a confusing mess - and it was - and made worse by having both precincts in one room. I've been saying for some time that I think Iowa would be better off with a Primary and nothing tonight changes my mind. Nobody even really wanted to debate the issues, just get on with the vote. I put forth my argument just on the electability factor and the need to win DECISIVELY in November, without even getting to touch on Hillary's record. Everyone in the room agreed with that argument and Hillary's huge negatives, everyone except the Hillary supporters. They were unmoveable and it will be to the detriment of us all.

Another observation about the Hillary faction - they are, by and large, the oldest and least progressive of Iowa's registered Democrats. In short, they're the people who still get their news, almost exclusively from Brian Williams and Katie Couric, et al, and the daily rag of their local town.

(PS Of the non-viables early on, Biden, Richarson, etc, NONE of them switched over to Hillary.)

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

» RE: From a precinct in NE Iowa Posted by: EdinIowa
» RE: From a deep, dark precinct in NE Iowa Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
» RE: WOO HOO. From an ED lover. Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
Obama: Needs to Clarify Positions and Cut Rhetoric
Posted by: sofla100 on Jan 3, 2008 9:52 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Unlike Edwards, Obama's universal health care proposal is not clear, nor is he very clear about Iraq. But, I find the biggest problem with Obama to be his constant use of rhetoric, and that this takes away from the clarity of his positions. He comes across as elitist and too "new age like" for me. I am also worried about the gobs of cash coming his way, especially from the Wall Street firms. Nevertheless, if he is the Dem nominee, he would certainly be a lot better then Huckabee or whomever the Repubs. come up with. Presumably, if Obama becomes the nominee, his positions will have to become clarified and the rhetoric reduced, we will have to see.

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

So, do I have this right?
Posted by: Mr. Heathen on Jan 3, 2008 10:14 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
62% of the delegates went against Obama, so he's the winner?
YEEEEEAAAAAAAAAHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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

» RE: So, do I have this right? Posted by: Mike in L.A.
Chris Dodd for Senate Majority Leader
Posted by: brunowe on Jan 3, 2008 10:41 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He lost to Harry Reid in a prior attempt, but I'd like to see him try again with whatever visibility he's picked up from this and his efforts in the Senate.

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

At the end of your race.
Posted by: Captainmagic on Jan 4, 2008 2:51 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Vice president Clinton takes up office after President Obama cops the bullet. No pun intended.

Just how you do it over there is all. Go ahead tell me I am wrong. If not, remember it.

Captain OUT

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

» RE: At the end of your race. Posted by: OldRedleg
Huckleberry wins White House; US replaces fake Christian Luciferian Bush with REAL Christianist
Posted by: xbj on Jan 4, 2008 3:46 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Watch as racist Christianist and Neo-Nazi Red State Amerika pour out in droves to absolutely insure a black man named Barack Hussein Obama who swears his oath on the Koran instead of the Bible NEVER GETS WITHIN AN INCH OF THE WHITE HOUSE.

Congratulations, Iowa: you fell into Rove's trap; you picked his Tool.

Congratulations to the Democrat Party for INVENTING THEIR OWN NADER.

Rove, Bush, and Cheney are cackling tonight.

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

Who lost last night?
Posted by: JayHaden on Jan 4, 2008 4:32 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For the last several weeks the media presented us with just three-and-a-half Democratic candidates, based on polls. In the process, we lost the voices of Kucinich, Biden, Dodd and, of course, Gravel. Did the media conclude that we no longer wanted to hear what they had to say? Or did the media conflate the issue of electability with those of substance? Sure, the Dems narrowed the field last night, but they also shut down essential voices in their grand debate. From now on the consciences, experience and provocative contributions of the less popular candidates will count for little. Someone should be asking what we just lost, not who just won.

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

» RE: Who lost last night? Posted by: dayenta
» Kucinich didn't quit Posted by: truthteller
» RE: Kucinich didn't quit Posted by: brunowe
Incredible
Posted by: Tom Degan on Jan 4, 2008 4:54 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That the Republicans in Iowa would choose a fool like Mike Huckabee over someone with the overall gravitas of a John McCain is illustrative of the jaw-dropping stupidity of the idiots registered with that party. It just boggles the mind.

At least the Democrats in that state have a liitle more sense. The fact that they rejected the bells and whistles of the Clinton campaign fills me with hope.

FULL DISCLOSURE: I am a John Edwards supporter. I want to see him win this more than anything. However, I would be more than comfortable with Barack Obama at the top of the ticket. ANYONE BUT THE QUEEN OF THE FOCUS GROUPS!

Tuesday's primary in New Hampshire should solve everything.

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
"The Rant" by Tom Degan

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

» RE: Incredible Posted by: Cooltruth
» RE: Incredible Posted by: OldRedleg
» RE: Incredible Posted by: Cooltruth
» Tom, the consistent theme... Posted by: truthteller
Change the Title of this Article
Posted by: damaliayo on Jan 4, 2008 5:39 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My stomach turned with disgust as I opened the email from my favorite progressive news source I read the headline "Obama and Huck Win" that clearly references the novel Huckleberry Finn ostensibly evoking Obama in the role of Huck's "nigger" Jim.

As you state in your commenting rules:

"AlterNet will not tolerate:
* racist, sexist or other discriminatory or hateful language"

Please show that you believe this and change this retched allusion.

damali ayo

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

» RE: Change the Title of this Article Posted by: Joshua Holland
Change vs. Theocracy
Posted by: LeaderofMen on Jan 4, 2008 6:27 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As unrepresentative as IA might be for the US, eg, not a microcosm, one thing is very clear.

The choice is for utter change vs. the establishment of a theocracy.

The Republican party has been completely transformed into a Christian evangelical political party. We can thank Jerry Falwell for that back in 1980 with his Moral Majority.

Well, that transformation is now complete. The moderates have been thrown out. The current administration is filled with ill-educated Christians who use Bible study as their Rock. Not the Constitution. Not ethics. The Bible. That ancient Bronze Age rag.

Look at the stats for IA. Huckabee's MAIN supporters are evangelicals who don't want a Mormon but who do love Jesus more than their own mothers. Huckabee will NOT give up his religion. His moral authority comes from Jesus/God, not a document written by men during the Age of Enlightenment. Bible first, Constitution second. You can guarantee this because his backers KNOW IT ALREADY. They've been told this by their preachers and ministers. They've prayed and they've gotten their answer.

Bush was a pseudo-Christian just to get their backing. Huckabee is a REAL evangelical who hates gays, hates science, and loves war.

Liberals MUST read the Bible to understand where people like Huckabee come from. He takes a punitive view of everything. The voice in his 'I'm saved' head does NOT come from him, it comes from Jesus. Just talk to any person who truly thinks they're 'saved'. You will come away understanding that they have a voice inside them that is NOT theirs. At least that's what they believe. Huckabee is thus, the most dangerous candidate ever vaulted to the top of the Republican party - in our lifetimes - for that reason alone.

This IA event has proven one important thing to the me. Evangelicals are still out there, being loud, being obnoxious, being stupid and being as lazy as the day is long. They can't see past their beliefs, can't be bothered to actually read the despicable things written in the Bible, yet they have pressed for this man who will push to stop all abortions no matter what, who would rather push all gay people into the ocean than embrace them as humans or Americans, and who actually truly believes the Earth is only 6000 years old.

If Huckabee is even nominated for the GOP spot you will see a watershed moment in our history. It's us vs. them still. Us: those who desire true secular change. Them: knuckle-dragging evangelicals who have so much hate in their bodies it spills out to elect a preacher-first, and a politician-second.

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

» RE: Change vs. Theocracy Posted by: EncinoM
Scared
Posted by: US Citizen on Jan 4, 2008 6:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We are all scared for Obama's sake now. There are so many evil forces loose in the United States today, both official and unofficial.

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

» RE: Scared Posted by: babs
Jeeeezus Told Huckabee To Lie
Posted by: rgoalierob on Jan 4, 2008 6:54 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Apparently he wasn't all that against negative campaign ads.

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

New kind of campaign needed.
Posted by: chorton on Jan 4, 2008 7:12 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So the media narrowed the field to three "major candidates" almost a year ago, and with little subtlety squeezed the others' voices from the public discourse. The three anointed candidates all are big recipients of corporate cash, with histories of supporting and funding imperialist adventures abroad, long on rhetoric but muddled records. The Iowa Democrats - busy "triangulating" about who can win - predictably endorsed the three. Cash-strapped "lesser candidates" start to drop out and make their deals and their endorsements; Kucinich continues as the voice-in-the-wilderness candidate. Progressives are torn between resigned hope that something good can come of this media-concocted mess, efforts to delude ourselves that really Edwards means what he says or Obama will shed his corporate strings, grim determination that whomever the Democratic Party chooses will beat whatever Neanderthal emerges as Republican standard bearer, or cynical withdrawal.

Once again Kucinich was our only hope for something really different to happen, a real candidate of the people with courage and integrety. Once again that hope was placed on a candidate who doesn't seem to be able to make things happen, although it does seem to have spawned a viable Impeach Cheney campaign!

Folks, we need a real movement, and a very different kind of campaign.

To start with the campaign would start with organizing - a drawing together of leaders and activists from the 2003-2004 Kucinich campaign, maybe some from the Dean campaign, leaders from the drive to win back the House in 2006, labor, peace and environmental group leaders, etc., to agree on a program, a challenge for leadership of the DP. Candidates would be approached to be the standard bearer. I'd have loved to have seen Kucinich's campaign come out of such a process, but it would have been a test of whether he has it in himself to represent a movement, or can he only function as the Lone Ranger of the Left?

Next we would need to start organizing in communities, building our Reform Democratic Clubs, approaching leaders such as those of neighborhood groups, peace groups, ethnic community groups, tenants' groups, ecology issue groups, and most especially, most urgently, union locals, seeking opportunities to address their meetings, meet their members and seek their endorsement and participation.

Next, from the very beginning, we need to recognize that we have no friends - or even neutrals willing to give us an even break - with any power or influence in the corporate media. We would need to do an end-run around them, going directly to the people through national blogs and internet news sources, community blogs, radio and cable TV, weekly community papers, loud public pressure on local media outlets, but also through locally written, locally financed hand-distributed leaflets and posters, the old-fashioned way.

Then for the debates, we would need to apply maximum pressure to make sure our candidate was always included, demanding that the Democratic Party take control back from the media barons and give public interest groups (such as the League of Women Voters) control, and not being afraid to create a circus atmosphere to embarass them. When this fails we should not be afraid of using guerrilla theatre to grab some news coverage. I picture for example a travelling debate performance between, say, our Kucinich and wax figures of the "leading candidates", with DJ's skilled in debating standing by with a library of clips from their speeches to generate their responses, and others to make their jaws flap.

There are enough of us to do this. There is a whole country full of people sick of politics as usual, who are now getting another massive dose of it. Are we angry enough to do something really new next time? Are we willing to take a stand and make something new happen? What will it take?

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

Fearful for Obama
Posted by: zooeyhall on Jan 4, 2008 7:16 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a Democrat and a progressive, I do feel that Obama would have the best chance of defeating the Republicans in 08.

However, I live in rural Nebraska--right in the middle of Redneck, USA. And I want to tell everyone of the absolute, insane, frothing-at-the-mouth fury that the jerks out here have for Mr. Obama. It is truly scary! You'd have to actually hear it to believe it!

I don't even care to THINK about what level it might escalate to--if Obama takes the lead in the months ahead and the Fox-O'Reiley-Limbaugh propaganda machine really goes into overdrive.

We got young men out here who drive pickups with Timothy McVeigh's picture stenciled on the back window.

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

» RE: Fearful for Obama Posted by: lisaisalefty
» RE: Fearful for Obama Posted by: EdinIowa
C'mon, folks
Posted by: willymack on Jan 4, 2008 8:13 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The nominating process has only begun and we have those theorizing an Obama assination and who knows what else? I don't think Obama has the nomination in the bag or is even close-yet. Let's wait for the rest of the caucases/conventions/primaries to see how this all shakes out. Who knows? It may turn out altogether differently than any of us imagine. One thing for certain is that the Democratic field is infinitely better than the ship of fools on the rethug side.

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

LISTEN CAREFULLY!
Posted by: Voicedude on Jan 4, 2008 9:45 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
LISTEN CAREFULLY!

....because John Edwards is the ONLY candidate with the backbone, guts, & other necessary body parts to TELL IT LIKE IT IS! (sorry Ron Paul fans, but he's sounding more and more like Ross Perot every day: very right on a lot of things, and WA-A-AY off on others. Wait! Ron Paul......Ross Perot - hmmmmm....)
;^)

He doesn't fear what corporations will do to him (and they WILL counter, trust me) plus he has the passion and sincerity to see it through. He's not in the fatcats' pockets and unlike Obama (nice guy and all), Edwards has a PLAN, not just warm and fuzzy catch phrases. (seriously Obama - stop with the 'unite' and 'change' rhetoric and SAY something!) LISTEN CAREFULLY and you'll hear what I hear.

Mark my words: now that Edwards is seen as a REAL candidate, there will be major attacks against him in the following weeks and months. To me, it's a sign that the status quo is scared and scrambling...

I made my mind up a just few days ago and now his speech seals it for me: I WILL vote for and support John Edwards!

Like Chuck Berry says:
"GO JOHNNY, GO!"

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

» RE: LISTEN CAREFULLY! Posted by: dmb8762
» RE: LISTEN CAREFULLY! Posted by: OldRedleg
» RE: LISTEN CAREFULLY! Posted by: EdinIowa
Oh yeah! One question:
Posted by: Voicedude on Jan 4, 2008 9:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Forgive me for not knowing (I've been busy lately), but:

WHERE'S RUDY?

I didn't see his name listed at all! Did he drop out? I thought Giuliani was considered a 'front-runner', so what happened? I know Giuliani 'skipped' Iowa, but so did McCain who still got 13%. Heck, Ron Paul got 10%!

Were they not allowed to vote for him, or what?
Just askin'....

Anyone?.....anyone?....Beuhler?....anyone?...

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

» RE: Oh yeah! One question: Posted by: aonghus36
The Good ole South
Posted by: militaryhater on Jan 4, 2008 10:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The South will never support Obama and probably not Hillary. The Bible belt and the same confederate underlying thought that by the way is still alive and well. I have heard it from 'many many people' in the south. They have not forgotten.

Obama says nothing..just says..'Change will sweep across the land' great words no meaning...what change? None that I can see...he will keep soldiers in Iraq..got to protect that over a million dollar military base we built...plus the OIL wells..America..and all the candidates support us being there for the OIL by they way. Money talks. He wants to bomb the mountains in Pakistan..to get the Taliban...err..Al Qaeda as the Bushies want to call them. Why not say Taliban?

Anyways...it is a long road for Obama..it isn't over yet. Lack of substance..doesn't vote enough in the Senate, and what he has voted for and lack of enough foreign policy experience..he doesn't get my vote. We need experience, strength, a REAL country uniter, to really get America back to where we were before the Republicans ruined our country.

I see no Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the candidates that are left. We need someone with the vision and the guts to do this for us. We need the MIDDLE CLASS back and only a candidate with Mr. Roosevelt's vision can really save us, before the America our forefathers stood for is lost forever to the Rich, corporate paid off fools in our Government. Sadly, it looks bleak for most Americans....we are losing our country.

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

» RE: we are losing our country Posted by: EdinIowa
» RE: The Good ole South Posted by: dmb8762
» RE: The Good ole South Posted by: EdinIowa
Paul to rebound in NH
Posted by: CUnknown on Jan 4, 2008 11:52 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Paul's showing in Iowa is sort of disappointing, but it is roughly what the straw polls predicted he would receive, so perhaps it's not that bad after all. If things keep matching the straw polls, Paul will win or come in second in NH, setting himself up for a run at the nomination along with Romney and Huckabee.. and others .. really it's a 5-man race at this point on the Rep side.

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

From a Central Iowa precinct
Posted by: alphakat on Jan 4, 2008 1:42 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We had over twice as many attend this year's caucus in my precinct as last time. Small town Iowa near Des Moines.

First round:

Obama 48
Clinton 37
Edwards 34
Richardson 21
Biden 9
Kucinich 3
Dodd 0

After realigning:

Obama 51
Edwards 39
Clinton 37
Richardson 25

The people in Obama's preference group were decidedly younger than everyone on the whole. Richardson's group was the only one to mention the Iraq war. (and he got the Kucinich group on round 2) Biden split half and half about between Edwards and Obama.

We had 7 available delegates:

Edwards 2
Clinton 2
Obama 2
Richardson 1

I was surprised to see Obama ahead by as much as he was overall across the state at the end of the night given how close it was in my precinct. Everyone I've talked to has said it was dead even in their precincts as well. ???

I fear Republicans are loving this. They will eat Obama for breakfast. I've seen him in person several times and he's not nearly as impressive as he's being pumped up to be. I hope the rest of the country gets this corrected in the coming weeks.

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

How many people are even aware of this?
Posted by: EdinIowa on Jan 5, 2008 11:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Tyranny of Super-Delegates
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/05/6189/

That's 842 "Super-Delegates" out of a total of 4,049 delegates with 2,025 delegates needed to win the party's nomination.

842 Establishment Democrats who get to control 40% of the vote needed to nominate the party's candidate.

"democratic" party my ass.

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

what if Bushevik backers believe DEMOCRACY isn't the GOAL STATE?
Posted by: BlueBerry PickN on Jan 7, 2008 11:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
MAYBE cases like Edmonds, Shine& Seigelman are SYMPTOMS?

"corruption is why we win"
??
imagine the SOCIAL CONSEQUENCE IF the KKK took a swing @ Obama or WE *were simply made to believe* someone *might*
??:
US Congress believed there would be a Summer attack
& continues to reel under the Anthrax Killer

if you thought 9/11 sent Americans shrieking over the Brink
what would happen if the REAL Bushevik backers' desire was further reductions in freedoms & rights? what if Bush's backers want something sinister?

what if the point isn't POLITICAL PARTIES, but merely Security & Social Controls?
===
World's Top Surveillance Societies
"Privacy International, a UK privacy group, & the U.S.-based Electronic Privacy Information Center have put together a world map of surveillance societies, rating various nations for their civil liberties records.
Both the US... colored black for "endemic surveillance," as are Thailand, Taiwan, Singapore, Russia, China & Malaysia."
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA report
-No right to privacy in constitution, though search & seizure protections exist in 4th Amendment; case law on government searches has considered new technology
-No comprehensive privacy law, many sectoral laws; though tort of privacy
-FTC continues to give inadequate attention to privacy issues, though issued self-regulating privacy guidelines on advertising in 2007
-State-level data breach legislation has proven to be useful in identifying faults in security
-REAL-ID & biometric identification programs continue to spread without adequate oversight, research, & funding structures
-Extensive data-sharing programs across federal government & with private sector
-Spreading use of CCTV
-Congress approved presidential program of spying on foreign communications over U.S. networks ... & now considering immunity for telephone companies, while government claims secrecy, thus barring any legal action
-No data retention law as yet, but equally no data protection law
-World leading in border surveillance, mandating trans-border data flows
-Weak protections of financial & medical privacy; plans spread for 'rings of steel' around cities to monitor movements of individuals
-Democratic safeguards tend to be strong but new Congress & political dynamics show that immigration & terrorism continue to leave politicians scared & without principle
-Lack of action on data breach legislation on the federal level while REAL-ID is still compelled upon States has shown that states can make informed decisions
-Recent news regarding FBI biometric database raises particular concerns as this could lead to the largest database of biometrics around the world that is not protected by strong privacy law"
=
maybe the ELECTION & primaries are about the Republicans picking the MOST BELIEVABLE Republican 'win'
as wonderful as ANY Democrat might be
there is STILL ELECTION FRAUD.
Arrive with FIVE
& bring your vid'camera!

maybe there is more to this problem than simply WINNING back election integrity

THEN Bushevik BACKERS would be permanently in the position to do *whatever they want*, without bothering with meddlesome Democracy & political parties
=
BlueBerry Pick'n
ThisCanadian

[« 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