Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • 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.

Iowa Voters Repudiated Clinton 'Dynasty'

By Robert Parry, Consortium News. Posted January 5, 2008.


Hillary's third-place finish in Iowa dealt a stunning blow to the Clintons' attempt at establishing a political dynasty.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Robert Parry

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

The vaunted Clinton machine is sure to rev up its operations to salvage Hillary Clinton’s political future -- and the Bush Family’s Republican Establishment likely will settle on an acceptable GOP representative to protect the status quo, possibly John McCain.

But the Iowa caucuses on Jan. 3 dealt a stunning blow to the Bush-Clinton duopoly, with Sen. Barack Obama thrashing Sen. Clinton on the Democratic side and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee trouncing former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who had the backing of some elements of the Bush Family.

Though the presidential selection process has a long way to go, the inevitability of another election between representatives of the Democratic/Republican establishments was thrown into severe doubt by the victories of Obama and Huckabee.

On the Democratic side, the contrast was visible during the post-caucus speeches by Clinton and Obama. Sen. Clinton was surrounded by old faces from Washington's Democratic hierarchy, which has compromised its way through the past quarter century of Republican political dominance.

There was former Democratic National Committee chairman (and renowned fundraiser) Terry McAuliffe, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, retired Gen. Wesley Clark, and Bill Clinton, looking especially weary as he maintained a smile throughout his wife's workmanlike political speech.

When Obama spoke to his supporters, the tableau was entirely different. He stood on a platform with his wife and two young daughters, with mostly young supporters behind him, not a single nationally recognized face among them.

Obama's soaring rhetoric about "hope" and "change" also contrasted with Hillary Clinton's more mundane appeal to her backers. Obama appears to have touched the idealistic sentiments of many young voters as well as the Democratic "base," while Clinton's carefully calibrated message in Iowa came across as stale and uninspiring.

Bill to the Rescue?

Stung by the Iowa loss, Hillary Clinton's campaign quickly announced that it would dispatch former President Clinton to New Hampshire for the next five days, seeking to repair the political damage and shore up the dikes against the flood of political insurrection that is building.

But Bill Clinton appears to have lost some of his legendary political touch. Though he remains popular with many Democrats, he seems oblivious to the resentment within the Democratic "base" - and among many young voters and independents - toward the business-as-usual Washington Democrats that his wife's candidacy reflects.

On Dec. 17, seeking to show how President Hillary Clinton would govern, Bill Clinton announced that his wife's first act in the White House would be to send him and George H.W. Bush on an around-the-world mission to repair America's damaged image.

"The first thing she intends to do is to send me and former President Bush and a number of other people around the world to tell them that America is open for business and cooperation again," said Bill Clinton, who has accompanied the senior Bush on humanitarian missions over the past several years.

However, rather than earning plaudits from rank-and-file Democrats, Clinton's boast about his cozy relationship with the senior Bush was like fingernails across a chalkboard. The last thing that many Democrats wanted to hear about was more collegiality between the Clintons and the Bushes.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: dynasty, bill clinton, hillary clinton, bush family, election 2008, iowa caucuses

Robert Parry's new book is Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq.

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


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:
NOT
Posted by: jim_altman on Jan 5, 2008 1:50 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama's finish in the Iowa Caucuses was NOT a stunning upset. Polling leading up to the result showed Obama, Clinton, and Edwards in a virtual tie. A stunning upset would have been a Richardson victory or if Chris Dodd had registered in double digits. Hillary Clinton is NOT repudiated by a close third place finish, she's just not first right at the moment. There are still forty-nine other states to go. There is NOT any such thing as a Bush-Clinton duopoly. Any suggestion of duplicity between the Clintons and the Bushes defies the reality of recorded history.

For all the criticism this author has leveled against big corporate media, he sounds remarkably similar to the blow-dried talking heads of the major outlets. Four years ago, the punditocracy editorialized away all my primary choices before I even got to cast a vote. They're hot on the trail again and Mr. Parry's January surprise is that he's no different.

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

Eery Parallel
Posted by: Markson on Jan 5, 2008 5:15 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bygones would be bygones; it would all be about the future, not the past. The status quo - as corrupt as it may have become - would be protected.

...Clinton's administration had swept Reagan-Bush-era scandals under the rug in 1993, all in the name of some hoped-for "bipartisanship."

...the talk was all about "looking to the future," "not re-fighting the battles of the 1980s," "leaving that one for the historians."


Are we not repeating ourselves with Obama? There will be no accountability for the egregious high crimes and misdemeanors--several impeachable offenses--committed by the Bush administration.

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

» RE: ery Parallel Posted by: jmooney
» RE: ery Parallel Posted by: Markson
» RE: ery Parallel Posted by: Richard House
They're all corporate-military "party" candidates - the policies won't change
Posted by: scott.gregory on Jan 5, 2008 6:15 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The only true progressive candidate is/was Cong. Dennis Kucinich. Every one of the rest of both parties is just more corporate sleaze. DK got media-spinned out of Iowa precinct caucus proceedings (the media represented that DK was opting out, saying "Vote Obama" when all DK said was vote Obama if the 15% viability requirement in each precint isn't reached). Iowa Kucinich voters watched the media and went to Obama - Kucinich unintentionally gave Obama his margin. Anyone who says there isn't a concerted wealthy ruling-class conspiracy against a popular progressive FDR-like government- against the people of this nation - just ins't following the facts.

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

Consortium News Gets It Right
Posted by: Urstrly on Jan 5, 2008 6:34 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Robert Parry and his crew at Consortium News are great reporters. Not so strangely, most of the information is hiding in plain sight; it's just that the mainstream media have no interest in connecting the dots.

Ever since Bill Clinton's post-tsunami trip to Asia with Bush I, it's been clear that he at least identifies more with the Bushes than with, say, Jimmy Carter. Power corrupts, and getting rich hasn't helped Bill, or us. He's talking about a reprisal of his tsunami tour as soon as Hillary's elected to let everyone know "the US is open for business." You bet; read your Naomi Klein (Shock Doctrine).

It is not too late to impeach Cheney and Bush; we have a year if we really want to end this debacle.

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

Oh that's great (NOT!) MSM ignores/shuts out Edwards!
Posted by: left-leaning-libertarian on Jan 5, 2008 7:31 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The day after the caucuses and all I hear is "Clinton vs Obama" ad nauseum just as I did the day before the caucuses; not a freakin' word about John Edwards! Heck! Dodd and Biden generated more press by dropping out than Edwards did by coming in second!

Buying into the MSM's spin (sheep-like), some people are now complaining that Edwards' speech was somehow "negative," and while it was a bit somber for the occasion and serious, I figured it was aimed more at New Hampshire and Nevada and South Carolina voters than those of us who'd worked so hard for so long to give him his "place" here; it was certainly not a negative speech. Still, some are comparing it to that infamous (and totally taken-out-of-context) "Howard Dean moment" of 2004. How stupid is this????

The fact is, the MSM and their corporate masters (and all-too-willing dupes in the supposed "alternate press on-line") settled on a "narrative" for this election cycle long before it began and NOTHING will deter them from spinning it into a tragic self-fulfilling prophecy.

I'm going to hibernate now for a few months, having worked on the caucuses and the Edwards campaign for nearly two years; wake me up when the dust settles and show me where to go and vote for the "inevitable" candidate to whom the bloviating morons in the MSM have lent their imprimatur.

Happy New Year!

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

» Do you pay attention? Posted by: CharliePatton
Way too much, way too soon
Posted by: Gravitas on Jan 5, 2008 7:43 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think most of the articles, including the above and the one about what this tells us about racism are making way too much out of the Iowa caucus way too soon. Iowa is hardly representative of the U.S. and it is still a long way to go before the conventions!

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

Oh yeah, Obama's was a stunning upset
Posted by: MalloryJustMallory on Jan 5, 2008 7:43 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To the Hillary lovers: Fuggit about it! We don't want any more Clintons or Bushes.

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

Clinton "dynasty"?
Posted by: CharliePatton on Jan 5, 2008 8:36 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To be sure, that makes about as much sense as calling McDonald's a "restaurant".

Besides, trailer park-born rednecks can't have a "dynasty".

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

Clinton's story untold
Posted by: robchapman on Jan 5, 2008 8:42 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Barak Obama deserves the heartiest congratulations for a hard fought and clean victory in Iowa.



But the best candidate for the Democrats in 08 is Hillary Clinton.



Her personal story remains untold. As a wife and attorney, she provided the emotional and financial support Bill needed to establish himself as the dominant figure in Democratic politics.



In mid-life she experienced a searingly humiliating experience. An experience caused entirely by her husband's misconduct. She was not overcome by it.



Instead, she forgave Bill and set out to establish her independence.



She entered politics and won two high level elections in the most politically competitive environment in the country.



Her victories are based on a record of accomplishment and caring.



Hillary Clinton has proven she can translate the yearning for change into the policy that will transform the yearning into progress.

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

» RE: Clinton's story untold Posted by: jmooney
» RE: Clinton's story untold Posted by: EdinIowa
I think Hillary is going to lose more support
Posted by: weslen1 on Jan 5, 2008 8:42 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
because of Bill's obvious friendships with Bush and his "Daddy". Every time you turn around you are seeing Bill and George 1 or Bill and George 2 close up and grinning at each other like BFF and the nightmare scenario of Hillary calling on George 1 for assistance. So then will she call on George 2 to advise her on how to write "signing statements" too? Actually, I've seen pictures of her also looking mighty friendly with George 2. Even the republican candidates have the sense to not mention "He who cannot be named" if they want a CHANCE at winning. The last person we need in the White House is another Bush Crony.

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

Do we have time
Posted by: robchapman on Jan 5, 2008 8:53 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Are we not repeating ourselves with Obama? There will be no accountability for the egregious high crimes and misdemeanors--several impeachable offenses--committed by the Bush administration.

I think this reader has a point.

America will never have a reconciliation with the past based on holding previous administrations accountable.

We set that precedent by not supporting the Freedman's Bureaus after the Civil War and by enshrining the myth of the "Lost Cause," in our history.

The best we can do is to go forward and build.

The Democratic Party is committed to going forward and building on our hopes, not in reliving the past and punishing the incompetent.

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

» Seductive myth Posted by: Markson
» RE: Do we have time Posted by: Prairie Waif
» RE: Do we have time Posted by: Prairie Waif
forgive my ignorance
Posted by: robchapman on Jan 5, 2008 8:59 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Actually, I've seen pictures of her (Senator Ckinton) also looking mighty friendly with George 2.

Please forgive my ignorance, but GW Bush, referred to above as George 2, is still President, is he not?

Is it not conceivable that the serving Senator from New York, might yet have business him?

Might that account for a picture showing them governing and accomplishing something for the people together?

Isn't that what they are supposed to do?

The Republicans are not going into exile after the 08 election.

In 09 the Democratic nominee will be their President, too.

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

"Those who fight and run away, live to fight another day"--Bob Marley
Posted by: Sojourner on Jan 5, 2008 9:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, Hillary's candidacy must try to cope with the distraction of accusations that her victory would set up a family dynasty "just like the Bushes." For many that will be enough to get them to vote against her. Unfortunately voters like simple answers.

So columnists like Parry will be happy to supply them. Notice that he made no mention of the Repub so-called revolution when Newt Gingrich stormed back two years into Clinton's first term. No mention that Gingrich shut down the government. Just as there's never any mention that Clinton vetoed NAFTA twice before finally signing it.

That information does not support the notion that both Bill and Hillary should have thrown themselves on the Demo's funeral pyre and died.

There's no need for that because the assassins, such as swift boaters, are more than happy to blow themselves up. Read the *swift boaters* article here today.

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

Aargh
Posted by: anothername on Jan 5, 2008 9:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Having studied women in history and in politics for twenty years, the introduction of Obama to counter Clinton is a gender ploy. The fact that the only way Clinton could be viable was by first being the wife of a president is very significant. Edwards alienated a lot of people in power because of his own desire for control.
If Hillary Clinton was able to run as Hillay, and not as Mrs. Clinton, despite her attempt to use the first name to separate her identity from that of her spouse, and if she ran with the idealism that she had when she was Obama's age, she would have been much stronger. However, she would never have been able to raise the money or the support to be viable. If Clinton had not been so prominent, I suspect nobody would have asked Barack Obama to run in the 2008 cycle.
If we want to know how society looks at race and gender, turn to TV. Commander in Chief received much coverage from women writers, but the woman as president was not elected to that position; she entered it upon the death of the president. However, in 24, the African-American president was not only very strong and accepted as a leader, he was elected to the position.
Nobody will make change, though, unless more women, more African-Americans, more Hispanics, more young people, more older people, just more people run for office and vote in non-presidential elections. Where I live, the elderly Congressman is a Clinton supporter. One of the young bloggers in the area noted that a former gubernatorial candidate has bought Internet domain names linked to a 2008 primary challenge. That potential challenger is an Edwards supporter. In other words, that person is working to get Edwards elected president while apparently preparing to fight for the congressional seat to help the potential new president bring about his agenda. Now THAT is change.

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

Another horse race talk article...yuck!
Posted by: logansafi on Jan 5, 2008 11:56 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All these supposed 'progressives' glued to their microscopes as little scientists! Nothing, nothing, nothing at all happened in Iowa, People of Lesser-of-Two-Evils United.

Some Republicans let others know that their preference is still The Holy Bible and not The Book of Mormon. Surprise! And actually, Pillory walked out of Iowa with the most DP delegates since there is little of democracy at all in this event. But who cares? since Holy Salvation will not come from anybody but God, not a Democratic Party poli.

We are in for a lot of stomach churning chit-chat nonsense ahead from those calling themselves 'Progressives'. Even over at Marx List the same nonsensical pablum in mass is occurring. They've taken time from deciding how to build Lenin's party in America to placing bets on the horses, too! Next they'll be playing the state lotteries over there. And rolling dice.

The US Left just doesn't take itself seriously enough to do anything other than try to follow along behind some BO, Ed, or Dennis. Even Ralph is plugging for Ed these days! Fact is, we simply don't have a democracy in the US, and nobody seems ready to fight for one. It's hopeless until we actually do.

[« 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: 5    [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]

not that big a deal
Posted by: allyourbasearebelongtous on Jan 5, 2008 1:11 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
obama's iowa victory isn't that big a deal. look @ all the folks who won iowa but didn't get the nomination. he'd make a great vice-pres candidate. but look what happened w/the last 2 presidents who were new to the national scene. bill clinton blew the 1st 2 years & a democratic congressional majority before getting it together. george bush never got it together even with a gop controlled congress for the first 6 years. no more presidents who need on the job training. especially not now with global warming being soooo important to do something about. then of course, there's also jobs, middle class and working class tax cuts, eliminating the tax breaks for the wealthy, the wars in iraq and afghanistan, dealing with terrorism including figuring out how to wage war against groups that don't wear uniforms and look like the general population of their country as in iraq & afghanistan & vietnam & cambodia, rebuilding the country's infrastructure, energy independence, rebuilding the miltary, rebuilding new orleans which bush still hasn't done, and that's just off the top of my head. i sure don't want another greenhorn/newbie trying to deal with all that right off the bat. yeah, i'll vote for obama or edwards if either of them win the nomination but i don't think either one can really do the job right from the beginning without a steeper learning curve than hillary. for me, they're just better than 4 more years of ultrarightwing do-nothingism. and the reason why she had "old people" & obama had "fresh faces" is because she has more connections due to her experience that he doesn't have. so unless he put oprah up there, obama is more limited to "fresh faces."

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

» RE: not that big a deal Posted by: Ivann
Hillary for president
Posted by: mpop on Jan 5, 2008 4:36 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

» RE: Hillary for president Posted by: anna132
Liar!
Posted by: johnp on Jan 5, 2008 4:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Parry is deliberately misleading the voter, in an effort, together with mainstream media, to create the illusion that Hillary has been repudiated. I challenge Parry to come forward and face a question I would expect him to answer. If the first primary had been in, say, California, would he be lying to the public about Hillary being repudiated? I invite anyone reading this post, that has an ounce of backbone, to respond to my question. If he had the guts to confront me, he'd be sure to further pretend that he simply meant that she had been repudiated in Iowa. I absolutely guarantee that this would be his phony argument. He wouldn't dare admit the obvious, that he has an ongoing, pre-Iowa-caucus, hostility to Hillary and her campaign, and has used the Iowa nonsense to advance it.

Whatever happens in New Hampshire, win or lose, Hillary will do better than she did in Iowa. She'll continue to do better as her campaign advances through the various States, unless MSM succeeds in fooling the public into thinking that, by forcing Hillary to run in States that would naturally be less enthusiastic about her campaign, media are able to characterize her campaign as "dead on arrival." Hillary may lose this election, but it's, now, too late to conceal the way her campaign was derailed by malicious media, determiined to eliminate the strongest candidate against the party, the republican party, media are anxious to see win.

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

» RE: Elites control. Geddit? Posted by: EdinIowa
Un-fair to "OUR" DENNIS KUCINICH
Posted by: anna132 on Jan 5, 2008 5:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
VOTE for "DENNIS KUCINICH" for President,he has been unfairly not let into the debates to talk on his very important issues and he needs to get them heard and ABC and the MAIN STREAM MEADIA "DOESN'T" want anyone to hear his views on repairing this country back to where it was.



PEACE

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

Short term memory
Posted by: Mystery Solver on Jan 6, 2008 5:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So, Iowa voters decided to repudiate a family Dynasty. I can only hope Iowans don't suffer from amnesia in 2012 when Jeb Bush runs for president.

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

Hilary and politics
Posted by: dragonmagic on Jan 7, 2008 10:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How easily people forgot the gross travesty of justice that the republican machine initiated against B. Clinton. A lot of taxpayer money and for What?

Hilary is a woman. We need a woman in the White House. She has good credentials, is smart, and perhaps not as liberal as we would like, but still worth the shot. Human being do learn lessons. She has learned a few.

She is the best contender against any REpublican rival. Let's throw in our support.

Yes

GAbe

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

Iowa primary proves we need an honest and clear election system
Posted by: kathaksung on Jan 8, 2008 4:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Iowa primary proves we need an honest and clear election system (1/4/08)

Over 92% of Iowans are whites. But they choose an African American. Why? That means most Americans hates Iraq war and want their civil liberty back.

Edwards and Hillary, though both are whites and experienced Deomcrats, they behaved more like a Bush's follower. Both voted for Patriot Act and approved the Iraq war Authorization Bill.

How could we got this result? Because the Iowa Demo primary counts vote on attending people. It makes the election honest and clear and hard to be rigged.

Why Ron Paul only got 10%? (He is the only one in GOP that anti Iraq war and is the only one meets major American's will) Because the Iowa GOP primary counts vote on ballots. Then who controls election office controls election result. They give you a number nobody can confirm. That's how Bush could be selected twice.

---------------
This is a covert totalitarian country. They select president by rigged election. (They control the voting office by intelligence) and justify the result by fake poll. (They manipulate public opinion by media)

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

New Hampshire voters (a retrospective)
Posted by: launcher on Jan 14, 2008 1:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Apparently New Hampshire voters did not "Repudiate the Clinton Dynasty". And so the battle continues...

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