Barack Obama Projected Winner In Iowa Democratic Caucus: UPDATED!
By Logan Murphy Wednesday Jan 02, 2008 9:33pm
Download | play 
Download | play
As with Huckabee earlier, all the networks are projecting Barack Obama the winner of the Democratic Iowa caucus. John Edwards and Hillary Clinton are neck and neck fighting for second and third place, but Obama came out on top. Usually, second place doesn't matter, but in this case, a third place finish for Hillary might spell real trouble for her campaign. MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell reported from the Clinton camp that the atmosphere was more like a funeral than a campaign rally. Can Obama hold on to this lead going into New Hampshire and South Carolina?
Chris Matthews has been railing against both Hillary and Bill Clinton, saying Hillary's 30% showing meant that 2/3 of Iowans didn't vote for her, but Rachel Maddow tries her best to debunk that theory. Where Obama did succeed was getting out the youth and new votes. Preliminary numbers show that 60% were first time caucus goers. 39% of new voters went for Obama. Young people’s turnout was 25%, which means they out performed their share of the population which is 22%. Young voters were 57% of Obama's support, according to entrance polls.
John Amato: CNN just reported 212,000 Dem turnout. In 2004, it was 125,000.
UPDATE: Sean Hannity was so down that Huckabee won. He called it a Huckaboom or Huckabust.
Edwards speech was very good and the FOX panel including Luntz called him the Angry man. They were trying to smear him with the old Iowa/Dean scream. Hillary talked about how great the entire Democratic candidates are. Hint, hint...A little change of strategy me thinks....
Login or Register to post comments.
Go Obama!
Hell's bells!
I was just checking out some interesting exit poll demographics over at MSNBC:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21225980
Clinton will probably try to point out in the next few days that Obama's win was largely due to (I)'s and (R)'s infiltrating the caucus. Granted, most (I)s and (R)s that did show up voted mostly for Obama, but if you look closely, people who consider themselves to be "very liberal" or "somewhat liberal" were more likely to vote for Obama than Clinton, and "conservative" voters seemed to gravitate towards Edwards. Interesting, no?
Impeach Cheney
http://www.wexlerwantshearings.com/
"Where Obama did succeed was getting out the youth and new votes."
Taking into consideration the political environment engendered by the past 8 years, and the dynamics of the candidates themselves, is there any reason to think that Obama won't be getting out the youth vote in other states?
I see the Democrats in Iowa made a major error in having voted for Sen. Barack "Fraud" Obama tonight. I would not get too, too, happy about Iowans having elected the wrong candidate tonight.
If the Democratic Party actually thinks that Barack "Fraud" Obama can actually "win" in November, then think again.With Barack "Fraud" Obama as the 2008 Democratic presidential candidate, expect another loss in November to the Republicans whether it be Huckabee, Romney, or, McCain.
The only Democratic Party candidate with a message and not a sellout to the drug/oil/defense/war lobbies is John Edwards. The Democrats failed again tonight. Both Barack "Fraud" Obama and Hillary Clinton are war-mongers who have pro-war hawk advisors working for them. Edwards is the only one who has a “real change” campaign. Hillary and Obama are liars and war mongers just like Bush and Cheney are.
Hillary Clinton is bought and paid for by the war party clique in Washington, D.C. Take a look at who is on her foreign policy team:
1. Madeleine Albright is no friend to human rights justifying the the Iraq sanctions which killed more than 400,000 Iraqi civilians, and close to a majority of whom were childen. Albright said that the sanctions was worth the price in the deaths of Iraqi children if that meant keeping Saddam Hussein in check. I guess the Clinton campaign really love the children, right?
2. Wesley Clark as a general ran the bombing of Serbia, who admitted going after both civilians and civilian targets, (electrical plants & TV stations.
3. Richard Holbrooke – who during the Carter administration oversaw the shipment of weapons to the Indonesian military as they were invading—illegally invading East Timor and killing a third of its population. He also ensured that the UN Security Council did not enforcing its resolution regarding invading the invasion of East Timor, as well.
4. Strobe Talbott -- during the Clinton administration backed , oversaw Russia Boris Yeltsin that saw the national wealth given to the oligarchs and a drop in life expectancy in much of Russia of about fifteen years—massive, massive death. This problem ultimately led to the election of Vladimir Putin.
5. General Jack Keane -- backers of the Iraq invasion and occupation.
6. Michael O’Hanlon – of the Brookings Institution supports bombing Iran and was all for invading Iraq and the recent escalation, and its aftermath. He is a frequent speaker at the very hawkish and neocon-right wing think tank, the American Enterprise Institute.
Barack "Fraud" Obama is bought and paid for by the war party clique in Washington, D.C. Take a look at who is on her foreign policy team:
1. Zbigniew Brzezinski (Former President Carter’s National Security Adviser) – in an interview to the French press a number of years ago, said proudly that he created the whole Afghan jihadi movement which produced Osama bin Laden. Asked by the interviewer, “Well, don’t you think this might have had some bad consequences?,” Brzezinski replied: What’s a few riled-up Muslims?”
2. Anthony Lake - main force behind the US invasion of Haiti in the mid-Clinton years, bringing back Aristide, coercing him to support a World Bank/IMF overhaul of the economy. This resulted in an increase in malnutrition deaths among Haitians and set the stage for the current ongoing political disaster in Haiti.
3. General Merrill McPeak, (Air Force) - after the Dili massacre in East Timor in ’91 that oversaw the delivery of US fighter planes to Indonesia.
4. Dennis Ross - has advised Clinton and both Bushes, and was instrumental in the Clinton 1 and Bush 2, administrations in the US policy toward Israel/Palestine. Ross saw no problem despite international law regarding the legal rights of the Palestinians, to allow Israel to expand its settlements in the Occupied Territories. Ross led the political assault on former Democratic President Jimmy Carter because he (Carter) agreed with Bishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa regarding Israel’s actions in the Occupied Territories. Carter was accused of plagiarism over maps by Ross, as well.
5. Sarah Sewall (heads a human rights center at Harvard and former Defense official) - wrote the introduction to General Petraeus’s Marine Corps/Army counterinsurgency handbook. This handbook that is now being used worldwide by US troops in many killing operations.
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton's choices on foreign policy is nothing to be proud of, if one is an anti-war Democratic Party voter. Oh well. The Democrats are also part of the war machine clique in Washington, D.C., without the in-your-face bluster of Bush and Cheney.
Let's enjoy the moment for a bit. This was a great night for the Democratic Party and more importantly for Progressives and for Change in America. Thank you to the people of Iowa.
Mark my words: the Republican Party will have gone down in flames by the time the 2008 general election rolls around. They're already fractured, divided over a shitty group of slimy candidates. Their crop leaves much to be desired. In fact, I wouldn't be at all surprised if this marks the beginning of the end of the Republican Party as we know it, with the religious right demanding a party of their very own and separating from the conservatives whom they regard as too soft.
Either way, in 2008 the Democrats take back the government.
We're taking a swig everytime we hear the word "change" in post caucus speechers.
chrissie is just choking in his hatred for women. so pathetic.
maybe if hillary wore 'old spice', eh?
It really is encouraging to see the turn out for Dems. Obama is the big story tonight and my own candidate Edwards did well, but the big turn out is a very nice positive for every Dem candidate and voter.
I predicted ALL the winners!
http://osi-speaks.blogspot.com/2008/01/just-as-i-predicted-obama-wins-io...
John Edwards will give Barrack Obama a run for his money in New Hampshire. The Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) is no longer supporting Dennis Kucinich and is now supporting John Edwards. Go John Edwards. The most progressive candidate on the ticket. Barrack accepts money from lobbyist and big corporations. John Edwards has never accepted money from a lobbyist. Barrack wants the insurance companies to help develop a health care plan for Americans and we know how that will turn out. John Edwards does not want the insurance companies designing a health care plan for Americans. Barrack will keep our military in Iraq. John Edwards will end the war in Iraq which is a significant difference between the two candidates.
Bill Clinton's first presidential bid ran into difficulty in the opening weeks. He finished well behind in the Iowa caucus.
It's awful early to write off Hillary.
Just shows Hillary that money can't buy love. Think of it. ALL that corporate money she spent... and all the ridicule Edwards had at taking public financing just like he said he would (and the MSM ignoring him to pimp Hillary). Yet, in the end, they tie. That's a pretty strong message from 250,000 Iowans.
I don't think Obama deserved to place that high though. I hope we don't elect someone just based on features they were born with. I know it is important to cross that bridge, and I sure look forward to it. But I hope the 36% really do think he is the best person for the job period. Somehow, I don't think that's the case; this is a protest vote. (as pointed out, he's voted much the same as Hillary this year, and whored the corporate money also). Self-hate is never a good thing, even in scared white liberals. Obama's an OK guy. But is he the president you need now?
Obviously, I'm surprised that Edwards didn't turn out more laborers and youth. Is it just cause he's white? Is that the right thing to do? Odd result with Edwards. At least he's still definitely in it. Good luck to him. He did a hell of a lot of good, hard work in Iowa and it shows.
Here's to him and his supporters!
Mr. XXXX @ 5:
Firstly, your cutting-and-pasting needs work. You used the same sentence twice, accidentally referring to Obama as a female.
Secondly, the fact that you are spamming the comment sections of myriad posts with this 'news' makes you look like the sort of individual who engages in email spam--those very-annoying, forwarded to Hell and back items--and who learnt everything he/she knows from a crummy used car salesman. No, I am not interested in your 'shocking' newsletter.
Finally, using "Fraud" wherever Obama's name comes up is insulting. We can make up our own minds regarding the information presented, thank you very much. It reminds me of The Simpsons, when a Democrat hopeful being interviewed on FOX was told that he raised a "very adulterous point."
Barack "Fraud" Obama's health care for Americans is more Bushite than it resembles "change." Obama will have to check in with his big lobbying pals before Americans ever see any sweeping changes regarding healthcare.
If you want to vote for Obama, go ahead, but don't be stupid enough to think "change" is coming. It is not. Oh well.
Obama's healthcare plan sucks compared to Edwards or Hillary. So, what is this change in Obama everyone is claiming? Don't believe Obama's hype. Obama is a liar and is doing a great job lying to everyone in America right now.
Orangutan. @ 6:
If you are referring to John Edwards, then yes, it was a good night for Progressives. If you are referring to Barrack Obama, then no, it was not a good night for Progressives. Obama is not a progressive. He is a Chicago Conservative. Get over his Hollywood image and look at how he continues to vote to fund a war that he says he doesn't support. Well, let's see him show up in the Senate and vote to de-fund this illegal occupation.
Watching the video now and really, what the FUCK is Tweety on, anyway? What a crap way to frame Hillary's showing tonight; his bias against her couldn't be more transparent if he were made of cellophane. Kudos for Rachel setting him straight with logic, intelligence and a steady delivery. I just love her!
Matthews seems to really dislike Hillary. He's always slamming her, often unfairly - like this.
One Year Wonder @ 8:
Oof!
I'll call the ambulance for you now. Preventative medicine, and all that!
Going to be a cRaZy year
Mr. XXXX @ 15:
Frankly, who cares who you are against--just who are you FOR?
Not a dem, but congrats to the dems tonight!
They dropped the house on the wicked witch.
swarmofkillermonkeys @ 13:
Second tier candidate supporters voted for Obama as a vote against Hillary. John Edwards got John Edwards supporter votes. Obama got Richardson, Kucinich, and Biden votes. Big difference.
Gary @ 22:
Yes I'm sure she's just crushed and out for the count.
Bonkers @ 17:
I'm glad that her and KO were there. Mathews is a self important, pain in the ass gasbag. Listening to him bloviate was like hearing nails across the chalkboard.
Mr. XXXX @ 5:
you left out that barack supported LIEberman and has TWO LIEberman advisors on his staff; takes money from FOX; has a health plan that would strand 45,000,000 americans and generally benefit only corporations ; has an extremely spotty voting record, at best
both barack and shillary are Trilateral corporatists.
14 Shawnmeat Says:
My errror yes, to a sentence I wrote. Yes, a typo--big deal---the content is the same. Sorry about that typo.
Yes, Obama is a "Fraud” and I think exposing his foreign pooicxy team is appropriate when he claims he will bring about "change." Look at Obama's foreign policy team and tell me with a straight face that he is not more of the same. Obama is picking interventionists and believers in American foreign/military expansionism. I have nothing to apologize for other than the typo I made.
Yeah !!!
Gary @ 22:
Yeah, that's great. But so's you know? We don't need your congrats if you are going to go after Hillary with gender specific pejoratives, alright? Run along, now, please.
NBC NEWS/WALL STREET JOURNAL, DEC. 17TH
Obama: 48%
Huckleberry: 36%
GALLUP, DEC. 16TH
Obama: 53%
Huckleberry: 42%
Go, Huckleberry, go!!! The Democratic Party welcomes you with open arms. You've got the love of lil' baby Hey-Zeus on your side, and all poor Obama's got is...well, a whopping 12% more go-juice it appears. But lil' baby Hey-Zeus is pullin' for ya, Huckleberry! Go get 'em! (New, improved -- Now with 38% more Jesus Lovin!)
Obama would be a formidable opponent to any rethug that gets the nomination.
Watching Rachel and Tweety go back and forth is kind of like the old Goofus and Gallant cartoons: don't do it this way, do it this way... Her brilliance and his idiocy in almost painful contradistinction.
Mr. XXXX @ 27:
Nobody needs an apology. What chafes (me) is that your manner of trying to get our attention is tiresome. THIS post I can read and digest while on the other hand your post at #26 just makes me grind my teeth and I am not even a Lieberman fan.
Mr. XXXX @ 27:
And I am just saying that if you want to be taken seriously, stop acting like the crazy old batty woman screaming on the street corner. Also, avoid using terms like "pooicxy."
I think Obama is underqualified, and more charismatic than he is knowledgeable, but that hardly makes him a "fraud" anymoreso than the other candidates.
As I have been wandering threw all the threads on this post,for a minute I thought I was on a rightwing site. Dems have put up a good field, and anyone of them would be better then anything the repugs have thrown at us. The hate and anger I see from so called progressives about some of the dems running is as bad as I see on wingnut sites. Why do the wingnuts job for them? I have my favorites, but I will not trash the other dems just to prove my guy is better. If we destroy ourselves (which dems seem to always do) we will end up with another repug in the white house and control of the congress. This country can't stand four more years of the same or worse bullshit. Progressives, support you you think is best, but leave the personal attacks on the others to the repugs. Lets not loose sight of the prize.
Bonkers @ 30:
Sorry, im trying..
"Im glad she lost because she's a woman, and women clearly don't have brains!"
hows that for a gender specific pejorative?
Seriously though, ever thought about being a fox news anchor with that fake outrage?
Hey! Where did all the Paulists go?
When was the last time a Senator became President? We almost exclusively elect Governors.
I agree that it is long past time that a woman had a shot at the WH, but I cannot csupport HRC, because she appears to my eyes to have been purchased by corporate interests and, I find her her irrational hawkishness distressing, and I don't have good feelings about her committment to the Constitution. There are plenty of other women whose credentials and track record I believe to be more trustworthy. To tell the truth, I don't know why Rachel Maddow isn't running for political office. I like her smarts and integrity.
The most interesting story of the night to me is, as John Amato pointed out, the voter turn out. If that turnout is an indication of an emerging trend, it is going to go a long, long way toward nullifying any planned attempts to hijack or game the November elections - the margins against the GOPers are going to be too large to credibly manipulate. If democrats turn out in record numbers, the GOP is going to be anhilated at the polls. The trick then will be to have candidates that will not be wholly-owned subsidiaries of corporate/fascist America.
This probably sounds pretty stupid, but could someone please explain the vote tally to me? The media reports that over 200,000 dems turned out, yet, the vote tallies for all dem candidates adds up to just a few thousand, with Obama winning with around 800 votes. Compare this to the republican tote board where the top candidates show totals in the tens of thousands. No comprende.
OK, I just found the answer to my stupid question--the republicans report a raw vote tally vs the dems who report the caucus tally based on delegates. Who knew that there would be different methods within the same state. I'm pleased though to see that the dems had twice the turnout as the repubs.
joe muama @ 362:
Carter was the first governor to become president in the twentieth century. Truman, Kennedy and Johnson were all senators. Reagan was a cult figure and his being governor was neither here nor there. Bush Jr was governor of a state where the governor is a titular figurehead. The main reason I would prefer NOT to have a sitting Senator run is that we lose the Senator even if we win. Don't forget we got Fred Thompson to fill Gore's shoes when he became VP.
Since her photo is up on the video link I suppose this is on topic.
Rachel Maddow really needs to get her act together if she wants to get/keep a national show or stay in the spotlight. She's nervous, repeating others' points, and offering very little unique insight. I'm a fan, have been for years, but it seems as if she's frozen up there now that they've thrust her onto these high profile shows. She's showing how out of their league she is. Say what you will about Chris Matthews, but he's a top tier political scholar, and she's paling in comparison. Just don't think she's ready for primetime t.v. Don't give up the radio RM!
bob @ 366:
Nice spin, but very misleading. The Truman and Johnson examples do not really apply, since they acceded to the presidency upon the death of a president, they weren't elected as senators. The argument is/should be based on SITTING U.S. Senators. Only twice in American history have sitting U.S. Senators become president -- Warren G. Harding and John F. Kennedy. The conventional wisdom on this is that one may examine a boatload of votes. Edwards can claim he didn't vote for supplemental funding of the illegal invasion, but that's because he wasn't a senator at the time. We don't know what he would've done. The argument is sound. It is nearly impossible for a sitting U.S. senator to be elected if you base it on the entire history of our democracy. Whether it's ethanol subsidies in Iowa, TV Marti in Florida, or a fence to keep out people in New Mexico, every vote is watched by each state's voter's own interests.
Just got an e-mail from Senator Dodd. Said he is dropping out of the campaign. That's good and bad, because he seemed to me whooly committed to defending the Constitution and, if nothing else, could keep Constitutional issues as part of the debate (being that the current front runners seem loath to even mention the topic). On the up side, we need a strong presence in the senate to counter Harry Reid's ongoing abdication and betrayal of trust. Now Dodd won't have any distractions.
L.A. Confidential @ 13:
I could not agree more. I am a Obama supporter, but I am really taken back at the amount of negative press giving to the Democratic front runner. Hillary Clinton is not only fighting a very dynamic and strong contender, but she is also fighting off a steady flow of media bias. At every turn, she is being trashed, and in some cases, with CNN and MSNBC, they are spending 90% of their shows trashing her. Spare me with the "front runner" line. No other front runner is receiving that kind of media attacks. I want the right-wing media out of the Democratic mix. It confuses things and may be setting up a scenario they prefer.
I truly want Obama to win. However, I don't want the influence. For all it worth, this media element won't be their in the general election. We may find out, the best person for the Democratic top spot may of been overlooked. The media reaches millions of people in every corner in the US. No other candidate can buy what the right-wing media is doing to Clinton. I will call a "spade a spade." This scenario angers me. Especially coming from Chris Matthews. Matthews is on a power trip. He treats every guest based on how negative they are toward Clinton. I have often heard him say "I like those who agree with me." He will not like me.
Joseph
Paul @ 369:
Ditto.
swarmofkillermonkeys @ 293:
Before any more of my fellow lefties heads explode over the comment I made @ 275 let me rephrase what I meant with that post. I have little doubt many middle Americans would support a "white" black man or woman in the mold of a Condi Rice or Colin Powell. In other words a conservative leaning black person. It remains to be seen if I'm proved wrong if Obama gets the nomination. I won't call those who don't see Hillary as not being "electable" as being mysognists, even those who call her a "bitch", so don't suggest I'm a racist, cynic or trapped in the past because I don't see Obama as electable in 2008. I believe a woman can be elected president I just think Hillary would have a hard time. Likewise I believe a black man could be elected president but I don't think Obama is the one the majority of Americans will support in the generals this year with the crop of candidates we have to choose from. I want the strongest candidate be they male, female, black or white, pink or green because we can't afford another Republican in the White House for 8 more years and i don't think Obama is the strongest candidate to accomplish that, sorry.
...and the fact that his name Obama's name rhymes with Osama in this of all election years is not a plus, and no I'm not suggesting he changes his name (I can see that comment coming a mile away).
Is Chris Matthews retarded?
Jeez its disgusting some comments I read here, saying that Obama's parents were both Muslims and that he isn't a progressive, that he's a celebrity candidate or not experienced enough. Load of BS Lies. Or that he won't win in The South. Looks like there's hidden racism here. Come on. People in the South who won't vote for Obama in the General if he wins the nomination won't vote Democrat anyhow. Who wants rascists like that in the Democratic Party. Give them to the Repugs.
FACE IT! HE WON IOWA! THATS A START.
So your candidate didn't win the Iowa caucus. No reason to be a sour grape. Move on and get over it and don't smear others. Its disgusting...and I assume you guys are the older, mature folk. Hah like it wasn't enough that you've ruin the country for the youngsters. Now you want to throw mud at the candidate we voted and endorsed. So much for being wiser with age...
OBAMA 08!!!
FIRED UP READY TO GO.
If the 2008 election produces 60 plus Democratic senators committed to it, then even Hillary or Obama could support real reform like HB676 medicare for all. And get us out of the war. Just a thought!!
Mr. XXXX @ 16:
Hank @ 369:
McKinley was a governor. Roosevelt was not. Taft was not. Wilson was. Harding was a senator. Coolidge was a governor when elected VP. Roosevelt was a governor. Truman a senator when elected VP. Eisenhower at large. Kennedy senator. Johnson senator when elected VP. Nixon at large. Carter governor. Reagan at large. Bush at large. Clinton governor. Bush governor. So, we have 7 sitting governors raised to national office, 4 sitting senators elected to the executive, 4 at large candidates and one Secretary of Defense in the twentieth century. I fail to see your point. This is something you heard on tv and decided it made sense. Besides, why would a governor of a state not be seen as favoring his state when a senator from the same state would? Before you start accusing someone of spin you should a) look up the definition of "spin" and b) take a course or two in logic and critical thinking.
YOUNG OBAMA SUPPORTER.SOMEONE HURT YOUR FEELINGS,GET OVER IT BRAT.
the libertine @ 379:
Once you get banned from commenting here, I will be SO goddamn happy.
the libertine @ 343:
erm... okay? I don't care how he eats his pudding. Policy decisions are what matters - who cares about the superficial garbage? It's like Maureen Dowd's obsession with pantsuits. None of the candidates are perfect, but I prefer to debate them based on their policy decisions, rather than how they eat pudding.
Your right about Maureen Dowd,she is a snoby BITCH.
The Wing-ed Monkeys are out in force tonight, posting their little brains out. tappattatappatatappatatapppatatapppata...
What Rachel forgot to mention, youth especially can't relate at all to Hillary, and they are turning out for primaries in record numbers for a REASON.
G'head Rachel tell us a 2 day old tuna sandwich left on a park bench is still edible.
Just a thot: If Obama picks a veep like Dodd he would have a truly strong ticket.
And another: When Hillary gets knocked she dresses in pink and hawks about how we really need a crease in the WH (picture a wedge of NY pizza). It didn't work last time she tried that except among other creases (ahem, I have one too and so did Thatcher).
Ummm....if (approximately) 1/3 caucused for her, and 1/3 caucused for Obama, and the remaining 1/3 caucused for Edwards - didn't 2/3 go against every last one of them? Isn't that what a "three way race" means?
Tweety is such a douchebag.
Mr. XXXX @ 5:
But what about Edwards' advisers? Don't you have any info on them? Don't worry, I do:
He doesn’t really have any big name advisors but the Edward’s campaign names that are out there mainly come from the Army and the Air Force and the Navy Material Command. Those are the portions of the Pentagon that do the Defense contracts, that do the deals with the big companies like Raytheon and Boeing, etc. One of those listed on the Edwards team is the lobbyist for the big military contractor EADS. So, although Edwards talks about going after lobbyists, if he tries to go after the military lobbyists, he may get a little blowback from his own advisers.
Hmm, lots of Army, Navy & Air Force... Let's see, if we ascribe to them the same judgment you ascribe to Sarah Sewall who merely wrote an introduction to a book that the military uses AND works for a human rights group, I'd say those advisers are all killers. Oh wait, they're not killers, they all work for the Material Command! Now what does that mean? Hmmm. I got it! Edwards is just as flawed as the rest.
P.S. Adding the 'fraud' to Obama's name detracts from any valid point you may have by making you seem like you're bearing grudge IMO
Mr. XXXX @ 27:
Care to back that up with a link?
I just saw Hillary's speech. I then rewound the tape to make sure I'd seen what I'd seen.
SHE NEVER CONCEDED OR CONGRATULATED OBAMA.
HOW CLASSLESS IS THAT? Seriously.
That's a pretty bad move on her part.
It's just bad form. If you read her speech transcript you'd have no idea she actually came in third place.
Very disappointing.
Even Keith Olberman is pissing me off. The media really is scared of Edwards aren't they? A hell of a spech and showing tonight and all they(including KO) can do, when they aren't ignoring him, is ridicule Edwards.
Well done John. Despite my fav. Kucinich going with Obama(and deserved props to him), my wagon has now been hitched up to the Edwards campaign.
Gary @ 22:
Ya know, she isn't my primary choice, but if she gets the nomination, I will support her with dedication, and the fact that it makes wingers apoplectic makes the possibility of a Hillary presidency taste especially sweet.
Wondermachine @ 38:
Don't like the Clintons I take it?
i preferred edwards but all of the dems would be good candidates.
Wondermachine @ 38:
Oh, gimme a break. If she loses the race, she should congratulate. But based on every single state? I think not. The battle is far from over.
Obama will get better, and better, and better at campaigning as this campaign wears on into the year.
Bonkers @ 33:
Hah! My apologies, XXXX. You didn't post at #26. But my point is still that you (and the fella at 26) aren't convincing me of anything while you are irritating me. Just saying.
L.A. Confidential @ 41:
Actually I voted for Clinton and am a lifelong Democrat. So, don't even TRY going there.
This is disappointing. And yes, it is classless. History was made this evening and there wasn't an acknowledgement.
Edwards had the good grace to be honest and say he didn't win it.
War Whisperers
The 2008 hopefuls promised a change in foreign policy then hired the old guard.
by Kelley Beaucar Vlahos
October 8, 2007 Issue
The American Conservative
(Excerpt here)
Despite the declining appetite for war among regular Americans, the message is clear: when it comes to shaping future foreign policy for either party, hawks and internationalists are in, doves and realists are out…“My view is, if you want a shift in strategy, you aren’t going to get it from these people, who are just hungry for a job in the next administration,” observed one Beltway policy wonk. Any conceivable Democratic White House, he noted, would smell a lot like the status quo. Reappearing would be a phalanx of Clinton I protagonists with names like Albright, Holbrooke, Lake, and Berger, followed by a lesser-known generation of liberal interventionists like Peter Beinart, Lee Feinstein, Martin Indyk, and Anne-Marie Slaughter….Obama’s team has reached out to more of a mixed crowd, engaging former Clintonites Susan Rice, an African expert at Brookings, and Washington lawyer Mark Brzezinski. Obama also snagged the endorsement of Brzezinski’s father, Carter National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski. Lawrence Korb, a former assistant secretary of defense, is also working with Obama. He is one of many from the Center for American Progress—headed by former Clinton deputy chief of staff and Hillary supporter John Podesta—working with the top tier. Korb has championed a redeployment plan for U.S. troops and recently co-authored an op-ed for the Boston Globe entitled “How to withdraw quickly and safely.” While Hillary has been courting military brass—most notably Ret. Gen. Jack Keane, who co-wrote the current surge strategy with Frederick Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute—Obama has reportedly sought advice from Ret. Gen. Powell.
Read the entire article @: http://www.amconmag.com/2007/2007_10_08/article.html
Vote for Change? Atrocity-Linked U.S. Officials Advising Democratic, GOP Presidential Frontrunners January 03, 2008 on Democracy Now With Amy Goodman. Guests: Allan Nairn, Independent journalist. Runs the web-blog “News and Comment.” http://newsc.blogspot.com and Kelley Beaucar Vlahos, of the American Conservative.
Learn more @:
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/3/vote_for_change_atrocity_linked_us
Allan Nairn who has written about these advisers @: newsc.blogspot.com
I think our government is dead. With oil reaching $100/barrel and Exxon etc posting record profits-yet again, and the common wo/man being able say "One trillion dollars" in regards to war monies...well, that money-power-greed and smallness isn't going to go away too easy. "Go and have your Caucus, we'll tell you who's filling our coffers in Novemeber."-so to speak.
I'm not math scholar, but if a candidate receives 30% of the vote, how in the hell can you "debunk" the theory that 70% of the voters didn't vote for them? I agree that it is way WAY too early to declare Clinton's campaign over, but she clearly didn't receive the support of 70% of the voting Democrats.
The Dem race is actually a wash. They are all too close. The REAL news is Huckabee...
Fuck Hillary
Shawnmeat @ 43:
Romney congratulated Huckabee. Granted there is a lot to go but for the build up to tonight I could see how it'd be a classy thing to do. Though personally I don't care, I can see how for a lot of people, her not congratulating Obama, IF the MSM makes a stink about it (they will, if it's true, I'm sure) will do a lot to reinforce the negative views about her.
Shawnmeat @ 43:
Seriously, even Romney or Giuliani shouldn't be conceding at this point, though I would probably kill myself laughing if they did; that would be PRICELESS! This is one night! Hillary has every right to keep on going; criminy, she's still a King Kong heavyweight in this race, fer cryin' out loud!
Boy, is this going to be an interesting year...
The American Conservative? Seriously?
I think you need to adjust your meds. You're in the wrong place.
tweakerbell @ 50:
Yea, cause having 71,00 voters compared to the 220,000 isn't an issue. Huckabee can win all he wants. It won't mean shit when the election takes place.
Mr. XXXX @ 5:
First of all.. exactly who the heck died and declare any one opinion as the 'right' opinion. The process is that the people pick the person.. Not that there's any one truly correct person.
Obama isn't on my list of favorite people.. but I find it offensive when someone basically smear another person. Sure.. Hillary and Obama support the medical drug corporation towards federal health care.. which may not be a drastic change since the money would still go to a corporation. But the last time I checked.. the US have had mixed feelings about "socialized" medicine... I think small changes are the best. since that's how our government is suppose to work..
I'm still going for Hillary.. But as long as a democratic candidate wins, I'll be happy. I saw Huckabee's webpage.... the Republic is still going along the same line... They don't support federal healthcare... ignoring that there 'are' people with chronic disease who need to be treated.. They're not backing away from their stance of Iraq.. though there's no 'real' rational reason why the U.S. is still there.. And the gay marriage issue.. it's still an issue like 'family values'
I think the last 7 years showed us that there are bigger problems than conflicts within the Dem party...
Retaining the status quo, as Obama is doing on foreign policy advisors and offering NOTHING to better healthcare, does not amount to "change" or a "new direction."
Just saying.....
Mr. XXXX @ 57:
Foreign Policy. That's where Biden earns the SoS ticket
Agent Provocateur @ 39:
Hear that dude!!! Kucinich turned me onto Edwards after his go to Obama plan!!! Edwards is the man!!!
The Iowa Post-Mortem - Five Things We Now Know:
1. Mitt Romney is Finished
2. John Edwards is Probably Finished
3. Huckabee's Rise is McCain's Resurrection
4. Hillary is Down But Not Out; Rudy is Out But Not Necessarily Down
5. Massive Democratic Turnout Bodes Well for November
Not a flame, but I have to say this: Edwards blinks WAY too much.
I can't get mad at any of them. I love all the Dems. How nice it will be to not have fascists in the WH.
yea, I'm an Edwards fan. I'll take Obama as a consolation prize though
I saw the Edwards speech. Actually caught about two-thirds of it. Very moving.
Obama's on right now and also visionary. The crowd is just ecstatic and very motivated and so YOUNG!! Just energized.
I think the Republicans are most worried about the Dem turnout. They're going to be toast in November if these numbers turnout for the Democratic candidate.
California Dave @ 59:
+1
i just made the first financial donation of my life tonight.
John Edwards, your welcome.
Cantor de Mambo @ 62:
Unless Hillary gets the nod...
Why do I feel like I'm being managed???!!?
Suspicion I guess.
Edwards. If you want a Dem in office.
That's just how it has to be if you want to beat the South, especially against Huckabee. Here we go again. Can't wait to hear the Huck campaign start trashing homosexuals for the demise of this country.
"Onward Christian soldiers, marching onto war!!!"
Oy vey.
Mr. XXXX @ 47:
Ya, ok simple misdirection here. The American Conservative (big hint there) is subtlety implying that the old guard being hired by dem candidates is responsible for the CURRENT horror of American foreign policy. Unless Dem candidates are hiring BUSH old guard, I'm not worried.
Mr. XXXX you are too easy too debunk!
Cats r Flyfishn @ 23:
Yeah. Of course, Richardson DINOs would go to Obama that makes sense (what is that about 9%... I can't find that anywhere). But Dennis? Still like a stab in the heart for Kucinich command all his minions to back Obama instead of Edward. I guess he is all ego now too. Jeez, give a man a hot, smart wife and he thinks he's king of the universe! (not that I blame him for pride) ;)
And defending Clinton is like pulling out my fingernails with pliers... but screw concessions! WHY concede?! They are all still running the race!
"My competitors ran good races in this state and we look forward to battling them in the next."
That's all that needs to be said. Conceding before the counting is done is bullshit, and outmoded. Kerry conceding, thereby facilitating voter fraud? Bullshit. Cutting the count early in 2000 kicking off 8 years of historic criminal enterprise from Bush and Cheney? Bullshit.
Please, lets have no more about conceding. If you can bring yourself to vote for ANY Democrat, surely you must understand that by now.
Biden is announcing he is dropping out of the race.
Here here I am with No62. Time to end the Criminal Bush Regime...it is Happening , Finally...Edwards and Obama are showing that it is about CHANGE....and HOPE....and Look this is such a stunning moment that hte
( Hill is too entitled and has made mistakes... but she will still fight tooth and nail and go more negative proballly...Biden and Dodd are leaving the race... and the Talking Heads are just stymied....if I have to listen to Pat Buchanon say that Edwards is toast one more time I will have to Elvis the TV....Obama is the First Black person that has won ANYTHING ever in Iowa as CNN pointed out.....this is HUGE.....)
DRaz @ 69:
I don't buy the "only a white Southerner" can win the White House argument. It's really based on a racist assumption.
And it really is laced with cynicism.
It also doesn't speak to the ability that Obama has proven to move and sway voters. This is what we've seen in Iowa with the HUGE numbers of independents and even disenfranchised Republicans that came out to support him.
I know what it's like to feel so down you can't believe what we're seeing. But this is not 2004. We have three candidates who have the ability to lead the country.
Obama has gone into the lion's den of conservative Christians and made them stand up in ovation for his ability to inspire.
We'll see where the campaign goes.
Edwards can win the South. Obama cannot. And no amount of falling red, white and blue confetti is going to change the hearts and minds of the racist south tonight. Or sadly, any night.
i love that the numbers were so close. all three will do a better job than bush has done.
i'm just looking foward to this time next year when this country will tell bush/darth buh-by.
I wonder how many votes, mostly Union members, but progressives as well, do you think Edwards lost by Kucinich jumping behind Obama?
…and again why can’t Edwards get any sort of traction with the “news” channels? Are they really that scared? If you listen to them it sounds as though even Hillary did better, despite her resounding ‘thud’.
rusty b. shakleford @ 75:
BS.
look at the faces behind Obama - young and full of energy
look at the face behind Hillary - old boring faces
rusty b. shakleford @ 75:
He did not do that in 2004. He won't do it now.
And the South is such a small group. Why are they relevant?
Barack and the American people 2008.
budda @ 79:
You trade youth for experience. But I get your point.
Hillary would make a great Senator from New York.
Edwards would make a great Vice President.
What a speech by Barack Obama. The country's ready.
I really dunno. All I'm sayin' is I lived in the South for 24 of my 42 years. I know what it's like. Try it. You'll hate it.
Kucinich helped Obama out a lot by telling his supporters to vote for Obama. Thanks Dennis.
Congrats to Obama!! But to be honest, I don't want the Democratic candidate to sweep through all the primaries. I want a contested primary process.
Mr. XXXX -
You were asked to back up your attack on Edwards' advisors, but didn't. The only person mentioned in that article as being linked to Edwards is Derek Chollet, but he hasn't been an advisor of Edwards' since 2004. And in case you haven't noticed, Edwards' position on the war has changed since then. Do you have more?
ps. I hate to admit it, but most of what you said in your first post is close to what I used on various people this evening. With that said, your posting style is obnoxious and infantile.
Agent Provocateur @ 77:
Right. Not only did Edwards spend a lot less money in Iowa than did Obama + Clinton but he also got nowhere near the media coverage they did. His showing is impressive tonight considering the MSM doesn't want to act like they even know who he is.
Like I said on the other post, the marquee story of the night is that the big loser of the Iowa caucuses was the GOP. If you look at the entrance polling data, the bottom four GOP candidates combined for a whopping 43% of the vote, whereas for the Dems it was only 7%. Combine this with the over 2:1 turnout ratio favoring the Dems, and what you end up with is a splintered, weak GOP that will most likely limp into the national election, only to face a strong and unified Democratic coalition. Bad news for the conservative base, good news for the country as a whole!
Well, we can decide to be led by fear or led by our hope.
To compare Obama with Kerry and even Gore and their inability to inspire and move Southerners is just absolutely wrong.
It's a false comparison. I like and respect Edwards. But I think I think I'd be able to sign on to his bandwagon if he'd been even able to win some Southern primaries in 2004? I mean he couldn't even win one. Did he win one?? Back when he had more money and support than he has now??
I was born and raised in the South, and I'm not saying the Obama is going to have an easy ride. It's going to be a TOUGH TOUGH fight, but I believe the party and yeah, Obama, are able to swing people.
He polls very high in Virginia and I think Iowa's turnout changes the pinkred Iowa of 2004 (that voted for Bush) to a blueish state.
I'm saddened by the inability of Progressive Dems to not see the possibilities inherent in someone who's training has been in community organizing. It's an inability to believe that change can be possible.
The cynicism is understandable after eight years of being beat down by the Bush regime. But we need to break ourselves out of it to believe it's possible.
Wondermachine @ 54:
The American Conservative has opposed Bush on his wars in Iraq and his war rhetoric on Iran. In fact, the American Conservative has similar views to the Nation magazine regarding Bush's foreign policy in the Middle East. The American Conservative magazine in fact, has done one of the best jobs for a national magazine opposing the war in Iraq and has a verygood staff of intellectuals and academics writing for it. I do not agree with the magazine on immigration and other social issues, but its foreign policy part regarding Bush's war policies is worth reading. It exposes the Bush administration from the right which can only help bolster arguments from those on the left regarding the war. Philip Giraldi who also writes for the Huffington Post is a regular contributor and he has fine analysis of those out to bring about more American wars abroad. Professor Andrew Bacevich, a very credible scholar who lost a son in Iraq writes for the magazine as well. The Nation magazine and the American Conservative both have been very effective in their criticism of the Bush administration. For example, the blog, antiwar.com carries both liberal and cpnservative voices who oppose the war. The New Republic--a liberal magazine championed the war in Iraq and the hate talk on Iran.
I am not so arrogant as to not read The American Conservative magazine. As a proud liberal and being antiwar, I am against America's Imperial wars, and secure enough to be liberal minded enough not to be contaminated by reading such periodicals. Amy Goodman after all, invited Kelley Beaucar Vlahos, of the American Conservative on her show. Keith Olbermann often invites former Bushies and former Nixonians and former Reaganites on his show. Is that not okay, either?
Oh well.
L.A. Confidential @ 81:
Considering what experience has wrought so far, I'd take lucky over both youth and experience.
rolly polly @ 84:
Also thank Biden, Richards, and Dodd.
Mr. XXXX @ 57:
That's debatable... in my opinion, our current foreign policy.. like our flooded city policy, is shit. I think many people are struggling for a capable one.. As for healthcare, he offers to encourage a federal healthcare, which helps cover more people.. I think giving people basic coverage and trying to encourage companies to not refuse those with pre existing condition... and having a functioning administration is a start to a new direction.
It's not a completely different change, but it is a 'change' compare to what was happening.
Filthy Harry @ 91:
LOL I think your right. It's been a while since we've had youth on our side.
Wondermachine @ 64:
Good for you to mention this. The voter turnout was over 227,000--a record, and almost double the last turnout of 124,000. If this keeps up the Repubs are going to be hammered in November by a tsunami of public discontent. Couldn't happen to nicer people.
It is clear that many C&L bloggers are Edwards supporters and are disappointed by the results and I guess I can understand that because we have so many wonderful candidates in this race, but only one of them could reach this moment in time.
I like to say that I resent those that would call this man a liar though, especially when that is the number one reason he won in the first place and it just makes my heart sing to know that the number one supporters and believers of him are none other then white America and that speaks volumes to those of us who never though it could happen.
I can't believe that it could be possible for me to go to my grave knowing that my son and two grandsons are looking at a black man like Senator Obama in a way this country has never given our folks the opportunity to even think was possible.
This shout out goes to the people of Iowa, who stood tall for the right man in this race and while I don't really believe it had anything to do with race, however a person like my self just can't help but to understand the difference in contrast and the hope this man inspires in a huge majority of not just people of Iowa, but all over this country.
I really believe that Senator Obama is going to blow this race out, all over this country and the people of Iowa just started the ball to rolling and I would be re mist to not mention the Democratic turnout especially our young people and how very serious they showed this country that they are tired as hell of George W Bush and the republican party leadership and what better way to show them and this lying ass National Media, who could not find of way to steal this moment in time from the American people.
THANK YOU IOWA FOR SHOWING AMERICA, THERE IS A VERY POSITIVE DIFFERENCE IN WHAT WE HAVE WITNESSED IN THE LAST SEVEN YEARS
L.A. Confidential @ 94:
MSNBC just announced that
57% OF THE UNDER 30 VOTE WENT FOR OBAMA
Looks like Dodd is out. Sorry to see him go, but we need him in the Senate fighting for us and the Constitution.
Obama = modern day MLK. He would dominate the presidential race. Clinton already has a lot of haters. John Edwards has a lot of same positions as Obama but not the same amount of flair. Obama / Edwards '08!
Mike Gravel has dropped out of the race.
bmw 528 @ 95:
I can not wait until November. No matter who the Democratic candidate is, I will vote for him/her and I will work to get him/her elected.
Congratulations to Obama. I hope he modifies his positions on the issues to a more progressive direction as the campaign moves along.
It's curious that all the second tier candidates endorsed Obama, and not one endorsed Edwards. I sense the invisible hand of the Demo old guard at play here. Edwards truly scares the Beltway heavies. I'm still supporting Edwards, but he is swimming against an established current.
Let's hope Obama is placing his real progressive values under the radar and surprises me. Edwards represents the energy of most of the progressive blogosphere and that force is not going away Beltway or no Beltway.
"The fact is..." I'm sitting in front of my computer watching this and being Influenced. Rachel Maddow does a great job of not giving in and going with "tomorrow's headline." And by saying that I feel like I'm being condescencing. The Machine is Broke! Fuck this Machine!
BigTallMatt @ 88:
Hm! Nice point.
nonbeliever @ 98:
I actually feel the same way... he actually 'did' something.. which matters and made a difference.
I do not attack other posters in here. I stick to what I comment about regarding the various candidates.
As a proud liberal, Barack Obama offers little in the way of change. I will not yield from this position until the "Man of the Hour" (Obama) offers proof of such change. So, far, the only change has been nicer rhetoric and some Hollywood smooth...
I also used the electability argument on some Obama people, but gave up as they refused to see my point. I also mentioned Obama's rising negatives as compared with Edwards' (which are stable in the 30s), but this also didn't work.
You can see what terrifies me. I hate the idea that the only way for Democrats to win the White House (post "Southern Strategy") is to nominate a southern white, but there's a lot of history to support this idea. If the country ready for a half-black JFK? I wish it were, but I doubt it.
nin-mofo @ 78:
Actually, it's not bovine excrement. Have you ever been to the south? Have you ever been to a state called FLORIDA? And South Beach doesn't count. Obama is BLACK and it doesn't matter if he is anointed by heaven itself. Racism is a visceral thing. It gets into your DNA and messess with your ability to reason. It's not going to be relieved by an inspiring speech or an impressive pedigree. Obama will never win Florida.
Hail to the Chimp @ 100:
Well, I want to say that I was disappointed that Gravel was ridiculed so much by the MSM (and even a lot of liberal bloggers). His role in opposing the Vietnam War and his courageous stance with the Pentagon Papers (look it up on Wiki for more) should've been respected a lot more. His eccentricity didn't help him any, but I was always amazed that there was not reference to his historic importance.
Dodd was/is such a champion in the Senate and I hope he can devote himself to killing the FISA bill.
Mr. XXXX @ 90:
And American Conservative also recently pictured Rudy Mussolini dressed as a fascist on their cover with 9-11 tattooed all over him. Good for them to expose the fraud he is.
Forgot to mention that Matthews is a complete douche. He can't even pretend to be non-partisan whenever he mentions the Clintons. It was a valiant attempt by Rachel to smack some sense into him with actual numbers.
Please dont get me wrong I do like Obama and would gladly vote for him in the general(he isn't there yet though) but the lack of experiance is a real concern. The closer this gets to the real thing the more anxious I get. I would love nothing more to be wrong but I just can't fight a nagging feeling that he is an totally "x-treme" dude Manchurian. The more the media fawns over him and denigrates Edwards the stronger that feeling becomes.
They wanted Hillary; Obama is sounding like their plan B; Edwards is throwing a wrench in the machine.
To see a tongue-in-cheek review of the Iowa primary in pictures...link here:
www.thoughttheater.com
Bonkers @ 104:
Thanks. I thought the forum could use a nice hot dose of FACTS, especially when it's good news for everybody!
Mr. XXXX @ 106:
And, Americans love their cable TV and fluffy-fluff all the while complaining about the fact that "the media picks our candidates, all the time." Without cable TV, Obama would be exposed for the fraud he is. But he looks good on that cable TV and all the fluffy-fluffs eat it up.
That will not end wars or bring about healthcare. Go for Obama and you deserve to lose your healthcare and most likely Obama will bomb Iran as well.
nonbeliever @ 101:
Word. Every Dem candidate from Clinton to Gravel is superior to every Republican, (yes Ron Paul too.)
JTM @ 107:
What is a half-black JFK? Wow.
And as many racist that there are in this country there are more non-racists. Obama can win Florida.
I cant support O'Bama. He is a celebrity candidate.
It's not cynicism Wondermachine. I know for a fact that just because Huck is a former Bapt. minister, he's got my parent's vote. It's sorry, yes, but it's reality. The reality is a huge amount of Americans vote based on feelings or religious beliefs. It's wrong, really wrong, but how to deal with it? I wanted Obama from the beginning, then moved to Kucinich immediately when he got on-board. Now I think Edwards has the best chance. What I'm most concerned about is getting back to a democracy. Not a monarchy. It's my priority over who actually gets in office within the Dem candidates. I just want to get back to AMERICA as it was meant to be.
What I meant to say was, Rachel Maddow, is the winner here. Listen to what she is saying and then decide for yourself.
Wondermachine @ 89:
Why would you think that is the problem Progressives have with Obama? Perhaps the corporate money he has taken or the fact that he skipped out on many IMPORTANT votes to go ego stroke in front of crowds? (only to be shown up by the relatively conservative Dodd -- DODD fer cryin out loud!) Or even his lackluster "debate" performances. One good speech a year ain't gonna cut it to be called a good progressive.
Change is possible. Vote for the man that will fight for that change rather that just hope for it -- Edwards. :)
Mr. XXXX @ 5:
What's your point?
swarmofkillermonkeys @ 120:
Absolutely. There's no way I'm giving up on Edwards at this point.
...and I never thought I would say this but...
Hey, Fuck You Too Keith.
Bashing Bush is well and good...and easy...but wtf? Are you really no better than making Tweety smirk next to you as you take shots at a true progressive candidate?
Login or Register to post comments.