What Obama's Iowa Win Means for Everyone

I really hope he is what he pretends to be...
Too many times, politicians says X to be elected and then do Y once elected.
And the fact that he is a cousin of Cheney is a tricky fact!
It seems they are all from the same "club"; a bit like Kerry and Bush are both in the "secret" Skull and Bones society. Seemed like you were given a choice in the elections but, in the end, they might be both the same...
Democracy nowdays: You have a "choice" between X, X and X.

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

Of course he would be a great replacement for the current fellow in the office, but much will not change. It is a great thing to see Whiteyville, USA choose an African American- something I was not expecting. That in itself is a reason for some optimism that the masses that have become Clueless America may start to question much more. It would be a great thing to have a president of color, but this isn't one with the right game plan. Kucinich was on the mark but Big Media spoke long ago to take him out of the game. So now it's back to settling for one of the candidates Big Media already ok'ed (It's like the music industry deciding they will turn Britney Spears into a star musician and you can only buy her CD, Vanilla Ice's, or ...Milli Vanilli's)
Dejavu

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

I'm not too sure Obama's Iowa win means as much as the author seems to indicate. After all, those same "down home, folksy, farm-fed, Midwestern, and 92 percent white" Iowans also voted overwhelmingly for Mike Huckabee.

Keep an eye on the other same of the equation, folks. Don't let this thing turn into a battle of the corporate-owned (Obama or Clinton) versus the theocrats in November. Either way, or worse both, will signal a sure end to our dwindling constitutional protections. Both are just two of the signs indicative of the slippage into a fascist state.

Don't let this happen.

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

Sorry to rain on the parade but this weird homage to Obama and fantasyland America from A. Huffington sounds about as real as a Federal Reserve Note.

Obama is owned by the same corporate parasites that run the Clintons, Edwards, BushCo, etc, etc... Fascism at home and abroad with more death billions earmarked for bogus Big Oil "war on terror" by way of repressive police “security” state measures are what Obama and rest signed on for via their voting records.

Arriana merely yodels off the mainstream media song sheet.

The truth is American sheep can’t face that their shepherd is a wolf. One with 9/11 blood on his face and fiat war cash in pocket made on the misery and death of others.

Whoever is anointed by monopoly media as “electable” to ultimate victory will play the stooge wrapped in the flag for the usual gang of multinational Fascist suspects.

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

As I post this, I see that LookOut’s has a rating of 1. Yet, he is on topic and giving a clear explanation as to why there is disagreement with the essay. This is why I find the rating systems useless for critical thinking; it’s all a matter of preference voting.

I, too, keep reminding people that the earliest supporters of Obama in this campaign were Warren Buffett and David Geffen, two very wealthy white men with tremendous corporate interest in the outcome of the presidential election. Other people keep reminding me that Obama’s votes on issues of Iraq after he entered the U.S. Senate were not as anti-war as people want to think. Obama was not in office to vote on the original act on military authorization so he can proclaim his opposition all he wants; it does not have the same power as when Rep. Dennis Kucinich says he was against military action from the beginning.

The day after the 2004 election, I heard many people claim they should have paid attention to the issues. Yet, throughout the past year of listening to Obama and talking with his supporters, I can tell you issues are nowhere in sight. His call center script for the days before the caucus stressed how he would bring change, i.e., by getting rid of corporate lobbyists. Even if he managed to do that, it does not mean corporate interests would cease influencing the White House, nor does it say anything about all the non-profit groups that have the same inside track on helping write and push legislation.

For real change, Obama should be talking about reducing the influence of corporate personhood. He should say that a green (as in environmentally-friendly) city should have a public transit system that really serves the population, not just established downtown companies.

I heard the message of hope and excitement when the media tripped over themselves for Bill Clinton in 1992, then wiped egg off their faces for the next four years. I heard the message of hope and excitement when Democrats thought anybody could beat George W. Bush, then spent the last four years dwelling in their past misery. Iowa is far more diverse than people realize; there is much more difference in voting based on economics and other values than on skin color than people realize or the media lets through filters. But can we get more issues discussed and have a wider desire for our future than that somebody wants to give us hope?

One more thing, Obama ran television ad after ad that claims he passed legislation - not wrote, not supported, not endorsed - he passed it, apparently all by himself. In addition, he had an ad using his talk to car makers about CAFÉ standards, not a new idea, and claims he will tell people what they need to hear, not what they want to hear. Yet, all he did throughout the entire campaign in Iowa was tell people what they wanted to hear - hope and change; he did not say anything about giving up SUVs, saving money, renting instead of buying housing, investing in their neighbors’ new businesses instead of buying Microsoft or KBR stock through mutual funds.

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

Huckleberry wins White House; US replaces fake Christian Luciferian Bush with REAL Christianist as Democrats chase "Can't-win" Obama down the rabbit hole and over the cliff.

Just 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]

" America, its vision distorted by the mushroom clouds conjured by Bush and Cheney, made a collective sprint to the bomb shelters in our minds, our lizard brains responding to fear rather than hope."

It Makes me so mad! Being lumped into a collective "we" or "our," that is. Not evey American bought into the fear tactic spewed forth by Bush & Co. I and many others have maintained right along that Bush & Co. are the true terrorists this country must face. No bomb-laden man or woman of Middle Eastern persuasion could ever dream of causing the death, destruction, havoc, corruption, and world-wide trauma that these home-grown elite madmen have unleashed. Lizard brains indeed! I'd say that the true lizards are in the White House, but that would be an insult to lizards, who are ultimately innocent.

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

Bill Clinton speculated about the cause of a possible loss of the election for Hillary, and the author disagreed, and offered his own half-baked notions. I believe that, if Hillary loses, it'll have been media that struck the final blow. Media, especially the media gas bags, the whores, Chris Matthews, Tim Russert, Wolf Blitzer, etc., are the true causes. It was Russert, in CNN's pretense of a debate, that was the first successful effort to draw blood. Hillary was hounded by Russert to an astonishing degree. He placed her in the most embarrassing possible circumstances, by asking her a question, about driver's licences for immigrants, that could not have been answered in a half hour, let alone the 1 or 2 minutes alloted to candidates. He then proceeded to attack her over and over again, to such a degree that he seemed to lose touch with the debate entirely, or that other candidates existed, so feverish and maniacal was his attack on her. CNN has been running a non-stop attack on Hillary. Last night, during the Iowa caucuses, Wolf Blitzer, kept Hillary off his program entirely, refusing to show a promotional clip from her campaign, even though he showed clips from all the other campaigns. During the caucus evening, he would not mention her name, he would not show a picture of her, he blacked her out completely. The only time she got attention, was when it was to demean and insult her. Whatever people were on Wolf's coverage of the caucuses, were also Hillary haters, that directed their venom on her nonstop. How on earth can a candidate run a campaign on a level playing field with powerful media networks working constantly to insult and demean her? This, on top of the attacks from the other candidates, and from the right-wing nut jobs, that are constantly feeding us their twisted lunacy about her. This was done, so that she would have as little influence on this campaign as a media network could produce against her; a campaign which was merely a caucus that involved .1% at best, of Iowa voters.

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

I'm very glad to see that virtually no one posting about this article is falling for Ariana's crap.

Things are really bad out there, folks, with all sorts of widespread, devastating calamities -- most of them financial -- on the way.

The job of the 'left-gatekeepers' like Huffington and AlterNet is to pretend to fight the 'establishment', while in actuality they're supporting the same "everything is fine" fantasy as the PTB.

Obama fits very well into this mold by giving some of the disaffected the illusion that America is becoming a more "progressive" place because a half-black man is a major political figure. Don't believe the hype. Not only is he just as "bought" as the rest of them, but he'll never be 'elected' anyway.

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

I wish Obama was it, but he seems more interested in being "bipartisan" and "compromising" with the rabid right.

I'll vote for the man, I will, but I don't expect him to be a progressive champion. His actions (policies, voting record, rhetoric, lobbyist ties) all indicate that he'll be in the Harry Reid-mold of "Democrats," in effect.

We'll find what he's made of if he decides to grant a pardon to Bush and Cheney or not. I want those bastards brought to justice for what they've done to our country--and the world.

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

Obama-Richardson in 08?

The Dems stand up for minorities, the urban masses and those in the near suburbs suffering from the disinvestment in America's public goods?

Huckabee wins the GOP nomination and runs for the white laboring middle class struggling to pay their taxes, mortgage and kid's college tutition while Mitt Romney plots to send their jobs overseas?

08 might yet turn out alright.

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

the Democrats' race being nothing more than a choice between a woman and a person of color, each with serious imperfections.

If Obama wins the nomination, the gloves will come off. Yes, there is less racism but it certainly still exists.

On the positive side, Hillary's not the winner.

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

We have a female speaker, a female and a black as front runners in a presidential race... this country has come along way.. Obama may not win and this may be the worst congress in years but the fundemental changes in the past year are historic.

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

Paul Street says it better than I can.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=11936

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

Full Disclosure:
I am a John Edwards supporter and I really hope that he wins this thing. Having said that, let me say this: Barack Obama's victory in Iowa last night fills me with hope. I'd be more than happy with him at the top of the ticket. What tickles me more thna anything imaginable is the fact that the Democratic voters of Iowa rejected the shallow, meaningless candidacy of Hillary Clinton. That very fact alone fills me with joy!!! I'm giddy. Forgive me.

If Barack ends up winning this thing - and there is every reason to believe that he just might - we're all going to have to work overtime to ensure that he is the next president of the United States. Don't forget that this coumtry of ours is just chock full of nuts, racists and fools.

QUESTION:
Is this country ready for a Black president?

ANSWER:
This country has been ready for a black president since the day Shirley Chisolm announced her candidacy in 1972.

This country has been ready for a Black president since the day Martin Luther King declared, "I have a dream".

This country has been ready for a Black president since 1947 when Harry S. Truman desegragated the armed forces.

This country has been ready for a Black president since that day in 1937 when soprano Marion Anderson stood on the steps of the Licoln Memorial and sang, "My Country 'Tis Of Thee".

This country has been ready for a Black President since that night in 1901 President Theodore Roosevelt invited George Washington Carver to dinner at the White House.

This country has been ready for a Black President since January 1, 1863 when Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation becane the law of the land.

This country has been ready for a Black President since that day in 1776 when Crispus Attucks - a Black man - became the first man to fall in the Revolutionary War - the first human being to die for this country

Yeah. America has been ready for a Black president for a very, very long time. Hats off to Barack Obama for waking us up to the fact.

Cheers!

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]

I would venture to say that the vast majority of posters here are over 35 and buy into the bipartisan vitriol that has dominated our political discourse over the past 30 years or so. I used to so I recognize it.

Obama represents a generational shift. The belief that positive change can occur when the two sides stop demonizing each other has legs with people under 35. They are sick of the level of discourse us oldsters have been perpetuating.

I am not forgetting the last seven years or the tremendous damage done. I am looking to the future, though and believe that Obama is the person to move us all, as a country, beyond that damage.

As for being in the pocket of the corporatists, I dispute that too. The fact that Warren Buffet and David Geffen have supported him does not mean he is in their pocket.

Barack Obama will not be perfect. But if you research his voting record, you'll find much to like. Obama has the best environmental record of all the candidates. Period. He sponsored and passed ethics legislation in Illinois, the first in 25 years. We all know what his war stance was in 2002. He actually marched in support of the immigrants' in 2006. His biography speaks volumes and his books are an eloquent testament to a political philosophy that has actually stood up to present-day politics as usual. Please just open your minds to this possibility. You may be surprised.

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

Let's not forget that Edwards polled slightly higher than Clinton, and a lot of Iowa Democrats were buying neither Obama or Clinton. I'm not sure why Huffington is dismissive of Edwards, but he represents a huge block of progressives and disenfranchised whites.If he gets pushed out, those voters must go somewhere.

Among the twenty-odd New Yorkers I watched with last night, the vote was split almost evenly between Obama and Edwards with three votes for Richardson (the Biden guy dropped on the first round of straw votes.) Not a single vote for Hillary in a group that was half female, which should tell you something.

With Dodd and Biden dropping out, the conversation is going to get a whole lot more focused on the remaining candidates. I'm waiting to see who's going to get out of Iraq first, restore habeas corpus, and stand up to the oil interests so we can save this planet.

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

I'm not a big fan of Obama. It seems so many democratic voters are only concerned with gender or race (yes, I would love to see a minority or a woman elected president, but not every minority or woman is a good choice).

Increasingly it seems Barak is owned by the same corporate sponsors as Hillary and most Republicans.

And more importantly it seems Obama is not ready for the fight this country needs to have.

Sure America is finally growing tired of the right-wing vitriol spewed on Fox News and the rest of the MSM, but that's largely because they've seen through the B.S. that's behind it.

Righteous anger, and girding oneself for a noble battle is not the same thing.

I'm encouraged by Edwards' 2nd place finish and even with all my concerns about Obama, I'm encouraged that both of these candidates beat out the only Democratic candidate I absolutely CAN NOT vote for in a general election should she become the nominee. Not because she's a woman, but because she's a war-mongering corporatist.

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

Wonder what cabin the very corporate-owned Obama will be assigned to at the Boho Grove? I don't think this is the dream Dr. King had in mind.....

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

I would like to know how many posters here actually LIVE in IOWA? What was the message YOU heard? What did the candidates say to YOU? The rest of us are living vicariously and thinking and opinionating about what WE want instead of what our interactions have BEEN.

Personally, I'm happy for the Obama win - it means that people in IOWA want something different. Perhaps people in New Hampshire will NOT want something different. To me, this means that not everybody has bought into the Bush doctrine at home - that we all still have some choices left and some of us are making a choice or sending a message. The year is young yet.

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

A campaign between Huckabee and Obama might be the sanest campaign we have ever seen. Both seem to be more genuine than any of their opponents. I think that the country could do worse.

Smashing all opponents with dire, fear-mongering accusations is not the same thing as exhibiting (or having) discernment. Another one of those campaigns will destroy the morale of the country. We can't afford it. These two men show signs of being able to have a coherent discussion.

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

Melissa and Ken,

Something wonderful happened last night in Iowa. Your generation came out in large numbers-many for the first time- to provide a decisive political win to a black man in the predominantly white state of Iowa.

THIS WAS TRULY AN HISTORIC MOMENT IN US HISTORY.

We are fortunate to live in a nation where this could happen- and happen peacefully. When many of us were about to give up on this nation something like this happens making me personally very happy and very hopeful.

Not to lay a trip on you but it seems it is your generation’s turn to lead. The proverbial torch is being passed.

I know you will do what is right for our great nation. The best of my generation and my parent’s generation stand with you.

Love Always,

Dad

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

What was that? Obama a cousin of Cheney! Where in the hell did that come from? We should clear our minds from this moment to election day. There is a lot of smart-shits out there trying to control those who might grab on anything negative. We will never bring America back if we so easily permit the mind grabers to control our decisions. And believe me, there will be thousands of them thrown into the web sites... from now to election day! The State of Iowa has given the
American voters a new path to follow... and it is now up to each of us to place one foot ahead of the other.... and continue to reach, and be a moving part, in a new World to live in.

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

Just saying "hope" doesn't really mean anything.

Sure we could "wish upon a star" and hope for a return trip to Kansas after clicking our heels but this ain't the movies. There's reality to deal with and just stretching out our "hearts filled with hope" has no meaning whatsoever. So let's take a look at what we can expect if Obama were to be elected. Who would he turn to for policy and advise cause he sure ain't going to be the one writing policy:

ALLAN NAIRN: Well, Obama’s top adviser is Zbigniew Brzezinski. Brzezinski gave an interview to the French press a number of years ago where he boasted about the fact that it was he who created the whole Afghan jihadi movement, the movement that produced Osama bin Laden. And he was asked by the interviewer, “Well, don’t you think this might have had some bad consequences?” And Brzezinski replied, “Absolutely not. It was definitely worth it, because we were going after the Soviets. We were getting the Soviets.” Another top Obama person—

AMY GOODMAN: I think his comment actually was, “What’s a few riled-up Muslims?” And this, that whole idea of blowback, the idea of arming, financing, training the Mujahideen in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets, including Osama bin Laden, and then when they’re done with the Soviets, they set their sights, well, on the United States.

ALLAN NAIRN: Right. And later, during Bill Clinton’s administration, during the Bosnia killing, the US actually flew some of the Afghan Mujahideen, the early al-Qaeda people—the US actually arranged for them to be flown from there to Bosnia to fight on the Muslim/NATO side.

Another key Obama adviser, Anthony Lake, he was the main force behind the US invasion of Haiti in the mid-Clinton years during which they brought back Aristide essentially in political chains, pledged to support a World Bank/IMF overhaul of the economy, which resulted in an increase in malnutrition deaths among Haitians and set the stage for the current ongoing political disaster in Haiti.

Another Obama adviser, General Merrill McPeak, an Air Force man, who not long after the Dili massacre in East Timor in ’91 that you and I survived, he was—I happened to see on Indonesian TV shortly after that—there was General McPeak overseeing the delivery to Indonesia of US fighter planes.

Another key Obama adviser, Dennis Ross. Ross, for many years under both Clinton and Bush 2, a key—he has advised Clinton and both Bushes. He oversaw US policy toward Israel/Palestine. He pushed the principle that the legal rights of the Palestinians, the rights recognized under international law, must be subordinated to the needs of the Israeli government—in other words, their desires, their desires to expand to do whatever they want in the Occupied Territories. And Ross was one of the people who, interestingly, led the political assault on former Democratic President Jimmy Carter. Carter, no peacenik—I mean, Carter is the one who bears ultimate responsibility for that Timor terror that Holbrooke was involved in. But Ross led an assault on him, because, regarding Palestine, Carter was so bold as to agree with Bishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa that what Israel was doing in the Occupied Territories was tantamount to apartheid. And so, Ross was one of those who fiercely attacked him.

Another Obama adviser, Sarah Sewall, who heads a human rights center at Harvard and is a former Defense official, she wrote the introduction to General Petraeus’s Marine Corps/Army counterinsurgency handbook, the handbook that is now being used worldwide by US troops in various killing operations. That’s the Obama team.

More here:
LINK

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

The way you guys are ripping the candidates to peices is really savage. I would prefer america to have obama but the way some of you guys go on it seems that alot of you would prefer a hobo with no financial backing be dragged into the white house to spew abuse at the rich and business world. Some form of social justice could be restored but the way candidates are dismissed as being in the pockets of big business is crazy. Its almost as though this selection process just gives the reps the ammo they need to pump into the successful demo candidate at the actual election. Instead of unity your system seems to encourage major division.

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

sorry mate have a look at any political team i dont think its a bunch of clean cut individuals whose only crime was having one or two many eggnogs at christmas. fair enough you think his team is dirty but i would argue that many people have made hard and aggressive decisions in their political career, maybe you feel they made mistakes that were too big thats understandable. The one thing I would say is funding the mujahadeen was the right call the blowback from it was a result of other policies´.

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

There's a long way to go, but this is a great start!! :)

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

The 'greatest' at what? Assassinating Presidents or those who aspire to be President?

The 'greatest' using George Orwell's Animal Farm as our bible and constitution as in the Warren Commission outrage at 'conspiring' to conclude that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gun man in Dallas to preclude any attempt at exposing two or more people who actually planned and carried out the murder of my President.

The 'greatest' at mimicking Hitler's Reichstag Fire with 911 and the subsequent 'patriot act' and 'war powers act' and the preemptive wars against the sovereign nations of Afghanistan and Iraq only to have the fbi's terrorism expert say there is no evidence that Osama bin Laden was linked in any way to the events of 911.

The 'greatest' at breaking every treaty ever signed with the Indian Tribes of America.

The 'greatest' at hoodwinking the American People on Pearl Harbor and the Tonkin Gulf.

The 'greatest' avoidance of the first five words of the Bill of Rights; Congress shall make no law.....

The 'greatest' at believeing anyone will say anything to get elected and then we don't do a damn thing about it when they go fork-tonged on us.

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

Barack Osama(sp?) is a Back alley candidate created by Warren Buffett,Soros, and Oprah. I pray to G-D that the media is not as strong as i think it is in regard to what we think and do. Barack would be a disaster for the United States and would hasten the downfall of our precious Country.
Barack's hidden adjenda, partially shown by his swearing in on the Quran instead of the bible is a clear sign of how far we have slipped away from the founding values of our Country and our beliefs. We are allowing "Political correctness" to open the doors to any islamic or other fanatical cause to enter.
We need to stop this foolish endeavor by the "Billionaires " and "Globalists" of this country to bring us back to the "Dark Ages" where we have no control over our existance. We are well on the road to being "Serfs" as it is and another "Yes" president as Osama(sp?) will be to his backers will be the final nail in our coffin.
Please America, wake up before it's too late. We must stop this rape of our country and our value system.
I never thought i would live to see me vote for a "Libertarian" but i firmly believe now that the only alternative to our Sovereignty is the election of a "Ron Paul" and the total replacement of our "Do nothing congresses".
G-D Bless America!!!

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

there will be change is economic upheaval. Would FDR been such a humanist in his policies if he had not been crippled in his prime? Had not the economy virtually collapsed? When the stock market goes down 50%, when houses are worth half, THEN AND ONLY THEN will there be meaningful change> The corporate elite will give you nothing, ever.

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

While I prefer Edwards and much enjoyed his post-Caucus speech, I have to congratulate Obama and his team. It would have been gracious of Edwards to congratulate Obama by name during his speech, but it is true that the Democrats want forward looking change, not a return to Clintonian triangulation.

This result is bad for Hillary not fatal, if she learns from it and reinvents herself as the agent of change and not the establishment, it can help her. She still has tremendous institutional support and has the possibility to recover.

Iowa can start a trend or it can be sidelined by New Hampshire.

The most encouraging thing for Democrats is the turnout.

I like Obama. I'm not happy with his health care proposals for not being universal. But any proposed health care plan will change by the time it is submitted.

I am very encouraged that a 95% white state can vote for an African-American to win.

I still prefer Edwards overall.

While I am sure Iowans make an informed choice, I think every other American of every other state also can make informed choices and no one state should have this much power and influence in choosing a President.

After this circus for this small state, in 2012 we need one national primary day in the Spring with a direct popular vote in November and a runoff if no one gets 50% of the vote.

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

What a bunch of sore losers you all are!! And all I can say is read Obama's books, they will tell you who this man is - honest, progressive, intelligent - he may get some funding from the "fat cats" but most of it comes from people like me - incomes ranging from zero to $50,000 - and we are the people he will represent. And he will tell the world that there is a new America!

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

Regardless of whether "your" candidate won last night, I think we should all be celebrating -- the huge, historical turnout, the engagement of young people in unprecedented numbers, and yes, that Barak Obama received the most votes in almost all white Iowa.

And on to New Hampshire...New Hampshire which four days ago became the fourth New England state to perform civil unions for same sex couples, with barely any protest or even much news coverage.And so, I hope in these last few days of frantic campaigning in New Hampshire, the candidates are asked, in addition to questions about Iraq, the budget, and so on, explicit questions about their support for ENDA, marriage equality, and hate crimes legislation, and that the good people of New Hampshire vote for candidates who explicitly support full inclusion of all people, regardless of their sexual or gender identities.

Rev. Debra Haffner

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

The media are like sheep all following the same tune, as Iowa goes so goes the rest of the country. I wonder what the media will report after N.H. and So. Carolina. Will they be saying the "comeback kid, Hillary" or sorry folks, we were wrong to coronate Obama?
There is a lot wrong with America especially when the wrong person is made President. Each of the Democratic candidates wants to right the wrongs of the Bush Administration. But, who is best equipped to do it and, who is better positioned to beat a John McCain or Any republican candidate? I say it's Hillary.

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

I smell a Republican in the woodpile.

Can you say, "crossover votes"?

I knew you could.

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

They just have a different way of going about it. The political field is kept narrow, and our political discourse even narrower, because it is dominated by a false fear of a Republican victory later this year. It's like Hegel says in the introduction to The Phenomenology of Spirit, "Should we not be concerned as to whether this fear of error is not just the error itself? Indeed, this fear takes something---a great deal in fact---for granted as truth, supporting its scruples and inferences on what is itself in need of prior scrutiny to see if it is true ... what calls itself fear of error reveals itself rather as fear of the truth" (Paragraph 74).

I think Democrats have to call out their own fear-mongering in the same way that Hegel here calls out philosophers before him for effectively wanting to learn to swim before or without getting in the water. We are afraid that our political discourse and efficacy is in danger, and in that fear we give it all up. It's not unlike when Benjamin Franklin said that those who would give up any of their essential liberties for some security deserve neither of them. Democrats and Americans as a whole have to grow up, because in the name of their hallowed self-government they allow themselves to be governed by something that is other than themselves. Unlike what most small-state proponents think, this something is not the government or even the media; it is an other voice internal to us that we posit out of something like what Hegel calls a fear of truth; Freud would have called it "super-ego." It is a fear of democratic politics, a fear of the responsibility implicit in self-government, that drives pluralist elections and "electability."

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

The message from Iowa yesterday was simple and deafening:

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

In short, if you had something to do with keeping us in this bloody bestial occupation for four-plus years, you will not be 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 don't believe Senator Clinton was ever really for this war. But she continued to do what she thought was the politically expedient thing to get elected. And she was terribly wrong. She had voted her calculator instead of her conscience.

John Edwards was supposed to have come in a distant third. He had been written off. He was outspent by the other front-runners six to one. But somewhere along the line he discarded his politico hack jacket and turned back into a real person, a fighter for the poor, for the uninsured, for peace. And he was rewarded! He came in a surprise second, ending up with just one less delegate than Obama, who was against the war from the beginning.

What an amazing night, not just for Barack Obama, but for America. Senator Obama is so much more than simply the color of his skin and all of us must acknowledge and celebrate the fact that one of the whitest states in the U.S. just voted for a black man to be our next president. Thank you, Iowa, for this historic moment of courage. This is a proud moment for your state. Using Barack Obama as a vessel, you said loud and clear "Bring 'Em Home!"

This modest Red State is beginning to look very Blue! The Repukes were walking and stammering like criminals on a perp walk. They know their days of power are over. They know their Daddy Warbucks guy blew it. Their only hope was to vote for a man who claims to have a direct line to heaven. Huckabee is their savior. Just ask any Evangelical!

Iowa Hawkeyes may go blue! But remember Barack, you can talk all you want about "let's put the partisanship aside, let's all get along," but the repukes have no intention of being anything but the cretinous bullies they are. Get your game face on for that next lily-white state called New Hampshire. And, by the way, divest yourself of Big Pharm money. They are getting deeper into you than you are letting us know.

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

Please give peace a chance and consider voting for Ron Paul. Especially as the primary process continues and if Obama looks to be solidifying his win, switching support to Paul makes perfect sense -- he is far and away the best Republican candidate, and the best person for Obama to be running against.

Even if you like Obama, voting in the primary for Paul and in the general election for Obama is a great strategy for the best chance of a good outcome in 2008.

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

What change does Obama represent? Other then the fact he is black and is doing very well in the presidential primaries, he is almost identical to Hillary Clinton politically.

Here are the facts Huffington conveniently ignored:

- On NBC's Meet The Press, Obama stated: "There is not much of a difference between my position on Iraq and George Bush's position."

- Obama endorsed Joe Lieberman over anti-war candidate Ted Lamont.

- Obama has an almost identical voting record as Hillary Clinton.

- Obama voted for re-authorizing the patriot act and continued to fund the Iraq war until recently.

- Obama gets tons of money from nuclear, military, coal, and private insurance interests.

- Obama stated all options are on the table against Iran and also stated he would expand our military to unprecedented levels.

Huffington must be naive if she thinks Obama winning is a win for everyone. This is an example of poor journalism. All hype and no facts. So yeah, we can all buy in to the vague, often meaningless, inspirational messages Obama claims to represent. Or we can look at what he actually stands for. It's called substance. Something real journalists are suppose to provide.

I am disappointed at many so called "progressives" falling for the fake image progressive image of Obama. What's next? Is Bill Clinton a progressive now too? Has Huffington even read Obama's books? If so, one could easily realize he is not a progressive candidate. Stop misleading the progressive community!

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

is in Naomi Klein's new book.
Neolieberalism does not work without torture.
End of story.

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

I'm a little confused by all the anti corporate sponsor talk.

Unless my reading skills are not what I thought...I'm fairly sure every single candidate (democrat, republican, independent...Ron Paul) has accepted some money from a corporate sponsor for their campaign. EVERY ONE.

So who exactly do you want me to vote for again?
The candidates who aren't in corporate pockets? right...right...and so who would that be?

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

There is an overwhelming support for Obama on this website, but little of Hillary.
I smell an agenda, perhaps known as;"to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds"
I hope i am wrong as I really value this web site??!

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

I do not know who started this crazy rumor, but several people on this blog seem to be under the false impression that Barack Obama is a Muslim. In actuality, he is a Christian. I know this for a fact because I am a member of his church, Trinity United Church of Christ, in Chicago. If you are curious, then go the website http://www.tucc.org/home.htm and you can check out the church for yourself. Obama even mentions conversations that he had with Pastor Wright in Obama's autobiography.

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

"...at this defining moment in history..."

Listen to Obama's speech, if you'd like.

You have to love American politicians and their victory speech's. If you listen, you can the immortal word of the tyrant, "Ein Volk; ein Reich; ein Fuhrer."

Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil...

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

Obama's win guarantees another zionist puppet will continue with needless military adventures (remember Obama said he'd attack Pakistan). Unfortunately it took segregationist Governor Wallace to reveal the truth that "there's not a dime's worth of difference between" Republicans and Democrats. The Democrats willingly went along with the War in Iraq, suspension of Habeas Corpus, detaining protesters, banning books like America Deceived (book) from Amazon, stealing private lands (Kelo decision), warrant-less wiretapping and refusing to investigate 9/11 properly. They are both guilty of treason.
Support Dr. Ron Paul and save this great nation.

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

There's only one reason I think he's the only one who would.

He's an outsider.

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

I helped with registration the Jan. 3 caucuses in my precinct, and was disgusted by many of the flamboyant Obama supporters there. Many of the Obama supporters not already on the Democrat registration list, and were changing their addresses to vote in the Iowa Democratic caucuses, had curiously "just moved here" from out of state. Some of these activists were slapping Obama stickers on non-Obama supporters as they walked in, looking over the chairman's shoulder and interfering with his work, and attempting to impersonate one of us helpers signing people in. Deja vu from the 2004 Howard Dean campaign?

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

Reading many of the comments on this thread is most discouraging. Aside from all the cynicism and the holier-than-thou put-downs of a remarkable person and an amazing achievement, there's also some pretty blatent misinformation that is probably typical of what we'll be hearing from the fringes of wing-nut-topia if and when Obama clinches the nomination.

Tonight I'll only respond to one, more obvious bit of BS about Obama that seems to be buzzing round the web. It seems ridiculous even to have to say this, but: Senator Obama did NOT swear his oath of office on a copy of the Koran. That was Representative Ellison, a Democratic Congressman who happens to be a Muslim and an African American. Senator Obama is a Christian, a member of the United Church of Christ, which is a relatively small and progressive denomination, descended from the Congregationalists who founded the Massachusetts Bay Colony and who were among the most fervant abolitionists in the 1850s.

I suppose it's still true that, to some people, all African-Americans look alike, and so maybe it's understandable that these folks so easily confuse two entirely different people, namely, Senator Obama and Congressman Ellison. Ironic though, isn't it, that the same event can demonstrate both how far we've come in the past four decades since the murder of Martin Luther King Jr., and how far we still have to go?

Not that I find anything objectionable to someone swearing an oath on the Koran, any more than I'd find it objectionable for someone to swear on the Torah, the Bible, or the Tibetan Book of the Dead. Or to hold no religious belief at all, and swear only by his or her own honor. But if you're going to be bigoted, you should at least TRY to get straight who it is you're being bigoted about.

And to all the folks who worked so hard to bring this victory to Senator Obama, congratulations! Try to ignore, if you can, all this petty grousing from the sidelines.

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

Obama’s article in Foreign Affairs makes it very clear that if elected, he will continue America’s meddling in other nation’s affairs by military force.

“To renew American leadership in the world, we must immediately begin working to revitalize our military. A strong military is, more than anything, necessary to sustain peace. . . .
We must use this moment both to rebuild our military and to prepare it for the missions of the future. . . . We should expand our ground forces by adding 65,000 soldiers to the army and 27,000 marines. . . .
I will not hesitate to use force, unilaterally if necessary, to protect the American people or our vital interests whenever we are attacked or imminently threatened.
We must also consider using military force in circumstances beyond self-defense in order to provide for the common security that underpins global stability -- to support friends, participate in stability and reconstruction operations, or confront mass atrocities.”

http://tinyurl.com/2vo96q

The only candidate that will immediately pull out US troops from Iraq and cease American’s militarism is Ron Paul, and that’s why I’ll be voting for him next Tuesday in New Hampshire.

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

Huff this! Obama?, Paaleeze. This guy is another CFR shill. Does anyone in their right mind think we actually pick our representatives? or presidents? We are enslaved robotic nobody's being suckered by the globalist elite who give their marching orders from Tel Aviv, London and New York. The enlightened see this, the critical mind has made the determination of where reality and deceit intersect. A boycott of the system is what is needed, but will never happen, since most Americans cannot tear themselves away from the teats of consumerism that they have their lips locked upon.

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

Don't count out the fear-mongers - Bush, Cheney, Rove, Gonzales and the Blackwater "security" consultants - just yet. They could still throw a monkey wrench in the United States' new-found democracy. Let's just say that if something happens, don't believe all the talk of the main stream media about a "lone gunman". Just another crisis according to Milton Friedman.

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

A Vote of Confidence Amendment will enable the American voting public to dismiss any elected official who fails in their obligation to serve the people of the United States.

VOCA, now

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

Bad choice.......the mob is not educated or intelligent enough to rule.

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

I'm a semi-regular reader, but new to posting comments. I've been a little wary, because I can't help but feel put off by some of the negativity on these boards. I find that there are so many purists here that almost no one is acceptable except non-electable candidates like Kucinich. I'd love to have someone with his views running the country, too, but he seems more likely to get shot before an Obama for being so radical. Posters here seem to lack a sense of contemporary political realities in some ways. For instance, Obama could never come out as strong as Kucinich, lest he be dismissed as having too radical a black politics, and therefore not mainstream enough to be elected. The same can be said for Hillary as a woman candidate - although I find her to be more calculating and therefore less desirable.
Money and consumerism are so entrenched in our culture nowadays, that it seems impractical to think that a candidate could seriously challenge the current corporate control of our society and still be elected, regardless of whether or not s/he is a (black, woman, fill in the minority blank) candidate. Corporations are too powerful right now, and the American people are still a little too comfortable to mount a serious challenge to the status quo. It would take an economic meltdown of Depression-era type proportions before a Kucinich or similar type politician could gain the political cover from the support of an overwhelming majority of the masses to stop the corporate takeover - which, if this sub-prime mortgage meltdown is as bad as some folks say it is, may just materialize within the next year. We may find ourselves in a very similar situation to when the country elected the patrician FDR; he became more radical and took more chances because the desperate times called for desperate measures. I could see Obama becoming that type of president under those circumstances - not too sure about a Hillary Clinton, though.

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

I don't trust and will not vote for Obama and his well rehearsed speeches and neither should you. If someone has to rely on Oprah to get a vote, then there is much trouble. Why can't so many people not see beyond his false hope for change and unity. How can someone call themselves a person of unity, when all he's done is devide us. How can you unite poeple buy insulting them and telling lies about them as he has been doing to Hillary? How can you unite people that way? It's simple you dont and that's why he wont! We Americans can not let the media continue to decide who our next president will be. We must stand up for our beliefs and tell the media that we will not vote for their Darling Obama. We will instead vote for real change which can be found on Hillary. You don't believe me? I invite you to do a search on any internet engine, i.e. google, yahoo, etc., Type the words Hillary Clinton and you will see almost all of the article written about her have a negative tone and are full of false accusations and lies. on the other hand type Obama and you will not find much negativity, why? Because the media is guarding him, they want him as president because they know he will do what they want him to do. He will be their next puppet, is that the kind of change that you want? more of the same thing but with a different player being run by big corporations? if so vote for Obama. But if you want real change vote for Hillary, she will deliver the change that is necessary. Do not fall into the fear tactics employed by Obama and his spin machine. He is constantly saying that Hillary is running on instilling fear and what is he doing in return, instilling fear about Hillary. Do you not see the reverse psychology and spin at work here? Do you not see through the gloss and lies of Obama? I invite you to do more research and look at his lack of record, just because you don't have a record doesn't mean you are good, it just means you are nothing. I for one thing will not vote for Obama, not in preliminaries, not ever! Not because I'm scared, as he would want you to believe, but because I know better!
Go vote for Hillary, the only candidate that can bring the real change that we can believe in!

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

Arianna - they had the fear card, plus the smear card. The one they
pull out every election cycle, to change the subject from real issues
like health care, jobs lost to globalization, equal education and
biofuels conversion - and create uncertainty amongst undecideds.

It will be coming at Obama, or Hillary, more voraciously than ever
this time. The GOP cannot run on real issues affecting Americans,
for it loses on those. So it must rely on Rovian smear tactics. This
has been their gameplan since the Willie Horton ads run against
Dukakis - and Americans need to wake up now about it. They
hijack the election, every cycle this way.

Last time it was the Swift Boat Liars for Truth. This cycle it will
be "Obama, OSAMA?!!"

It is coming. I go way back with the Clintons and supported Hillary
anyway, but especially for this exact reason. The Clintons know
how to stand up to that garbage. She is a proven warrior in this
regard.

Many Progressives would most prefer Kucinich - just listen to him
a minute. (On Moyers last night). But we are not idealists: that's for
old-guard Liberalism. We are pragmatists.

Pragmatists who realize that the electorate tilts where it tilts - led
there by a dysfunctional media or not - and that the bottom line is
to win majorities. Any of the Dems, are preferable to ANY of the
Republicans. By far. We win it and both houses again, and go from
there.

I find your observation correct that Thursday was different. We
knew Obama needed the big turnout, not many of us thought
he'd get THAT many. The Democratic caucuses nearly doubled it's
participation, from the one that chose Kerry in 2004. That is a
stunning uptick.

And Hillary was right about one thing: it's bad news for the GOP.
Very bad news. We have been losing elections for decades, by
the margin of our disillusionment. 120 million turned out in 2004.
That's every Republican on the planet, and about half the Dems
and Independents. The next 5 million, go to the Dem and put
the Republican out - as president and in Congress.

And they know it. There's the fear card...

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

Not much new here. He's been anointed by the corporatocracy and has his marching orders.

Have you been to his website?

You should.

Empty calories.

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

OBAMA AND AMERICA'S JIHADISTS

Obama could not have been as successful as he has been nor can he be elected without the support of America's jihadists, the hawks and corporate executives who make up the industrial/military complex. The only change Obama can guarantee if elected is the name of the President. It appears that John Edwards is our only hope if we want our Constitution back - a government of, by and for the People, not corporate America.

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

During the Bush reign of terror, the wannabe imperialists seduced the evangical right with promises of rapture and got themselves elected. Now they appear to be concentrating on naivety, America's youth.

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

sorry man, I don't like Obama. he is very sneaky and without Oprah and Hillary he would not be here. He stole Hillary speaches and ideas and make them his own. He attacked Hillary on public television and made her feel unworthy in order to get to the top. Isn't that typical men bahaviour? Shouldn't older men be ashamed of themselves that they rather vote for an inexperienced guy rather than vote for a smart woman? maybe you people do not realize the politics of how things work for women nowadays. Nobody trusts them, even if they are smart and they can do the job. However men hate women enough to make their lives miserable and to kick them out of the way. because this is how men are.
and please why don't you people wake up and stop following what the media and television tell syou to do. maybe you shoudl eercise and lose some weight and think for yourselves too. meybe america will be a better country then.
I hope the democratic partu does not make ahuge mistake and elect a candidate who is not experienced and is endorced by Oprah. Oprah please, what is that woman do other than preach on television??? and if she was asmart woman she would take the women's sides since she knows how hard it is for a woman to suceed, rather than take the men side. but then again, women do not stick together, they turn against each other, maybe out of jealousy which is a shame.

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

sorry man, I don't like Obama. he is very sneaky and without Oprah and Hillary he would not be here. He stole Hillary speeches and ideas and make them his own. He attacked Hillary on public television and made her feel unworthy in order to get to the top. Isn't that typical men bahaviour? Shouldn't older men be ashamed of themselves that they rather vote for an inexperienced guy rather than vote for a smart woman? maybe you people do not realize the politics of how things work for smart women nowadays. Nobody trusts them, even if they are smart and they can do the job. However men hate women enough to make their lives miserable and to kick them out of the way. because this is how men are.
and please why don't you people wake up and stop following what the media and television tells you to do. maybe you should exercise and lose some weight and think for yourselves too. meybe america will be a better country then.
I hope the democratic party does not make a huge mistake and elect a candidate who is not experienced and is endorced by Oprah. Oprah please, what is that woman do other than preach on television??? and if she was a smart woman she would take the women side since she knows how hard it is for a woman to suceed, rather than take the men side. but then again, women do not stick together, they turn against each other, maybe out of jealousy which is a shame. I think Oprah can't stand to know that there would be a more powerful woman than her out there, that is why she is not endorcing Hillary. that's a shame.

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

Obama did not have a "stirring victory," and the writer knows this. Obama's victory in Iowa was predicted when Hillary first announced for her presidential run. It was a victory, but it was completely predicitble. Hillary's standing actually improved from the forecasts originally made for her.
You are being had. Arianna has some kind of personal problem with Hillary, but her statements about the former first lady, are ludicrous. Iowa, essentially, means nothing for Obama or Edwards or Clinton. I will ask the question that should put to rest, all this hysteria and BS about Obama. If the first primary had been in California, Hillary would be the nominee. I'd like to see Arianna pretend to deny this. She, and no one else, can change this reality. I have challenged others to come forward and deny the reality of my question, and I challenge Arianna as well. You can be sure, whether Arianna sees this post, or not, she won't respond to my challenge, because if she did, she'd have to admit that Hillary has the nomination sewed up, and it's only this preposterous game of having a primary in a State unenthusiastic to Hilalry's campaign, that allows Arianna and the rest of MSM to pretend that Hillary's campaign is mortally wounded. This is a lie, and Arianna knows she's lying to you.

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

Iowa caucus
I loved this one. I saw the classrooms, hospitals, churches being used definitely for a good cause. I do not want to talk about politics, as I am a lecturer in the economics, finance and management. However, the classrooms. I loved these. Wish I could have the years to go back and sit in those classrooms, throw the pieces chalks at the teacher, and pretend I was reading the comic book on the president to come here like 1984. I liked the classrooms. Politics. No. I am sorry I did not get that. I liked the classrooms. In addition, voting here. I love the classrooms. Obama here? Clinton here? I love these classrooms. For that matter, I love the janitors who keep the classes so clean. I love these classrooms.
Say, am I going bananas?
I thank you
Firozali A Mulla MBA PhD
P.O.Box 6044
Dar-Es-Salaam
Tanzania
East Africa

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

As I scan through these many comments, I am not surprised, but mildly annoyed, that most of them fall into two broad categories: (1)glowing panegyrics (like Arianna's article) that worship Obama as if he were the Second Coming; or (2) sniping, corrosive cynicism and contempt for the notion that anything truly good--ever--can happen in American politics.

I'd like to call for a bit of moderation here, perhaps even some intelligence.

No potential new leader--not Obama, not Hillary, not Kucinich, nor anyone else--can be a panacea for all the rampant, shameless corruption and dysfunction that has befallen our once-great country under the current criminal regime. Whoever wins this year will have a huge and formidable task of undoing the vast damage that the Bush regime has wrought upon the very fabric of our country. And in undertaking this Herculean task, the new President is bound to make mistakes, and to alienate powerful constituencies. I would not wish such a task on anyone, but it must be done.

On the other hand, symbolism matters, and only a fool would deny this. A young, charismatic, caring, and keenly intelligent man of African descent gaining Front Runner status is truly historic, and could--just possibly--be a healing antidote to the rampant, poisonous corruption of the hideous Bush-Cheney era.

As the Dixie Chicks sing, "Our children are watching us, they put their trust in us, they want to be like us...It's OK for us to disagree; we can work it out, lovingly...

I hope."

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

imagine the SOCIAL CONSEQUENCE IF the KKK took a swing @ Obama or WE *were simply made to believe* someone *might*
you know, the way the US Congress believed there would be a Summer attack
... or 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, e.g. Gmail, Hotmail, etc.; & 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 is more 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!
be aware
maybe there is more to this problem than simply WINNING back election integrity

=
BlueBerry Pick'n
ThisCanadian

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

The only change Senator Obama can bring, is a change in Republican Administrations. There is no way Barack "McGovern" can win nationally.

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

Why should we complete another 4 years of a `learn on the job' type with David Axelrod and his minions and have BEERs w/Obama? His logic and Obamarama’s repeat of change, change, change reminds me of the Soviet era promise of Gorbachev's policy of Perestroika or Glasnost baloney. He even claps for himself like a Soviet leader entering the walk-up area of Lenin’s mausoleum, honestly! Watch him do it anytime he enters a large crowd! It’s the same crap that GWB did 8-9 years ago with another 100 million and what did we get ... a moron, twin towers destroyed, 2 regional wars, a destroyed economy gutted by Chinese domination of `our markets' and a multi-trillion USD deficit. What is Barack, Oprah and the `Obama Girl's' ... including Mr. Axelrod going to do with that? What is the plan? Give us the specifics, right now - because I and other progressives want to know? Air, fluff and pseudo-Kennedy/King oratory won't pay the bills, repair health care, solve Iraq, get rid of the Neo-Cons for good? Making me feel good about the `Shining Beacon on the Hill America as One' is not reality and the Obama Camp knows it - I can't see the `Holy Grail Vision' but it sells well and Mr. Axelrod knows that (no details, just the fluff) - no doubt about it! If this is your `new version of a leader for 2009' ... then we might as well just let `Dubya' run for a 3rd term. Seriously - if your progressive ... wake up, smell the Java and look at the legislation that has been co-sponsored by Mr. Obama with GOP colleagues - you may be surprised to find he is more Republican-lite than any supporter would like to know or hear or admit. And no … I do not fit in with Hillary or Huckabee, but I also research the `historical record' instead of running off cliffs w/o knowing what or whom I am voting for!

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