Live Iowa Caucus Updates
Live Iowa Caucus Updates
FINAL UPDATE: Barack Obama delivers his victory speech:
11:18 PM: Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) has also announced that he is dropping out. He received 1 percent of the delegate count in the caucuses.
10:37 PM: CNN and MSNBC are reporting that Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) plans to drop out of the Democratic presidential race. He came in seventh place in the Iowa caucuses.
10:30 PM: MSNBC reports that “heavy turnout clogged Iowa’s 1,800 precinct caucuses.” According to the Iowa Democratic party, there were a record 218,000 caucus participants with 93.5 percent of the precincts reporting.
10:23 PM: The Clinton campaign has put out a statement:
Congratulations to Senator Obama and his campaign on their victory tonight. It’s been a hard fought race here in Iowa for the last year and all eyes now turn to New Hampshire.
Hillary is going to continue making the case that in these serious times when America faces big challenges, it will take a leader with the strength and experience to deliver real change.
This race begins tonight and ends when Democrats throughout America have their say. Our campaign was built for a marathon and we have the resources to run a national race in the weeks ahead.
10:22 PM: In a speech to supporters, Elizabeth Edwards introduced her husband as the “second place winner.” John Edwards closed his speech by saying, “Thank you for second place!”
10:00 PM: Politico’s Mike Allen offers this punditry on Fox News about John McCain, who is currently running fourth behind Huckabee, Romney, and Thompson:
Tonight is a fantastic night for John McCain. … He’s one of the biggest winners of the night. He’s now in a fantastic position. Except for Barack Obama, there’s almost no one you’d rather be tonight than John McCain.
Watch it:
“McCain, however, resisted efforts to call Romney’s loss a McCain win when reporters pressed him on what it would mean for his own fortunes in the next contest, the New Hampshire primary on Tuesday. ‘I consider it to be Gov. Huckabee’s victory,’ said McCain.”
9:42 PM: The AP surveyed Iowa caucus-goers about their ideology and found that half of those at the Democratic caucuses “described themselves as liberal, compared to 56 percent in 2004 and 49 percent in 2000.” At the Republican caucuses, nearly eight in 10 “called themselves conservative, compared to about three-quarters of voters in the last two contested GOP caucuses, in 1996 and 2000.”
9:32 PM: Fox News has called the Democratic caucuses for Obama. Edwards and Clinton are tied for second.
9:27 PM: CNN and MSNBC have called Iowa for Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL).
9:24 PM: The AP reports on Huckabee’s victory:
Romney sought to frame his defeat as something less than that, saying he had trailed Huckabee, a former Arkansas governor, by more than 20 points a few weeks ago. “I’ve been pleased that I’ve been able to make up ground and I intend to keep making up ground, not just here but across the country,” he said.
On Fox News, Huckabee strategist Ed Rollins said his candidate won because the former governor is a “populist strong candidate.”
9:16 PM: The Des Moines Register reports that heavy turnout is causing delays at many caucus sites.
9:01 PM: CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC have projected that former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee has won the Iowa caucuses. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney just appeared on Fox News and conceded: “Congratulations for the first round to Mike, and we’ll go on to New Hampshire.” Romney added Huckabee had “a natural base” in Iowa. Watch it:
8:58 PM: CNN reports that half of the Democratic caucus-goers in Iowa are first-time participants, according to early entrance polls. Additionally, close to 60 percent are women and 80 percent are over the age of 45. Iraq ranks as the top issue. Watch it:
On the Republican side, “nearly 75 percent are over the age of 45. There are slightly more men than women.” Approximately 60 percent identify themselves as evangelical Christians. Immigration is the top issue.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
At least the Dems don’t have to have the Bush crime family and Republican corporations such as Diebold with their electronic computerized voting machines “counting” their votes in the 2008 Iowa Caucus…
Thank Mother Nature for small favors…
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:03 pmThe top Republican issue is immigration? That is just incredible. What kind of addle-pated fools are these people?
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:08 pmBingo, Obama with 34%, to Clinton and Edwards with 32%. Too close to call with 46% of precincts reporting.
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:10 pmHuckster is smashing Romney to itty bitty pieces, 35% to 24%, with McPain in fourth place with a measley 12%
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:11 pmIraq ranks as the top issue for Democrats while immigration is the top issue for Republicans. Funny how their entire ideology revolves around verbs instead of nouns.
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:12 pmWow, Ron Paul with 11% to JulieAnnie’s 4%, with 25% precincts reported.
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:13 pmMike Huckabee 14,045 31%
Mitt Romney 10,084 23%
Spend 9 million and get beat by 8%. Not a good investment.
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:16 pm#2. Comment by stonehinge
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:16 pmimmigration, gay rights and abortion are the wedge issues the repugs focus on as they have noting else. And notice how these issue never get solved, will never get solved and come up year after year.
“Additionally, close to 60 percent are women and 80 percent are over the age of 45. Iraq ranks as the top issue.”
The first two stats are killer for Obama, while the last is good news. Exiting polls seem good for O, but the Dem caucus process can turn on a dime.
Repbubs? How can McCain be coming in 4th to freakin Thompson? I was having moments of hope for the Repubs based on late breaking polls that they might go with McCain for at least a strong 3rd place showing.
Go, Barack, Go!
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:20 pmThe top Republican issue is immigration? That is just incredible. What kind of addle-pated fools are these people?
Comment by stonehinge — January 3, 2008 @ 9:08 pm
The top Republican issue is, fear of, brown people and unbelievers. That’s what kind of fools they are.
And? Has anyone run a story about participation in the caucus? What’s the total number of Republicans vs. number of Democrats?
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:21 pmMcCain completely ignored this state until he flew in yesterday to sneer at a crowd.
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:22 pmBarack Obama 500 35%
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:22 pmJohn Edwards 447 31%
Hillary Clinton 444 31%
Bill Richardson 24 2%
Joe Biden 14 1%
So the repukeblicans chose Taliban.
And this is exactly the kind of crap that scares the sh.. out of all those parts of the world that are developed democracies (i.e. not theocracies).
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:27 pmHow can McCain be coming in 4th to freakin Thompson?
Comment by Keltoi at Night — January 3, 2008 @ 9:20 pm
I was wondering the same exact thing myself.
It’s hard to believe…
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:27 pmWith 72% of the precincts reporting, Obama still leads 35 to 31 over both Clinton and Edwards, with Edwards a few votes ahead of Clinton.
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:30 pmfrom msnbc.
In interviews as they entered the caucuses, more than half of all the Republicans said they were either born-again or evangelical Christians, and they liked Huckabee more than any of his rivals.
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:31 pmApproximately 60 percent identify themselves as evangelical Christians.
So Hucksters win here is a non starter. If he doesn’t do well here, that would be a story.
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:31 pmConsidering Obama’s slim margin came as the result of out of state college students, this still seems like a 3 way race on the Dem side.
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:34 pmExactly, Merlin. The real story to me is the NINE million bucks Mittens burned up here to come in second by nearly double digits.
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:35 pmFor any of you who want to turn your attention to NH, here’s a great link
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:40 pmNew Hampshire Elections
So it appears so far that Edwards did well here. Especially if he hangs on to second place. His numbers from most polls placed him 3rd, although they all said it was within MOE and too close to call. That Hillary did not do better is the story here for me. Congrats to Obama who brought the youth out, it appears. That so many young people came out is very encouraging.
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:45 pmThe GOoPers are in teh mist of a hatchet fight.
Yippee!
-GSD
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:47 pmThat so many young people came out is very encouraging.
Comment by Merlin — January 3, 2008 @ 9:45 pm
It really is, Merlin.
I hope this continues into actual voter turnout.
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:48 pmhis name is huck.
huck huckabee!
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:50 pmThe bottom line is that the US Republicans are trying their darndest to turn this country into a theocratic plutocracy.
The fact that Huckabee is the winner at 36% should be a HUGE red flag to ALL Americans who care about this democracy.
We not only have the corporations to worry about but the Jesus freaks are a whole other segment of this nation that do not desire to promote the basic tenets of the Constitution. Just ask them. “God will take care of it all”
Religion is for home and temple. NOT HALLS OF POWER. And don’t kid yourself, this trend is not passing. Religion has a stranglehold and this is NOT a good thing.
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:51 pmThe fact that Huckabee is the winner at 36% should be a HUGE red flag to ALL Americans who care about this democracy.
Comment by civil behavior — January 3, 2008 @ 9:51 pm
I’d have to agree….it is just Iowa though. That is the only silver lining for the Rs…
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:57 pmSince younger voters went for Obama 5 or 6 to 1 over each of the other two major candidates, can we assume that Bush will be the last baby boomer to win the Presidency?
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:57 pmcivil / Keltoi,
Iowa is both heavily liberal and heavily evangelical, and Huckabee is both, outside of abortion.
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:58 pmThe fact that Obama won Iowa over Hillary Clinton is a cause for celebration.
:-)
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:00 pmComment by civil behavior
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:04 pmfor sure if the Huck is the nominee when all is said and done.. the dirt on him is waist high.
So far we know he has made statements that offends and degrades women, made racist comments, anti gay comments and he has an abusive son – abuses animals – hanging a dog until it died…. We know all this and we haven’t even started the race yet.
#30, Zooey,
Gave your post a recommend – anyone, anyone, anyone but Hill’reh.
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:04 pmThe fact that Obama won Iowa over Hillary Clinton is a cause for celebration.
:-)
Comment by Zooey — January 3, 2008 @ 10:00 pm
Total agreement.
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:06 pmThe entire field of Republican candidates is made up of poorly drawn caricatures of stereotypical nut-jobs.
I’m scared as hell that the media is covering this with a straight face.
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:07 pm#24 Comment by civil behavior — January 3, 2008 @ 9:51 pm
Religion is for home and temple. NOT HALLS OF POWER. And don’t kid yourself, this trend is not passing. Religion has a stranglehold and this is NOT a good thing.
I disagree that the “trend is not passing.” I believe that the evangelical movement peaked in its strength and power at the same time as Bush’s popularity did after the 2004 election. Their star is linked to Bush and without a President who champions their cause, they shrink back to the fringe wingnuts they are. The American public, in my view, is no longer buying all their hypocritical religiosity any more than they believe that Bush is/was right on Iraq.
This does not mean we can relax our fight against their onslaughts, which are long term, and dangerous to our Democracy. It just means that soon their teeth will be removed by a trip to the dentist on Jan. 9, 2009.
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:07 pm9:32 PM: Fox News has called the Democratic caucuses for Obama. Edwards and Clinton are tied for second.
9:27 PM: CNN and MSNBC have called Iowa for Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL).
wow… that must’ve taken just about ALL your energy, TP, to have typed out those 2 updates… good thing you found a way to get a link to a clinton story… and to fox!
way to go, TP… i’m very proud of you…
now, get to work on an above-board, positive and serious story about what this OBAMA victory means for the american PEOPLE… k?
thanks!
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:08 pmIf Clinton continues in third place I think it is a good indication of how the nation thinks. For months and months the press and Republicans have touted Clinton as the front runner and yet, despite the enormous sums she spent in Iowa, the voters have rejected her. I don’t think she is electable, no matter how many polls say otherwise. Talk to the man in the street and it is hard to find a Clinton supporter.
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:09 pmKeeping this in perspective, New Hampshire is less than a week away and Mittens is running behind McInsane. The Huckster is going to place a distant 3rd there.
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:10 pmI heard Howard Dean say that democratic turnout nearly doubled Repug turnout.
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:11 pmaquarius2, Clinton is going to win big in NH next week, then we’ll see how South Carolina goes. This is a marathon, and they just came out of the blocks.
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:11 pma2, BTW I’m a Kucinich/Edwards/Obama in that order supporter…
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:12 pm#34, Merlin,
To assume the religious right is tied to any political saviour like Bush is foolish. Having grown up in that culture, I understand how they think and how they vote, with ballot and pocketbook.
I do think they’ve been lazy, up until Huckabee showed up, but, if you notice, Huckabee won with a much larger margin than Obama did with only 1 months worth of growth from a standing start and NO money.
You are right to fear them – never underestimate their power and resolve.
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:12 pmReligion should not be the progenitor for a new resident in the WH.
Haven’t we seen enough of that kind of hypocrisy yet?
I am absolutely scared to death if Huckabee maintains any momentum and if Obama is the opposing candidate what the institutional racism will look like when it raises it’s ugly head and America is cursed with another Bush clone for four years??
Full blooded patriots better be ready to combat the crusaders on a whole different level is this happens. Be wary folks, this could be the worst thing to happen to America yet.
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:12 pmKeeping this in perspective, New Hampshire is less than a week away and Mittens is running behind McInsane. The Huckster is going to place a distant 3rd there.
Comment by RUCerious — January 3, 2008 @ 10:10 pm
As I said – a silver lining. Whoever is the next President, I’d really like them to get the age of the Earth right within 4 billion years or so.
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:14 pmAlthough Rudy Guilianni may not be competitive in the primary race, I still think it was smart of him not to invest time / money in Iowa, because he would have ended up 3rd or worse, just as Hill’reh did.
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:14 pmI hope the huckster wins the GOP nod. A hamster would beat him in the general election. The entire country cannot be that stupid.
And I, too, would love to see the number of people who came out. If there were like 5 republicans in each district and 1000 dems, those numbers are by far more significant.
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:18 pmI am absolutely scared to death if Huckabee maintains any momentum and if Obama is the opposing candidate what the institutional racism will look like when it raises it’s ugly head and America is cursed with another Bush clone for four years??
Comment by civil behavior — January 3, 2008 @ 10:12 pm
Obama would smoke Huckabee big time in a national election. New York and Ca would be gimmes for him….I think Florida too. I doubt he’d lose a single state that Kerry won…Ohio? Not far from Illinois. I think O would crush Huck.
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:18 pmNow Huckabee can have a party with Pat Robertson…ask Pat to talk to God…then play his guitar.
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:20 pmIf Pat can just reveal some of what God had told him about the elections…then Huckabee will be in good shape.
#46, Keltoi,
No, having grown up in the midwest, I KNOW Obama would lose – if you need any evidence, just ask Harold Ford Jr. about his run for Senate in 2006, when Dems swept everything except his race (no pun intended).
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:21 pmI don’t understand Republicans.
All-time high deficit, Iraq in flames, housing sector in the doldrums, fears of a recession, a White House that endorses torture…. but what do they worry the most about?
Immigration.
sshheesshhh…..
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:21 pmKeltoi,
I’d like to believe that but at my age and after having lived in each corner of this US for many years residing now in Florida there still is a real problem with ignorance and racism much less the religious insanity about abortion and gay rights.
This is a serious issue. Religion has a hold and it can play a huge part in sinking what we thought was a possibility for change.
Watch carefully, beware the crusade.
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:24 pm#37 Comment by civil behavior — January 3, 2008 @ 10:12 pm
I am absolutely scared to death if Huckabee maintains any momentum and if Obama is the opposing candidate what the institutional racism will look like when it raises it’s ugly head and America is cursed with another Bush clone for four years??
Relax CB. The American people are not going to vote a religious nut into the WH. I personally believe that Huck would be a disaster as the Repuke candidate. He is way way out there and the mainstream will never buy it. Better to fear someone who lies, evades and deceives well, as Bush did in 2000 with the utterly phony “compassionate conservative” meme.
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:25 pmImmigration.
sshheesshhh…..
Comment by Gregor Samsa — January 3, 2008 @ 10:21 pm
Immigration is a big issue. It is a big solvable issue. McCain had a very – dare I say Progressive? – attitude toward the legislation he co-sponsored with Kennedy et al and he got hammered for it. But he says he got the message – secure the border first, then work out citizenship for those who have come here illegally. That seems reasonable to me.
Huckabee and Romney are jokes. Thompson is a joke.
Go, Barack, Go!
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:29 pmThe American people are not going to vote a religious nut into the WH.
Ah… they already did. Twice in a row!
*sheesh*
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:32 pmKeltoi,
I’d like to believe that but at my age and after having lived in each corner of this US for many years residing now in Florida there still is a real problem with ignorance and racism much less the religious insanity about abortion and gay rights.
Comment by civil behavior — January 3, 2008 @ 10:24 pm
I know you are right but a man has got to hope, right? I think it was Juan C who said he worried Obama would get shot if he won the nomination. This is also a legit fear but I just can’t base my political analysis on the lowest common denominator. I know that is weirdly idealistic….
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:33 pmTwice in a row!
Correction: Gore actually won the popular vote in 2000. But it wasn’t by much.
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:33 pmThe American people will not vote an Evangelical preacher like Huckabee as a president.
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:36 pmIf the Republicans nominate Huckabee…they will never have a chance. I hope I am right on this one.
The next president must work with all groups of people.
Extremism of any kind must be challenged and must be defeated.
Me too.
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:37 pmI really, really, really do not think Obama has a snowball’s chance in hell of ever winning the General election, so keep on supporting him if you all want to see one of those right wing Repub creeps in the White House for another 8 years. The past 7 years have been so great for our country.
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:39 pma2, BTW I’m a Kucinich/Edwards/Obama in that order supporter…
Comment by RUCerious — January 3, 2008 @ 10:12 pm
Me too.
Comment by Marcus Aurelius — January 3, 2008 @ 10:37 pm
Me three. I heard that the dems had twice the turnout over Repugs which is a good sign.
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:41 pmI was very disappointed that Kucinich was telling his supporters to vote for Obama in Iowa. I felt it was a card played too soon, and it probably didn’t go over very well with the people working on his campaign.
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:42 pmPray for Huck to win the Republican nomination and go on to run against Anyone on the Democratic ticket. Having Huck’s brand of insanity linked to the Republican party on a nation-wide stage will surely propel Democrats to get a veto-proof majority in the Senate and strong control of the House (not to mention the White House itself).
Pray for Huck…..
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:46 pmImmigration is a big issue.
Yeah, a big made up issue, as abortion and gay rights.
Look at the history of immigration and labor in this country and you just might not think “illegal immigration” is so bad.
As our “monstrous vermin” friend says, there are much more important issues.
The GOP and their “true vermin” friends like FOX and The Weekly Standard, et. al. are so very, very good at capturing the publics attention, diverting the public’s attention I should say.
Repeating these phrases over and over: “illegal immigrant,” “millions of aborted children,” “gay marriage,” “activist judges,” “they hate our freedom,” etc., etc., — in all streams of the mainstream press — is how this has happened.
Fear. Boo.
Oh, and the also just plain lie alot.
P.S.
I am assuming Gregor Samsa is really Franz Kafka.
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:46 pmI predicted ALL the winners!
http://osi-speaks.blogspot.com/2008/01/just-as-i-predicted-obama-wins-iowa.html#links
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:47 pmaww… huckster wants to “bring along the others”…
not turn them away (from his followers)…
my gawd… he actually is running as a theocrat…
this can’t be happening in the USA… not in the 21st century…
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:49 pmscary…
.
Republicans are batshit crazy. Huckabee? Good lord.
~Sean
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:53 pmThe most important issue now is who will Dinkin Hunter throw his support behind?
-GSD
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:56 pm– NBC’s Andrea Mitchell, on Sen. Hillary Clinton’s speech after the Iowa caucuses.
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:00 pmJohn Amato: CNN just reported 212,000 Dem turnout. In 2004, it was 125,000.
more at http://www.crooksandliars.com/
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:03 pmmy gawd… he actually is running as a theocrat…
this can’t be happening in the USA… not in the 21st century…
scary…
.
Comment by katy — January 3, 2008 @ 10:49 pm
It is happening!
Huck’s the “chosen one” of the religious right. Please, Please, PLEASE! let the American public deny the theocrat at any cost.
I would prefer (gulp) Dick Cheney, a potted plant, or “The Great Satan”, as POTUS. At least Dick is driven by worldly goals. Huck is a bigger disaster, than Bush, waiting to happen.
On the Dem side, I wish we were evolved enough to elect Obama. Alas, I’m afraid that racial fear will prevent him from being elected. Edwards may be our best hope. He’s not black, he’s not a Clinton, he’s not a woman, and he’s not Bill’s wife.
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:12 pmThe Iowa Post-Mortem: Five Things We Now Know:
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:12 pm1. 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
I am disappointed Edwards didn’t win but at least I wouldn’t have to hold my nose to vote for Obama in the general, unlike Hillary. Hopefully, this leaves her with no momentum.
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:13 pmBiden just dropped out of the race!! Obama just got another supporter i do believe!
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:14 pmPray for Huck to win the Republican nomination and go on to run against Anyone on the Democratic ticket. Having Huck’s brand of insanity linked to the Republican party on a nation-wide stage will surely propel Democrats to get a veto-proof majority in the Senate and strong control of the House (not to mention the White House itself).
Pray for Huck…..
Comment by sluggo — January 3, 2008 @ 10:46 pm
I don’t agree. Huck will get every single vote from the religious right, plus a few who want a “good Christian” in the White House.
John Amato: CNN just reported 212,000 Dem turnout. In 2004, it was 125,000
Comment by katy — January 3, 2008 @ 11:03 pm
That’s the good news. DOWN WITH THEOCRACY!!!
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:16 pmTwice in a row!
Correction: Gore actually won the popular vote in 2000. But it wasn’t by much.
Comment by mr.frazzlebottom — January 3, 2008 @ 10:33 pm
If you believe the conservative-made voting machines (why should you?), Gore won the nation by over 500,000. If you believe the exit polls (we ARE allowed to see how THEY work), Gore won Florida by about 300,000——And Kerry won the nation by about 3,000,000. It is totally impossible for the 2004 exit polls to be off by a full 3.0% as the official results claim! They were always accurate within 0.2% before 2000, 2002, & 2004.
Count me in for Kucinich/Edwards/Obama.
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:20 pmCount me in for Kucinich/Edwards/Obama.
Comment by Keith — January 3, 2008 @ 11:20 pm
Count me in for anyone who doesn’t have an (R) after their name.
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:22 pmGOP is probably not going to release the number that turned out. It would be a huge embarrassment to have less than half that. God I love embarrassing the GOP.
I doubt there is any way Huckabee could win the general election. I think we would have the largest turnout in history if a loon like that showed he had a chance. Even the dumbest amongst us aren’t that dumb or that gullible. The earth is 6000 years old? C’mon! That plays well to to the hard core thumpers but the vast majority of religious people don’t believe the bible as a literal document. I cannot see that happening no matter who is opposing him; black, white or hamster. :-)
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:23 pm2. John Edwards is Probably Finished
[...]
Comment by AngryOne — January 3, 2008 @ 11:12 pm
why do you say that???
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:23 pmThe founders of our electronic voting machine corps want a theocracy in the USA. Google it. See what comes up. Ohio Secretary of State Blackwell, in charge of elections in 2004, also had these strange religious beliefs.
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:24 pmDown with IDIOCRACY!
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 3, 2008 @ 11:21 pm
“Double plus good”.
I would vote for “The Tick” against any Republican.
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:24 pmEdwards ain’t finished. Looks like he just gained some big MO.
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:28 pmI doubt there is any way Huckabee could win the general election. I think we would have the largest turnout in history if a loon like that showed he had a chance. Even the dumbest amongst us aren’t that dumb or that gullible. The earth is 6000 years old? C’mon! That plays well to to the hard core thumpers but the vast majority of religious people don’t believe the bible as a literal document. I cannot see that happening no matter who is opposing him; black, white or hamster. :-)
Comment by Ms_Joanne — January 3, 2008 @ 11:23 pm
I wish I could agree. But I can’t make myself ignore the power of “The Message”.
I would feel more comfortable with a Mormon or a fallen Catholic on the opposing ticket.
On the other hand; I hope you’re right. I really hope that ANY Rethug is unelectable.
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:29 pmCount me in for Kucinich/Edwards/Obama.
Comment by Keith — January 3, 2008 @ 11:20 pm
Same. Though Ron Paul is my first choice, in all reality, I highly doubt he’ll get the nomination. In which case, Obama/Edwards all the way. I truly despise Hillary.
~Sean
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:30 pmBiden and Obama – Yeah, good luck Repubs. Integrety is coming back to America.
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:32 pmIts all the damn breeding.
If they’d just stop all the breeding.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 3, 2008 @ 11:28 pm
Thanx BART. ROTFL!
Now. If we could design a virus, which only attacks Evangelicons, the world wold be a better place.
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:33 pmAdd me to the Kucinich/Edwards/Obama list.
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:34 pmdo you all comprehend what has happened tonight?
very historic night indeed… and delivered from lily-white iowa…
a black man has won a big contest in the quest for president…
i am so proud… finally…
thank you, iowa.
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:36 pmAdd me to the Kucinich/Edwards/Obama list.
Comment by Jane E. Schneider — January 3, 2008 @ 11:34 pm
That was my list, but with Dodd after Kucinich.
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:36 pmNearly moved to tears by Obama’s speech. Powerful and reminiscent of Bobby Kennedy, he really makes me believe in America again when he gets going like he just did. We have a long way to go, but at this moment I feel comfortable about a future for my 3 grandchildren. A future the past 8 years seemed to make impossible. I am proud of the dems tonight – congratulations to them all.
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:38 pmComment by BARTLEBEE — January 3, 2008 @ 11:33 pm
In polls of all registered voters about two weeks ago, Edwards was the only one who win in all two-way matchups. He beat Huckabee by about 60%-35%. Of course, winning the Dem nomination is a different story because it does not include the independents and disgruntled Repubs of those polls.
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:39 pm“Nearly moved to tears by Obama’s speech. Powerful and reminiscent of Bobby Kennedy, he really makes me believe in America again when he gets going like he just did. We have a long way to go, but at this moment I feel comfortable about a future for my 3 grandchildren. A future the past 8 years seemed to make impossible. I am proud of the dems tonight – congratulations to them all.”
I couldn’t agree more. Obama truly seems like someone capable of restoring people’s faith in America. Passion and honesty and from a politician, no less.
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:41 pmI, too, felt emotional during Obama’s speech. I think his voice trembled once or twice as well. He IS the candidate of hope, and at this point, we need hope that things can improve for us.
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:44 pmComment by Wayne — January 3, 2008 @ 11:36 pm
I have a lot of respect for Dodd. However, I think that most Americans are looking for someone who would be a catalyst for change, and Obama seems to offer more hope than Dodd.
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:46 pmBesides in his speeches, what hope is Obama offering? Not being a jerk. I just haven’t seen it. What is the fascination with him other than being a great speaker?
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:46 pmI hear you, Katy.
Despite the media salvating over the Hillary bashing, it was history in the making to have Obama win in a predominating white area. That certainly sent a message to other states that Iowa is not afraid of change. But, February will be the month of make and break for all candidates.
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:47 pmObama is much more than a great speaker. After hurricane Katrina, long before anyone knew about Obama, he was there acting as a negotiator, arbitrator and trying to get things accomplished without placing blame or pointing fingers. I was exceptionally impressed reading about him (and he’s from my own state and I barely knew him before that).
Obama has alot to offer. I like Edwards myself but Obama would definitely have my comfortable vote. HRC would get my vote but I can’t say she’s my first choice.
That said…hampster and all. Anything but a gooper!!
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:49 pmBiden and Dodd announced that they have ended their campaigns tonight. Richardson to continue.
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:50 pmAdd me to the Kucinich/Edwards/Obama list.
My choices exactly!
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:52 pm“Well the honesty may be accurate, but I’ve yet to see the passion.”
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 3
Just wait for his “they said this day would never come” speech to be shown worldwide and then tell me he doesnt have passion.
It was a inspiring moment that will dominate an uninspired contest.
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:56 pmObama seems to offer more hope than Dodd.
Comment by Jane E. Schneider — January 3, 2008 @ 11:46 pm
I wish Obama would come out and state that he will restore rule of law and the Constitution, like Kucinich and Dodd have stated.
I am utterly astounded that such an ignorant bigot as the Huckster got the Repuke win.
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:56 pmMy prediction of them nominating a potted plant just may come true.
Tonight is a fantastic night for John McCain.
BWAHAHAHAHHAH~!~
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:57 pmEven the dumbest amongst us aren’t that dumb or that gullible.
Comment by Ms_Joanne — January 3, 2008 @ 11:23 pm
I wouldn’t be so generous.
After all, there are people out there who voted for Bush. Twice. And still support him to this day, failed policies and all. Of course, if you ask them, the US economy is roaring, Bush critics are the “loony fringe”, Iraqis have been liberated and their country is a success story, etc.
So, yes, the dumbest among us are that dumb, and then some…
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:57 pmNow somebody tell me what the hell this all means.
Why Iowa? What is that state so important? What are they deciding?
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:58 pmMs. Joanne, I guess I just don’t trust him yet. He seems to be running to the center. I am sick of seeing that as it never works. It seems to be calculating and underhanded as well. Obama’s voting record is pretty good but that is not enough. If the voters are not ready for a progressive populist by now they never will be and we might as well pack it in. If he would talk about things (actual policies) that progressives care about I would enthusiastically vote for him.
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:59 pmMy problem with Obama is that I don’t sense the real “out front leadership” quality I see in Russ Finegold for instance. I hope that if he wins, this is no more than an appearance designed to win the nomination. (I.e. not sticking your neck out so that others can easily cut your head off. Like MSM pundits for instance.) That would mean that once he becomes the Dem candidate, he could “grow” into the job. Edwards has shown the most leadership and risk taking of the 3 of them.
January 4th, 2008 at 12:01 amahh, Candyce @ 11:38 pm – you’ve conjured up my worst fear…
the biggest reason i hoped for a 2nd place for obama (behind edwards)
was to avoid that awful fate of RFK… i feel that after 4-8 years as VP,
the people will have gotten used to it and allowed racial fears to subside
enough to allow him his own 2 terms as president…
i’m sure i’m not alone…
January 4th, 2008 at 12:02 amWhy Iowa? What is that state so important? What are they deciding?
Comment by Juan C. — January 3, 2008 @ 11:58 pm
Momentum is a funny thing, Juan. It seems to take on a self fulfilling prophecy sort of thing. First out of the blocks in the race. And Americans are notorious band wagoneers…
January 4th, 2008 at 12:02 amMerlin, nobody compares to Feingold, whom I have the pleasure of voting for every 6 years (except the late great Paul Wellstone). My hope is Obama will be that type of leader once in power. So far, I haven’t seen it and his campaign hasn’t shown that they are going in that direction. Until I see that kind of moxy I am for Edwards, as well.
January 4th, 2008 at 12:04 amWhy Iowa? What is that state so important? What are they deciding?
Comment by Juan C. — January 3, 2008 @ 11:58 pm
Juan, these primaries are like the eliminations on beauty contests — narrows the field of contestants before the nominations.
January 4th, 2008 at 12:04 amWhy Iowa? What is that state so important? What are they deciding?
Comment by Juan C. — January 3, 2008 @ 11:58 pm
I have no idea.
Maybe they want to see how much corn whiskey the farmers have been making/drinking maybe?
/shrug
January 4th, 2008 at 12:06 amBesides in his speeches, what hope is Obama offering? Not being a jerk. I just haven’t seen it. What is the fascination with him other than being a great speaker?
Comment by Sabyen91 — January 3, 2008 @ 11:46 pm
After eight years of Bushspeak, the prospect of having a President who can string together nouns and verbs and even adjectives coherently is unbelievably uplifting.
January 4th, 2008 at 12:08 am#98 Comment by RUCerious — January 3, 2008 @ 11:57 pm
Tonight is a fantastic night for John McCain.
BWAHAHAHAHHAH~!~
Yes, the corporate bought pundits like Chris Matthews and that idiot over at the National Review are crowing over McCain! What a joke the punditocracy is!
January 4th, 2008 at 12:08 amRomney and his sons can go straight to hell. For this individual to continue the status quo in Iraq and neither hisself nor his sons serve in the arm forces tells me they are COWARDS.
January 4th, 2008 at 12:09 amComment by Ms_Joanne
January 4th, 2008 at 12:09 amI also heard on talk radio, from a caller, Obama, in his earlier years went to work to help the poor in Chicago rather than going for the big bucks for himself. That type of true integrity speaks volumes for me.
I wish Obama would come out and state that he will restore rule of law and the Constitution, like Kucinich and Dodd have stated.
Comment by Wayne — January 3, 2008 @ 11:56 pm
I agree. He needs to address this incredibly important issue, especially since Kucinich (the “Constitution” candidate) supposedly had his caucus supporters switch to Obama.
Goodnight, Wayne and everyone. It’s been a long night, but a pretty good one all in all, I think.
January 4th, 2008 at 12:09 amRU, you have to remember Juan is not from the US. Juan, the answer to why Iowa is so important is…it is the first caucus :) That is it. And public opinion is like a flag in the wind…or the people are sheep, I guess. Iowa holds very little real power, but if somebody wins the first state then I guess a lot of people feel they should vote that way. Here is a little history.
http://www.uiowa.edu/election/history/index.html
January 4th, 2008 at 12:09 am“I know this of course won’t help improve my popularity, lol, but thats how I feel.”
Well, I fully agree.
January 4th, 2008 at 12:10 amObama just seems to be a nice guy to me. And being a nice guy may be enough to get him elected, but I don’t think it’ll be enough to get us out of this hole Bush put us in.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 4, 2008 @ 12:05 am
No, but it could help him put together a very competent – and perhaps even bipartisan – cabinet that could really help get us out of the hole.
January 4th, 2008 at 12:11 am“After eight years of Bushspeak, the prospect of having a President who can string together nouns and verbs and even adjectives coherently is unbelievably uplifting.”
All of the Democratic candidates are well-spoken and not prone to putting food on their families.
January 4th, 2008 at 12:12 amComment by Sabyen91 — January 4, 2008 @ 12:04 am
Merlin, nobody compares to Feingold, whom I have the pleasure of voting for every 6 years (except the late great Paul Wellstone).
I agree on Wellstone as well! A tragedy he is not with us. How lucky you are to have them in your area. I live in LA. We suffer the likes of Raygun and Ahnold.
January 4th, 2008 at 12:12 amI am utterly astounded that such an ignorant bigot as the Huckster got the Repuke win.
My prediction of them nominating a potted plant just may come true.
Comment by Wayne — January 3, 2008 @ 11:56 pm
What?
The Republicans are defined by the “ignorant bigots” who rule. “Ignorant bigotry” is their platform. Haven’t you been paying attention?
January 4th, 2008 at 12:13 amThe world knows and loves her.
Comment by BARTLEBEE
(Sorry, bud, for this)
Gosh, how I hate these comments. I know US citizens have a strong Americacentrism developed and that’s fine by me, I couldn’t care less about which country is the best and that nonesense, but “the world loves her”???
Do you love Felipe Calderón, Cristina Fernández, Ortega, Zapatero or the Netherlands’ King? I guess you don’t. Just like we don’t love her or any one of your presidents, what do you think Presidents have that they should be loved, anyway? They are politicians that take your money in order to perpetuate themselves and their whole elite circle in power.
Some are moderates that throw some good laws and policies, some are a freaking disgrace and some go unnoticed, but they all get rich there, or after they leave they go around the world earning loads of money for a two-hour crappy conference on how they invented rainbows.
Love her? I tell you something, I think she is going to win, becuz the ruling class needs to appease the people, give them some “alternatives” so people think they live in a democracy.
But, we, the world, couldn’t care less, until she begins bombing another country, which I’m sure she will do, or whatever guy gets to the Presidency. US has an economy based on weaponry and chemicals and bio stuff that need to be sold. If there are no wars, there is no business. Like Russia.
Sorry for the rant, everybody.
January 4th, 2008 at 12:14 amI know this of course won’t help improve my popularity, lol, but thats how I feel.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 4, 2008 @ 12:06 am
It was a well-thought-out and thought-provoking comment. Just a tad sobering.
‘Night, Bartlebee :)
January 4th, 2008 at 12:15 amGregor, Bush 2000 lied himself to the presidency. He came across as a moderate conservative which he is anything but. He lied and pandered (which I caught during the first primary – why no one else did [THANKS MSM], I don’t know. I loathed him from early on because I caught him doing a 180 during two speeches in a two week period.) He also had help from the bro with voter caging, butterfly ballots, and other chicanery. Gore didn’t exactly fire people up and everyone was tired of hearing about democratic blow jobs. Bush 2004 had the swiftboaters and Diebold.
The 25%ers will follow the GOP over the cliff like lemmings (and I will be happy to wave goodbye forever to the Greedy Old People’s party) because they fall into several groups: The ultra wealthy, the ultra wealthy wannabees, and the hicks that can’t read and only watch FOX (and, ironically, vote against themselves at every turn). Oh, don’t forget those darned BROWN icky people crossing our borders which apparently freaks them out beyond words.
Sabyen91, I think Obama is doing a good job of playing the game. It’s unfortunate that we have to play the game (watch Jon Stewart take on Fulffball over that one on YouTube…it rocks!!), but it is what it is.
And last but certainly not least, Bart, you’re right. We need alot of help in doing something to improve America in many ways. Our next president and other elected officials are going to go through one heck of a bumpy ride. I don’t know if this is fixable in my lifetime let alone four crummy years, and alot is needed. I don’t like HRC because she is too corporatist for me. She’s as bought and paid for as many others. Can she accomplish? Yes, I think she can, but at what cost to us – to the average real person? I just don’t have the confidence that she will turn around the FDA, EPA, and other regulatory agencies like we need to do, give up the massive amounts of power that Bush leaves behind, and do something to take power from those ultra rich people. Money talks…and I think she’s too, well, paid for.
I have one question I would like to ask all the dems: Are they willing and will they do away with all the house directives and signing statements that Bush signed? I don’t want ANY president to have that kind of power.
January 4th, 2008 at 12:15 amJuan, I think Bartlebee may be wrong about her popularity but I do believe Bill was one of the most popular presidents in the last 50 years among other countries. I don’t think that translates to her (head of the young Republican’s Club) but I think he probably feels some of his popularity would rub off on her.
January 4th, 2008 at 12:17 am‘“I know this of course won’t help improve my popularity, lol, but thats how I feel.â€
Well, I fully agree.’
That wasn’t a shot. I agree with your previous sentiment.
January 4th, 2008 at 12:19 am“I think President Hilary would heal our international image practically overnight.”
No one else finds her a tad irritating?
January 4th, 2008 at 12:19 amComment by Juan C. — January 3, 2008 @ 11:58 pm
It’s part of the process in picking the presidential candidates for both parties. For a reason I don’t fully understand, the Iowa caucus gets a lot of media attention.
The wikipedia has an entry on it.
January 4th, 2008 at 12:20 am“I agree on Wellstone as well! A tragedy he is not with us. How lucky you are to have them in your area. I live in LA. We suffer the likes of Raygun and Ahnold.”
Boxer is good…you might want to think about replacing Feinstein, though!
January 4th, 2008 at 12:20 amBerto, irritating is a vast improvement over incompetent!!
January 4th, 2008 at 12:21 amThank you, Zoo, RU and Gregor.
January 4th, 2008 at 12:21 amComment by Juan C. — January 4, 2008 @ 12:14 am
Certainly our media would report Hillary, or any president or first lady, as being well-loved. Even if it’s not true at all. They would find that one guy on the street wearing a Hillary t-shirt, and interview him.
January 4th, 2008 at 12:22 amSurely Guiliani is going to drop out of the race after this poor showing. Right?
January 4th, 2008 at 12:22 amCould you imagine what a great change it would be to see Obama’s wife in as first lady as compared to what we have now? She would not put up with the crap and phony appearances.
January 4th, 2008 at 12:23 amShe would not put up with the crap and phony appearances.
Comment by had enough — January 4, 2008 @ 12:23 am
And Obama would actually be able to answer questions during a townhall-type meeting, without having a hand-picked audience and scripted questions!
January 4th, 2008 at 12:25 am“Sabyen91, I think Obama is doing a good job of playing the game. It’s unfortunate that we have to play the game (watch Jon Stewart take on Fulffball over that one on YouTube…it rocks!!), but it is what it is.”
I totally disagree. I don’t believe anybody needs to play that game unless they want to lose. The Beltway boys have been playing the game for the past 8 years…they are defeatist and wrong. Carville and company need to retire. The last Dem president ran to the left (and governed in the center, unfortunately). Actually I don’t think any Dem president has ever won by tacking right. It is a defeat waiting to happen.
January 4th, 2008 at 12:25 amZooey, NO $HIT!
Golly, just think…REAL questions with REAL intelligible answers! Whodathunkit!
January 4th, 2008 at 12:26 am“Could you imagine what a great change it would be to see Obama’s wife in as first lady as compared to what we have now? She would not put up with the crap and phony appearances.”
Actually I would like Kucinich’s wife on TV for the next 8 years :)
January 4th, 2008 at 12:27 amI’ve said it before and I say it now: Hillary might be the most capable. She has the “three big B’s”: balls, brains, and backing.
I don’t like her. I don’t trust her. But, she might be the best choice. Though, it’s hard to look past her “connections”.
If Obama didn’t present such a big target for bigots, I would probably give him my support. I still think Edwards is the best bet against the field. So far his biggest negative is “poofy” hair.
Dang! I’m confused!
January 4th, 2008 at 12:28 amComment by Sabyen91 — January 4, 2008 @ 12:25 am
That game has been played for decades. Remember the Willy Horton problem? That’s the first one I recall. You have to play hardball these days. If you don’t then you lose and this time we all lose – more is on the line with this election than in any time in my lifetime (48 years).
January 4th, 2008 at 12:28 amMs. Joanne, that is not the game I was speaking of. I think any and all Dem candidates should hit hard against whatever Rethug is nominated. The game I am talking about is Obama not actually coming out with progressive ideas. By the way, doesn’t Huckabee have his own Willie Horton this year? I so want him to be the Republican candidate.
January 4th, 2008 at 12:30 amIf Huck gets the GOP nod, I will be doing the end zone dance!
January 4th, 2008 at 12:31 amI am thinking that as the campaign plays out this year, the American public will see the repukes eat each other, not one qualified candidate who isn’t fatally flawed in multiple respects, and the Democratic candidates inspiring with their message of hope, change, and an end to corporatocracy.
January 4th, 2008 at 12:32 amCulminating in a smashing victory in the Executive and Legislative branches.
#125 Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 4, 2008 @ 12:17 am
I think President Hilary would heal our international image practically overnight.
I certainly hope you are right. I like her domestic side much more than her foreign policy side. She is, after all a solid member of the DLC. She appears to me to be BushCo light in that regard (without the dishonesty and rotten crap). I believe she is comfortable with us staying in Iraq and being corporate driven.
January 4th, 2008 at 12:33 amThese things would not endear us to other countries as they well might see her as trying to continue Pax Americana.
And right now our biggest problem is our destroyed international image.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 4, 2008 @ 12:17 am
Ding! Ding! Ding!
Give the man a cigar. Domestic issues are nearly meaningless. We must begin the process of restoring our image on the international stage. Everything else pales in comparison.
January 4th, 2008 at 12:33 amShe has the “three big B’sâ€: balls, brains, and backing.
Comment by Impolitics — January 4, 2008 @ 12:28 am
Pheew! You had me worried for a split second with those B’s… ;-)
January 4th, 2008 at 12:33 amWell, if it is Hillary I don’t see any inspiring messages of hope, change and end to corporatocracy. Otherwise I agree with you. Every Republican candidate has a fatal flaw.
January 4th, 2008 at 12:34 amZooey, NO $HIT!
Golly, just think…REAL questions with REAL intelligible answers! Whodathunkit!
Comment by Ms_Joanne — January 4, 2008 @ 12:26 am
Who would have thought we’d get so excited about something so damned basic?
January 4th, 2008 at 12:34 amand, juan, the iowa citizens take their responsibility very serious…
they are educated and passionate about the political process…
there are good and bad sides to the caucus procedure…
myself, i think the country needs a single nationwide primary date…
…
as for why i don’t want hillary to be president – it comes down to the
January 4th, 2008 at 12:36 amright-wing-NUTS… i know she is smart and capable and qualified…
but there will be no peace, no national harmony as long as the wingers
have her to bi!ch about… we can’t take any more of that… not yet…
the “vast right wing conspiracy” will not let it go… their hate for the
clinton’s is all consuming… they won’t help the healing…
…
While I agree with you all about our international image, we have huge economic issues that are going to pound us for years to come. I hope we can stave off a major recession (nee depression!) and fear for so many who are already on the precipice.
The statistics on homelessness is staggering and it’s only going to worsen. We have virtually no manufacturing and what does someone with a high school education have to look to? College is getting to be something for the elite (50k plus in student loans for all just exiting college is not a bonus for the masses) and something needs to be done to help people here.
Yes, we are a world stage, but we need some fast changes here to keep our country afloat without selling what is left to other countries.
There are so many things that need to be repaired internally and externally. Like I said, it is going to be a pretty bumpy ride for some time to come.
January 4th, 2008 at 12:37 amComment by Sabyen91 — January 4, 2008 @ 12:20 am
Boxer is good…you might want to think about replacing Feinstein, though!
Yes, and Progressives are looking to ease her out! She is simply poor quality. She embarrasses me when I listen to her talk during committee hearings.
January 4th, 2008 at 12:38 amZooey, NO $HIT!
Golly, just think…REAL questions with REAL intelligible answers! Whodathunkit!
Comment by Ms_Joanne — January 4, 2008 @ 12:26 am
Yes!! We want someone who can speak without butchering the language. Or have to go to a debate wired with a radio…..
January 4th, 2008 at 12:40 amAnd knows where countries are on the map. ( “Wow, Brazil is big.” )
Comment by had enough — January 4, 2008 @ 12:23 am
Could you imagine what a great change it would be to see Obama’s wife in as first lady as compared to what we have now? She would not put up with the crap and phony appearances.
Or Elizabeth Edwards!
January 4th, 2008 at 12:40 amYes, and Progressives are looking to ease her out! She is simply poor quality. She embarrasses me when I listen to her talk during committee hearings.
Comment by Merlin — January 4, 2008 @ 12:38 am
What happened to Feinstein anyway? I used to admire her so much — especially after Moscone & Milk were murdered. She did such a great job. Now she’s crap.
January 4th, 2008 at 12:40 amOr Elizabeth Edwards!
Comment by Merlin — January 4, 2008 @ 12:40 am
I love her…
January 4th, 2008 at 12:44 amas for why i don’t want hillary to be president – it comes down to the
right-wing-NUTS… i know she is smart and capable and qualified…
but there will be no peace, no national harmony as long as the wingers
have her to bi!ch about… we can’t take any more of that… not yet…
the “vast right wing conspiracy†will not let it go… their hate for the
clinton’s is all consuming… they won’t help the healing…
…
Comment by katy — January 4, 2008 @ 12:36 am
Which is why I think Edwards might be the best candidate; though I think Hillary might be the most qualified, on paper. Obama? I like him but I’m afraid the “racist right” might be able to beat him.
Did I mention how confused I am?
January 4th, 2008 at 12:44 am#147 Comment by Sabyen91 — January 4, 2008 @ 12:34 am
Well, if it is Hillary I don’t see any inspiring messages of hope, change and end to corporatocracy.
There will be no “end to corporatocracy” with the Clintons. The DLC stands for corporatocracy.
January 4th, 2008 at 12:45 amYou are right, Zoo, she used to be solid. I have a feeling it is the fact that she is compromised and corrupt as hell.
January 4th, 2008 at 12:45 amWhat happened to Feinstein anyway? I used to admire her so much — especially after Moscone & Milk were murdered. She did such a great job. Now she’s crap.
Comment by Zooey — January 4, 2008 @ 12:40 am
She sold her soul and/or is a victim of blackmail. Either way she’s “damaged goods”.
January 4th, 2008 at 12:47 am“There will be no “end to corporatocracy†with the Clintons. The DLC stands for corporatocracy.”
I know. It may sound counterproductive but Hillary is the one Dem I might not vote for. I would vote for Bloomburg over her.
January 4th, 2008 at 12:47 amComment by BARTLEBEE — January 4, 2008 @ 12:40 am
I am not real happy with her repug-lite voting record in the Senate, personally.
January 4th, 2008 at 12:47 amI tend to watch what candidates do, as well as what they say, if they don’t match then I vote accordingly.
I wish more in this country did.
“I am not real happy with her repug-lite voting record in the Senate, personally.
I tend to watch what candidates do, as well as what they say, if they don’t match then I vote accordingly.
I wish more in this country did.”
I agree with that. I could probably vote for Obama with a clear conscience because of his voting record. I just like Edwards more.
January 4th, 2008 at 12:49 amYou are right, Zoo, she used to be solid. I have a feeling it is the fact that she is compromised and corrupt as hell.
Two words: Term limits!
If it wasn’t for people like Russ Feingold (who is not from my state, I am from IL, but whom I called weekly earlier this year to ask him to run for president) I wouldn’t want any one to be in office for any longer than 2 or 3 terms.
Feingold has the best, most knowledgeable staffers who know the issues and can talk intelligently about them (vs Durbin’s staffers who are close to rocks sometimes). And he is principled and ethical. How can one person be like that when most others are not.
I think that Feingold and Webb are the only ones this admin doesn’t have something on (thank you AT&T) because the rest seem to be impaired these days; ethically, morally, and intellectually. Bankrupt one and all.
January 4th, 2008 at 12:50 am“Edwards and Clinton are tied for second.”
100% precincts reporting:
Edwards 29.75%
Clinton 29.47%
That is not a tie. The Katherine Harris authorized Florida 2000 vote was closer than that.
January 4th, 2008 at 12:51 amThe fact is she voted the way she voted because she was weak, and they’re never going to admit that. She caved to the pressure because she was afraid of being labeled unpatriotic and being a woman, weak on defense.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 4, 2008 @ 12:45 am
It’s not that complicated. She’s a professional politician. Which mat be, (though I hate to admit it), what we need.
A professional politician who isn’t a neocon.
January 4th, 2008 at 12:51 amOn the flip-side Ms. Joanne, maybe if we institute term limits Feingold will run next time! I would guess he would get 80%+ from everybody here.
January 4th, 2008 at 12:52 amComment by Sabyen91 — January 4, 2008 @ 12:45 am
Comment by Impolitics — January 4, 2008 @ 12:47 am
It’s sad to see her having gone so wrong. I’m glad she’s not my Senator, but now I have Larry Craig — and I really don’t want to talk about that. :(
January 4th, 2008 at 12:52 amShe’ll make peace, using her big, fat brain.
Comment by BARTLEBEE
I don’t want to be confrontative, but I could bet that she has other plans…remember who is financing her campaign. Don’t you think owners of that money will ask some favors in return? Oh no, no…they never do that.
I admire something from you all, though, your hope on your politicians.
BTW, I’m in a bad mood, so just forget what I said…
January 4th, 2008 at 12:54 am“Feingold has the best, most knowledgeable staffers who know the issues and can talk intelligently about them (vs Durbin’s staffers who are close to rocks sometimes). And he is principled and ethical. How can one person be like that when most others are not. ”
In 2006 he ran against a real blowhard. A Bushite in the first degree. The debates were great. He destroyed the guy by (well, other than being his charismatic self) accentuating his progressiveness. I wish more people would do that.
January 4th, 2008 at 12:56 am“It’s sad to see her having gone so wrong. I’m glad she’s not my Senator, but now I have Larry Craig — and I really don’t want to talk about that. :(”
Well, you don’t have Larry Craig for long but you live in Idaho so I wouldn’t guess you will get anybody better anytime soon. That is sad.
January 4th, 2008 at 12:57 am“BTW, I’m in a bad mood, so just forget what I said…”
You are right to be cynical. I, myself, trust about 3 politicians. You don’t have to be in a bad mood to hate American politics :)
January 4th, 2008 at 12:58 amgreat conversation here tonight… good comments, all!
another positive part of this historic night…
g’nite all…
January 4th, 2008 at 1:01 amI guess my biggest fear with HRC is that StopHillaryNow started YEARS before she ever said she would run. Don’t you just know that they are going to take Swiftboating to a whole new level?
While I think she can handle herself more than ably, the MSM is going to be key and FOX will rail on her hourly (as they did about Bill’s BJ) and Fluffball already hates her which is apparent in his every commentary. I think whether it’s Obama or HRC, it’s going to get ugly and we’re going to see some very nasty traits of very ugly Americans rear their ugly -isms.
January 4th, 2008 at 1:01 am#150 Comment by Ms_Joanne — January 4, 2008 @ 12:37 am
While I agree with you all about our international image, we have huge economic issues that are going to pound us for years to come.
Fortunately all 3 Dem candidates will do OK in the domestic area although it will take some time to stop the landslide. It is in foreign affairs that the real test lies. We have squandered the high moral ground on torture, preemptive strikes, and a belief in Empire over the rest of the world. We have said screw you on the Law of the Sea Treaty and nuclear proliferation. We continue to expand the failed NAFTA to CAFTA and have browbeaten smaller countries into becoming members of the coalition of the coerced. And look how we spit on the UN!
BartleBee is right. It is the international scene that is overwhelming. We need a President who can lead morally, ethically and with compassion. I don’t see Hillary doing that, but she is head and shoulders above the neocon fascists and the entire Repuke field now on display.
January 4th, 2008 at 1:01 amWell, you don’t have Larry Craig for long but you live in Idaho so I wouldn’t guess you will get anybody better anytime soon. That is sad.
Comment by Sabyen91 — January 4, 2008 @ 12:57 am
**weeping**
January 4th, 2008 at 1:02 am“My opinion is based on who she is as an international figure, and her amazing ability, like her husband, to bring two sides together on an issue. She has diplomacy. ”
I don’t see her as being a uniter. No matter what her agenda there will always be a significant population that hates her.
January 4th, 2008 at 1:02 amNo matter what her agenda there will always be a significant population that hates her.
Comment by Sabyen91 — January 4, 2008 @ 1:02 am
they’ve been taught to hate her.
January 4th, 2008 at 1:03 amoh! check it out!
January 4th, 2008 at 1:04 amjust found at C&L:
http://static.crooksandliars.com/2008/01/thescab.jpg
Comment by Sabyen91 — January 4, 2008 @ 12:57 am
Off topic, a bit/
I had the pleasure of meeting, and voting for, Tim Penny a couple times. He was very similar to Feingold, but, he couldn’t handle swimming in the sewer with our “normal” politicians. I truly hope that we will reach a point where a Feingold would have a realistic chance at the Presidency.
Prayers, hopes, dreams, spells, and incantations are welcome.
January 4th, 2008 at 1:05 am“Try not to change the meanings of my comments when responding to them if you would.”
Try not to be so defensive. I will refrain from responding to you.
January 4th, 2008 at 1:05 am“they’ve been taught to hate her.”
Yeah, and the funny thing is, she is one of them.
January 4th, 2008 at 1:06 amMerlin, an empire and it’s boy king $hits on everything it doesn’t own, steal, or conquer.
January 4th, 2008 at 1:06 amGod, I hate when people (read ME) can’t get its and it’s straight (and yes, I do know the difference between your, you’re, their, there, and they’re. :-)
January 4th, 2008 at 1:08 am“I had the pleasure of meeting, and voting for, Tim Penny a couple times. He was very similar to Feingold, but, he couldn’t handle swimming in the sewer with our “normal†politicians. I truly hope that we will reach a point where a Feingold would have a realistic chance at the Presidency.
Prayers, hopes, dreams, spells, and incantations are welcome.”
It is really a shame that decent people like Penny generally don’t last in politics.
January 4th, 2008 at 1:09 amSure thing, Bartlebee.
January 4th, 2008 at 1:10 amI think whether it’s Obama or HRC, it’s going to get ugly and we’re going to see some very nasty traits of very ugly Americans rear their ugly -isms.
Comment by Ms_Joanne — January 4, 2008 @ 1:01 am
If Jesus himself returned and ran on the Democratic ticket it would “get ugly”.
January 4th, 2008 at 1:10 amLet’s place a bet.
Let’s see how many of you, full or semi-supporting Hillary, after she bombs a country, cuz she will do, fry her ass just like you have been doing with Bush.
Let’s see how progressive we are, cuz really, I don’t see the difference between bombing an aspirin factory that leaves out of medication to thousands of people and blasting Iraqi and Afghan villages with clusterbombs or WP or DU. (BTW, DU was used in Kosovo)
January 4th, 2008 at 1:12 am#184 Comment by katy — January 4, 2008 @ 1:04 am
oh! check it out!
just found at C&L:
Film at 11!
January 4th, 2008 at 1:13 am“Let’s see how progressive we are, cuz really, I don’t see the difference between bombing an aspirin factory that leaves out of medication to thousands of people and blasting Iraqi and Afghan villages with clusterbombs or WP or DU. (BTW, DU was used in Kosovo)”
You don’t see the difference between bombing Iraq and bombing an aspirin factory that intelligence tells you is creating chemical weapons?
January 4th, 2008 at 1:14 amHere’s what would happen if Jesus were to run for office in America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKI2C93T4CU
January 4th, 2008 at 1:15 amAnd in our current disaster, I’m thinking the mastercraftsman may be the best choice.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 4, 2008 @ 1:16 am
Or our certain downfall…
January 4th, 2008 at 1:18 amOr our certain downfall…
Comment by Zooey — January 4, 2008 @ 1:18 am
January 4th, 2008 at 1:20 amZooey, a very sobering thought.
You don’t see the difference between bombing Iraq and bombing an aspirin factory that intelligence tells you is creating chemical weapons?
Comment by Sabyen91
It was “intelligence” who said that Saddam had WMDs, too.
Anyone with common sense knows Clinton bombed that aspirin factory in retaliation of the embassies’ bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. It was destined to punish the people. It was a terror tactic that was used in Nicaragua, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, etc., etc. Just like the attack in Fallujah.
January 4th, 2008 at 1:21 amIt was “intelligence†who said that Saddam had WMDs, too.
Juan, no, it was manufactured intelligence. Doctored per heir Cheney (and the PNACer’s) instructions.
January 4th, 2008 at 1:22 amWe used to like her you know….. at least I didn, when Billybob was President.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 4, 2008 @ 1:21 am
I don’t think she’s the one for the job. She’s beholden to too many, and her voting record is terrible. There are better candidates in the running.
January 4th, 2008 at 1:23 am“It was “intelligence†who said that Saddam had WMDs, too.”
No, not really. Intelligence did not indicate that.
January 4th, 2008 at 1:23 amComment by Juan C. — January 4, 2008 @ 1:12 am
Let’s see how many of you, full or semi-supporting Hillary, after she bombs a country, cuz she will do, fry her ass just like you have been doing with Bush.
Let’s see how progressive we are
Juan, check the monthly poll over on DailyKos regarding who their readers want for President on the Dem ticket. The poll had, as of a couple of days ago, some 14,000+ Progressives voting. Edwards got 39%, Obama 28% while Hillary got only 9%! It is safe to say that most Progressives don’t care for Hillary, so you are talking to the wrong group about a bet.
January 4th, 2008 at 1:23 amiI skipped a lot of posts but in regards to Obama restoring the constitution, he might just be the guy.
“He was a lecturer of constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1993 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004″-wiki
Of course I’m and Edwards supporter but I’d rather vote for Obama than Clinton.
January 4th, 2008 at 1:25 amOk, ok…I won’t engage, just wanted to make a point on how eager we are to defend the people we like, even if they did something as worse as the other guy. I include myself, of course.
January 4th, 2008 at 1:25 am“Of course I’m and Edwards supporter but I’d rather vote for Obama than Clinton.”
I feel exactly the same way.
January 4th, 2008 at 1:26 amso you are talking to the wrong group about a bet.
Comment by Merlin
Probably and I apologize.
January 4th, 2008 at 1:26 am“Ok, ok…I won’t engage, just wanted to make a point on how eager we are to defend the people we like, even if they did something as worse as the other guy. I include myself, of course.”
Fair enough. However, I didn’t particularly like Clinton. And the evidence is overwhelming that Cheney cooked the intelligence. There is no evidence that Clinton did (and you know with all the Republican digging they would have screamed it from the rooftops).
January 4th, 2008 at 1:27 amOk, ok…I won’t engage, just wanted to make a point on how eager we are to defend the people we like, even if they did something as worse as the other guy. I include myself, of course.
Comment by Juan C. — January 4, 2008 @ 1:25 am
I understand your point, Juan.
We’re all suffering “the evil of two lessers” fatigue…
January 4th, 2008 at 1:28 amJust a little?
Comment by BARTLEBEE
I wish…
January 4th, 2008 at 1:29 amLet’s place a bet.
Let’s see how many of you, full or semi-supporting Hillary, after she bombs a country, cuz she will do, fry her ass just like you have been doing with Bush.
Let’s see how progressive we are, cuz really, I don’t see the difference between bombing an aspirin factory that leaves out of medication to thousands of people and blasting Iraqi and Afghan villages with clusterbombs or WP or DU. (BTW, DU was used in Kosovo)
Comment by Juan C. — January 4, 2008 @ 1:12 am
Cripes, Juan, leggo that curtain, willya?
January 4th, 2008 at 1:29 amJust a little?
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 4, 2008 @ 1:27 am
For someone so sensitive to perceived attacks, that’s a rather insulting question.
January 4th, 2008 at 1:29 amWe’re all suffering “the evil of two lessers†fatigue…
Comment by Zooey
I just think that that is so wrong. :{
January 4th, 2008 at 1:30 amZoo, thank you, but in all honesty, that’s the kind of common question a guy asks another guy…I didn’t see that insulting. :)
January 4th, 2008 at 1:32 amKeltoi…what?
January 4th, 2008 at 1:33 am#210 Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 4, 2008 @ 1:26 am
Thats the truth Merlin.
As always, Bartlebees on an island all by himself, lol.
That is not always a bad thing. It does take strength to stand alone and speak your mind in the face of overwhelming criticism.
In his essay on “Self Reliance†Ralph Waldo Emerson had this to say:
“It is easy in the world to live after the world’s opinion; it is easy in solitude to live after your own; but the great man is he who in the midst of the crowd keeps with perfect sweetness the independence of solitude.
For nonconformity the world whips you with its displeasure… but the sour faces of the multitude, like their sweet faces, have no deep cause, but are put on and off as the wind blows and the newspaper directs.â€
And speaking about consistency:
“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. He may well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words and tomorrow speak what tomorrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict everything you said today.â€
January 4th, 2008 at 1:33 amI didn’t see that insulting. :)
Comment by Juan C. — January 4, 2008 @ 1:32 am
Ok, it’s your call. ;)
I’m outta here. Goodnight, all.
January 4th, 2008 at 1:34 amI understand your point, Juan.
We’re all suffering “the evil of two lessers†fatigue…
Comment by Zooey — January 4, 2008 @ 1:28 am
I mean this compeltely out of the context of American politics: Why do we never embrace the Greater of Two Evils?
I mean really, when did less is more come to apply to Evil?
Note to Rabid: This is humor.
January 4th, 2008 at 1:34 amZoo, thank you, but in all honesty, that’s the kind of common question a guy asks another guy…I didn’t see that insulting. :)
Comment by Juan C. — January 4, 2008 @ 1:32 am
Because everyone knows only guys drink . . .
Hey, Juan. Special New Years class tonight and then out to dinner with lots of beer and Japanese food. Thanks for helping me find my way back.
January 4th, 2008 at 1:34 amJuan, don’t despair. Many of us are happy with out chosen candidate this time around. If it is Edwards or Obama there will be no chosing the lesser of two evils.
January 4th, 2008 at 1:35 amI mean this compeltely out of the context of American politics: Why do we never embrace the Greater of Two Evils?
I mean really, when did less is more come to apply to Evil?
Comment by Keltoi at Night — January 4, 2008 @ 1:34 am
Well, if we were Satanists . . .
You ready to flip the switch for Huckabee come November?
January 4th, 2008 at 1:36 amWell, gummitch, since Tancredo dropped out…
January 4th, 2008 at 1:37 amOh for crying out loud Zooey take a chill pill.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 4, 2008 @ 1:33 am
Hey, it’s settled. Juan is not offended, so it’s dropped.
I’ll thank you not to tell me what to do.
January 4th, 2008 at 1:38 amKeltoi…what?
Comment by Juan C. — January 4, 2008 @ 1:33 am
You have got Hillary sussed – it was a Wizard of Oz reference.
Bartlebee is right – whoever the Dems nominate, whether you like them or loath them, if you don’t line up behind them you are killing your agenda.
January 4th, 2008 at 1:38 amJuan, you’ve clearly been boozing a little tonight.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 4, 2008 @ 1:27
I won’t speak for Juan but I have! Isn’t it sad that the Iowa caucus is a reason to “self medicate”?
DOWN WITH NEOCON SCUM!
January 4th, 2008 at 1:39 amPOWER TO THE PEOPLE!!!
Hillary’s two blunders: 1. Waffling on the licenses for illegals. 2. Playing the Gender Card.
Maybe MAYBE it would’ve worked against the Republicans, but it was stupid to use it against Democrats.
January 4th, 2008 at 1:39 amSorry, I always get a little misty with Emerson.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 4, 2008 @ 1:37 am
Absolutely. Brain Salad Surgery rocked.
January 4th, 2008 at 1:40 am#232 Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 4, 2008 @ 1:37 am
Sorry, I always get a little misty with Emerson.
Yeah, I knew it would! It does the same thing to me!
January 4th, 2008 at 1:41 amActually, Impolitics, I would say Iowa is a reason to celebrate. The right is going to have fits with Huckabee winning. The average righty hates him (he is a liberal, apparantly). It is going be funny watching them swiftboat him.
January 4th, 2008 at 1:41 amThanks for helping me find my way back.
Comment by gummitch
Oh, come on… *smiling like a dunce*
We just need more people like that.
Now, BART, what’s bad about my grammar?
January 4th, 2008 at 1:41 amWell, if we were Satanists . . .
You ready to flip the switch for Huckabee come November?
Comment by gummitch — January 4, 2008 @ 1:36 am
NOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!
January 4th, 2008 at 1:43 amHey Hillary… you lost. You came in LAST. There is a God
Comment by BERT CONVY
I’m beginning to believe indeed there is one after Huckabee’s outcome. That or there is a lot of stupid people.
January 4th, 2008 at 1:46 amIsn’t it sad that the Iowa caucus is a reason to “self medicate�
Comment by Impolitics — January 4, 2008 @ 1:39 am
:|
I need a reason?
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 4, 2008 @ 1:41 am
Well. There’s an endless supply of “reasons”. Perhaps “occasion” would be a better werd. Wurd? Word! Yeah, that looks right.
January 4th, 2008 at 1:46 amJuan, your grammar is great, especially considering English is not your first language.
January 4th, 2008 at 1:47 amMost people apologize a lot when they’re drunk….
Comment by BARTLEBEE
You idiot…you make me laugh.
This was my bad mood moment. :)
January 4th, 2008 at 1:47 amI said it before. Run the most powerful country on Earth? Get the ballpark age of the Earth right, say, within 4 billion years or so, give or take 6,000.
January 4th, 2008 at 1:48 am…tap tap…. is this thing on?
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 4, 2008 @ 1:46 am
Hey! Slow down. Just a bunch of drunk libruls hear.
January 4th, 2008 at 1:48 amJuan, your grammar is great, especially considering English is not your first language.
Comment by Sabyen91
Thank you, but that sounded like: He is a great guy eventhough he is black.
:)
January 4th, 2008 at 1:49 amLOL, my apologies. I meant to say you are a much better speaker than any right winger. Err…never mind, you write well. :)
January 4th, 2008 at 1:50 amWhy do I see noogies coming out soon? :-)
Too funny!
January 4th, 2008 at 1:50 amBesides, everyone knows Latinos can’t drink.
Comment by BARTLEBEE
Oh, pleeeeeease…we have Tequila…you have Bud Light.
January 4th, 2008 at 1:53 amWaaay off topic:
Musharraf said that “Bhutto was reckless” and “no Pakistani would blow himself up”.
Are you kidding me?
January 4th, 2008 at 1:56 amMusharref has to say that since he had her killed.
January 4th, 2008 at 1:57 amtap tap…. testing one two three testing….
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 4, 2008 @ 1:53 am
If you tap tap once? You’re impatient.
January 4th, 2008 at 1:59 amIf you tap tap twice? You’re a Republican.
Are you kidding me?
Comment by Impolitics
No, I’m telling you. There are no gays in Iran. NOt one at all…and I’ve been searching…
Actually I’m drinking a Corona with lime right now Juan.
I didn’t want you drinking alone.
Comment by BARTLEBEE
What´s lime? I’m gonna get me some wine…Chilean wine…oh, I’m so classy…
January 4th, 2008 at 2:00 amMusharref has to say that since he had her killed.
Comment by Sabyen91 — January 4, 2008 @ 1:57 am
Yep. He’s a neocon.
January 4th, 2008 at 2:01 am“Huckabee vs Osama Obama = two more conservative justices in the Supreme Court.
Moonbats can say good by to abortion, homo-sexual marriage and amnesty to unwanted aliens.
Hillary… Osama … It won’t matter, America will not elect either one.
Yippee Ki Yay Moonbats
*bert”
Uhh, in English, bert? Your schizophrenic ramblings are less than understandable.
January 4th, 2008 at 2:02 amJuan, you have Colt .45 down there? :)
January 4th, 2008 at 2:04 amDoes anyone else detect a whiff of piss in the air?
January 4th, 2008 at 2:04 amIt was just bert, Imp.
January 4th, 2008 at 2:04 amWhy do I see noogies coming out soon? :-)
Too funny!
Comment by Ms_Joanne — January 4, 2008 @ 1:50 am
lmao
January 4th, 2008 at 2:06 amSo you’re going to sample some fine Chilean wine? That does sound classy.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 4, 2008 @ 2:02 am
I’m a purist. I drink French wine for quality. Australian for effect with an acceptable taste.
January 4th, 2008 at 2:06 amJuan, you have Colt .45 down there? :)
Comment by Sabyen91
That’s what the ladies say… :O
Heh.
January 4th, 2008 at 2:07 amI’m a purist. I drink French wine for quality. Australian for effect with an acceptable taste.
Comment by Impolitics — January 4, 2008 @ 2:06 am
But? I drink strong beer for VOLUME!
January 4th, 2008 at 2:07 amUhh, in English, bert? Your schizophrenic ramblings are less than understandable.
Comment by Sabyen91 — January 4, 2008 @ 2:02 am
He does not know English, he only speaks Bush.
January 4th, 2008 at 2:08 amI have a peasant’s pallette which is a good thing since I live in Wisconsin. I can be faithful to the local economy. With wine, I just sip whatever is the sweetest.
January 4th, 2008 at 2:08 am“That’s what the ladies say… :O”
Heh, large caliber firearms are pretty popular.
January 4th, 2008 at 2:09 am#263 Comment by BERT CONVY — January 4, 2008 @ 1:59 am
Yippee Ki Yay Moonbats
*bert
Better get an alternate driver, Bert. You sound like you are ahead of the bunch here.
January 4th, 2008 at 2:10 am“He does not know English, he only speaks Bush.”
Whenever I see him I don’t think of Bush, I think Dan Quayle.
January 4th, 2008 at 2:10 amThanks for the yucks, guys. You lightened it up tonight (especially Bert, what a friggin’ riot that one is!) Isn’t it past the dittohead’s bedtime? Isn’t daddy callin’ ya? Don’t want ya to be cranky tomorrow, laddie.
Sweet dreams all…enjoy them boxes of fine wine! ;)
January 4th, 2008 at 2:13 amWhenever I see him I don’t think of Bush, I think Dan Quayle.
Comment by Sabyen91 — January 4, 2008 @ 2:10 am
Quayle is dumb as a bag of hair and cannot spell. Bush has his own unintelligible gibberish which is barely a subset of the English Language. =)
January 4th, 2008 at 2:15 amNight Ms. Joanne.
January 4th, 2008 at 2:15 amI have a peasant’s pallette which is a good thing since I live in Wisconsin. I can be faithful to the local economy. With wine, I just sip whatever is the sweetest.
Comment by Sabyen91 — January 4, 2008 @ 2:08 am
Leinenkugle’s is the “nectar of the God’s”!
January 4th, 2008 at 2:15 amWayne, I am thinking Bert is as dumb as a bag of hair. I stand by my assertion. :)
January 4th, 2008 at 2:16 amI like the cherry Sam Adams. Leinie’s is good too. The honey weiss. My German ancestors would disown me though.
January 4th, 2008 at 2:18 amI like the cherry Sam Adams. Leinie’s is good too. The honey weiss. My German ancestors would disown me though.
Comment by Sabyen91 — January 4, 2008 @ 2:18 am
Nothing wrong with Honey Weiss! I even brew my own. My recipe calls for 1lb. per 5 gallons but I add an extra cup. All that sugar turns into alcohol if you wait awhile. Hee, Hee, hee, belch!
January 4th, 2008 at 2:22 am“Nothing wrong with Honey Weiss! I even brew my own. My recipe calls for 1lb. per 5 gallons but I add an extra cup. All that sugar turns into alcohol if you wait awhile. Hee, Hee, hee, belch!”
Heh, good stuff. I suppose I had better get to bed. Work comes early. Have a good night all.
January 4th, 2008 at 2:24 am‘Night Sabyen. The sun comes up whether we like it, or not. Sweet dreams.
January 4th, 2008 at 2:26 amThe Big Money people must be high-fiving each other about the Barack Obama showing in Iowa. Obama and Hillary are the two Democratic candidates who have received the lion’s share of corporate support (including Rupert Murdoch, in Hillary’s case), have received far more than their share of media coverage, and are arguably the two candidates the Republicans would most like to run against in 2008.
Don’t think so?
For either Obama or Hillary to be elected president, several rare, and in some cases, unprecedented events would need to occur. Please consider:
1) Of the 43 Presidents in our history, 15 had served previously in the Senate, however, ONLY TWO were elected to the Oval Office as a sitting U. S. senator (i.e., Warren Harding-R, inaugerated in 1921 and died in office in 1923; and John F. Kennedy-D, inaugerated in 1961 and died in office in 1963). Obama and Hillary are both sitting U. S. senators.
2) The Confederacy consisted of eleven states (i.e., AL, AR, FL, GA, LA, MS, NC, SC, TN, TX and VA) and two border states (i.e., KY and MO). Of the preceding thirteen states, Adlai Stevenson is the only candidate to win in at least six of those states (1952/1956) and still lose the election since the Great Depression (and FDR’s New Deal, which followed).
3) Here are the all the Democrats running for Oval Office since 1928, the winners on the left, the losers on the right and the number of original Confederate, border and combined states carried:
1932 Roosevelt 11 2 13 1952 Stevenson 7 1 8
1936 Roosevelt 11 2 13 1956 Stevenson 5 1 6
1940 Roosevelt 11 2 13 1968 Humphrey 1 0 1
1944 Roosevelt 11 2 13 1972 McGovern 0 0 0
1948 Truman 7 2 9 1980 Carter 1 0 1
1960 Kennedy 7 1 8 1984 Mondale 0 0 0
1964 Johnson 6 2 8 1988 Dukakis 0 0 0
1976 Carter 10 2 12 2000 Gore 0 0 0
1992 Clinton 4 2 6 2004 Kerry 0 0 0
1996 Clinton 4 2 6
Although history doesn’t always repeat itself, since the advent of the Great Depression, all Democrats winning the Presidency carried at least six of the thirteen states. With the exception of Jimmy Carter in 1980 (Iran hostage crisis) and Al Gore in 2000 (aftermath of Monica Lewinsky scandal, stopping of the vote count in Florida), all other candidates hailed from Northern States. Only two of the losing candidates were sitting senators (McGovern & Kerry) — both carried 0 states from the Confederacy. Since the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed, the only two Democrats to win had both been governors of states from the original Confederacy (Carter & Clinton, who likely benefited in 1992 from Ross Perot’s placement on the ballot).
The obvious questions — Which six states will either Obama or Hillary carry? Will they carry even one? If so, which ones?
4) So what would characterize the dream opponent in 2008 for the Republicans?
From a northern state — Obama (IL) — check; Hillary (NY) — check
A sitting U. S. senator — Obama (IL) — check; Hillary (NY) — check
Carry less than 6 southern states — Obama — check; Hillary — check
In addition to the aforementioned rare, if not unprecedented events that would need to occur for Obama or Hillary to be elected to the Oval Office, there would also be the unprecedented matter of electing either a woman or African-American to the Presidency.
Look for the MSM to continue portraying Obama and Hillary, as they have up until the present time, as the frontrunners, providing them with plenty of airtime and press, freezing out the other Dem candidates at the same time. Their has been relatively little criticism of the two in the MSM so far, particularly for Obama.
Should either Obama or Hillary win the nomination, watch for the MSM and the Big Money (both one in the same), reverse course and participate in trashing either candidate in such a way that the swiftboating in 2004 would look like a Sunday School picnic. Every foible connected with Bill and/or Hillary will be continuously hung around her neck should she receive the nod. And if Obama receives the nomination, one only needs to look back to the 2006 U. S. Senate race in Tennessee — remember the attack ads against Harold Ford, Jr.?
Big Money and the MSM are not supporting John Edwards. Running against him would, at the very least, require more time, effort and money to be spent in the southern states, at a time when their receipts are reportedly at a low ebb. Assuming that Obama or Hillary receive the nomination, the Republicans merely need to adopt a 37-state strategy, as the Dems will have already ceded 13 states (172 of the needed 270 electoral votes), without the Republicans needing to even lift a finger.
Many of the likely supporters for Obama or Hillary might be fine with either of them becoming President, however, how many will be motivated to place their boots on the ground, mobilize support for their cause, and actually turn out to vote themselves? And on the other side, how many of those who are horrified by either of them winning the Presidency will put in much time, energy and effort to ensure the defeat of Obama or Hillary? And, finally, who many of these people voting, primarily to keep Obama or Hillary out of the Oval Office, will also vote for other Republicans further down the ticket, impacting the numbers of the Dems in the House and Senate?
Would I like to be mistaken in my assumptions? Most assuredly so. But are my concerns without basis? I fear not.
January 4th, 2008 at 2:39 amHere are the numbers I was looking for. From the AP news wire:
Projections estimated that 220,588 Democrats showed up on a cold midwinter’s night, shattering the previous mark of 124,000.
Turnout was also up on the Republican side, where projections showed about 114,000 people taking part. The last previous contested Republican caucuses in 2000 drew 87,666 participants.
If this holds true; the Dems win, by a landslide, regardless of who gets the nomination.
If the good people of our country vote their conscience, the religious right neocons are toast!
January 4th, 2008 at 2:51 amThank you, but that sounded like: He is a great guy eventhough he is black.
:)
Comment by Juan C. — January 4, 2008 @ 1:49 am
Some of my best friends are black labs. ; )
January 4th, 2008 at 2:52 amRevision to Post #295 —
The last sentence in the second to the last paragraph should have read, “And, finally, how many of these people voting, primarily to keep Obama or Hillary out of the Oval Office, will also vote for other Republicans further down the ticket, adversely impacting the numbers of the Dems in the House and Senate, as well as state and local offices?”
Sorry, fatigue has begun to take a toll.
Good night and good luck.
January 4th, 2008 at 2:53 amComment by BERT CONVY — January 4, 2008 @ 1:59 am
:|
Now heres one that oughta be drinking.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 4, 2008 @ 2:07 am
Bert can’t drink with all the antipsychotic drugs he takes.
January 4th, 2008 at 2:55 amI have a peasant’s pallette which is a good thing since I live in Wisconsin. I can be faithful to the local economy. With wine, I just sip whatever is the sweetest.
Comment by Sabyen91 — January 4, 2008 @ 2:08 am
Oh, aye, watch it der fella, don’t be insultin’ the cheeseheads.
January 4th, 2008 at 2:57 amThis is a night for celebration, and I have enjoyed reading all the comments. Champagne all around, folks! An African-American has won Iowa!
Edwards is our most electable candidate, and I’m really enthusiastic about his progressive views. We have a bunch of high-quality VP possibilities, too. I love Obama, and he’s going to be a great statesman, but I’d like to see him get a little more experience.
How about Edwards/Obama and SIXTEEN YEARS of Democratic presidents? Could we go for that, folks — and really, won’t it take that to get us out of the hole the Rethugs have dug for us?
The Neocon thugs are peeing their pants because their tame fundiegelicals have tired of being led around by the nose and are flexing their muscles. Their next move? McCain (or maybe Romney) at the top of the ticket, and Huckabee as VP as a sop to the religious right.
In my dreams, Huckabee at the top — a sure loss for them. He’s the real deal Evangelical, not the sham W is. But one way or another, Huckabee will be on the ticket, because without all those Southern closet racist/theocrats, they’re sunk. Immigration is nothing but the newest racist code word.
Here’s the irony — in many ways, particularly about immigration, the man’s a liberal and NOT racist (check his record in Arkansas). Of course, he’s scary on gay and women’s rights, the separation of church and state, and science. Surely the country has enough sense to keep Southern Baptists out of the White House.
January 4th, 2008 at 3:01 amComment by Leigh — January 4, 2008 @ 3:01 am
I agree. but these are the numbers which make me rejoice:
220,588 Democrats showed up on a cold midwinter’s night, shattering the previous mark of 124,000.
the Republican side, where projections showed about 114,000 people taking part. The last previous contested Republican caucuses in 2000 drew 87,666 participants.
Wow! That’s close to a 2-1 advantage in a “Red State”!!!
I might be wrong, but, I would say the “pissed off minority” is going to kick ass on the “moral majority”.
Huck, Reagan, or Jesus himself, can’t overcome 2-1 odds. The good people of America just might end the madness of the neocons.
January 4th, 2008 at 3:15 amAnd, on that note, I bid all you good people goodnight. I urge you all to vote your conscience and hope for better days.
It can happen!
January 4th, 2008 at 3:18 amAs mentioned in my Post #295, of the fifteen U. S. Senators who were eventually elected to the Oval Office, only two were sitting senators at the time. Of these fifteen, in many cases, at least ten years had elapsed between first being elected to the Senate and assuming the Presidency.
The four exceptions:
1) Andrew Johnson, Senate (1857), President (1865-1869) following Lincoln’s assasination.
2) Benjamin Harrison, Senate (1881), President (1889-1893)
3) Warren Harding, Senate (1915), President (1921-1923)
4) John F. Kennedy, Senate (1953), President (1961-1963)
The fate for these four individuals was generally not a happy one. Johnson and Harrison were one-term presidents. Harding and Kennedy died in the middle of their third year in office. Harding’s time was marked by charges of corruption, including the well-known “Teapot Dome” scandal. Johnson survived two impeachment attempts, which appeared to have been politically motivated, and then was defeated in his run to represent Tennessee in the Senate in 1868.
In any event, for all four of these individuals, at least six years had passed since they were first elected to the U.S. Senate.
Obama is attempting to succeed in this regard only four years since entering the Senate, having been first elected to that office in November, 2004.
Hillary would be attempting to do so only eight years after being first elected to the Senate in November, 2001, historically, still on the early side.
For either to succeed in ascending to the Presidency, a number of historical precedents would need to be simultaneously established.
January 4th, 2008 at 4:19 amLook, Hillary just isn’t that smart. She is politically canny, but she isn’t actually any smarter than any of the other Democratic candidates.
In fact she is somewhat dumber.
Lets look at her voting record regarding Iraq, and later Iran.
She was one of the primary voices that argued for the Iraq war, and her arguments were not “Muscular diplomacy.” On the one hand it could have been political expediency, on the other, she was just gullible.
Either way, not good.
Then she voted in favour of declaring the Iranian army a terrorist organisation, in effect repeating her “mistake” with Iran – while the war has dropped in popularity towards being the major factor in the Republicans losing Congress and the Senate.
Plus, there is her whole stance on computer gaming. Nobody will deny that Grand Theft Auto is an objectionable game, it is objectionable because it is a game about being a violent criminal who kills cops, plays sniper, and steals cars. It was objectionable long before Hot Coffee, the sex minigame which she objected to.
Manhunt 2 was banned in a lot of countries for being a murderous game with no real socially redeeming features. It got rated AO (An effective ban in the states) and thus the developers decided to create a censored version – which got a lighter rating.
Hillary’s main objection to that game is that she thinks the Wii version, what with the motion sensitive controls, is generating a generation of trained killers. Hillary’s smart? Riiight.
January 4th, 2008 at 4:55 am“Johnson survived two impeachment attempts, which appeared to have been politically motivated, and then was defeated in his run to represent Tennessee in the Senate in 1868.”
Survived? The first attempt failed in a full House vote. The next year 11 articles were passed by the House. He WAS impeached. He was acquitted at trial in the Senate.
The impeachements didn’t appear to be politically motivated they WERE politically motivated.
Johnson was elected to the US Senate by the Tennessee legislature in 1874 (legislature picked Senators until Constitution amended). He took office in 1875 and died a few months later.
January 4th, 2008 at 5:00 am“2) The Confederacy consisted of eleven states (i.e., AL, AR, FL, GA, LA, MS, NC, SC, TN, TX and VA) and two border states (i.e., KY and MO). ”
Hate to nitpick, but. The Confederacy did not consist of 11 states and two border states. The border states were just that; border states. Kentucky and Missouri remained in the Union throughout the Civil War. Lots of fighting in Missouri but it remained in the Union.
“Although history doesn’t always repeat itself”
History NEVER repeats itself.
January 4th, 2008 at 5:17 amWhy has the media consistently ignored Edwards??? Their entrance and national polls put him at around 24%, yet he finishes with 32% – ahead of clinton despite all the free press they give her and obama. I know someone mentioned earlier that he is the only Dem to beat ALL the Repubs by a wide margin. Why is MSM marginilizing his second place victory? The MSM are the king makers, thus if he looses, I firmly believe that it is because the MSM ignored him and gave Clinton & Obama all the free press they wanted.
Mark my words, with all the others dropping out of the race, they will give Edwards a huge bump in the polls, yet MSM will STILL ignore him.
January 4th, 2008 at 7:13 amIs Giuliani,the 9/11 man, claiming victory at 4%?
January 4th, 2008 at 7:35 amObama is for real, and hillary better come up with a better & smarter strategy, or she will have to start negotiating her VP spot with him.
January 4th, 2008 at 7:58 amMost aptly said by Brent Budowsky:
“By any standard, Joe Biden, Bill Richardson and Chris Dodd stand at the top of the list in presidential qualification, stature, substance and a lifetime of depth and achievement. A reasonable person might conclude that each of these three, has equal or greater qualification to be president as any of the three leading Democrats.
Biden, Richardson and Dodd simply did not exist in the eyes of the annointing class, a group of political insiders with an extremely narrow life experience beyond their life as political insiders with each other.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brent-budowsky/media-insiders-shaft-bide_b_78823.html
January 4th, 2008 at 8:22 amleftcoast, thanks for that link. So true. Dodd was my guy from the beginning. I’ve never seen the guy give a canned answer. He knows the issues inside and out. Every time I saw him at a debate or on a news show the one word that came to my mind was “PRESIDENTIAL.” He certainly deserves to replace that bumbling fool Harry Reid.
January 4th, 2008 at 8:34 amjpoke2 (@308),
I think the media is more than just ignoring Edwards; I think they are actively squelching him.
Edward and Kucinich have the strongest anti-corporate message of all the candidates. Our media is corporate owned (and controlled). I think this accounts for the vast majority of the observed behavior.
January 4th, 2008 at 8:42 amThe most talked about candidates by the media were Hillary and Giuliani
Hillary came third,
Giuliani came 6th
Paul…was ignored but came with 10%
The savior of Republican party Fred Thompson,as we were told, (the new Reagan), came fourth. My prediction, he will be out soon.
Paul will improve….
Mccain will improve
Obama will improve
Giuliani will be a bust…
Romney is boxed…
Hillary is cornered
and
Huckabee will do good in some southern states,thanks to Evangelical’s help, …but going west, he will falter..
Is McCain back on the saddle?…. time will tell.
Hillary warmongering will not help her…The country needs and looking for a way out of war.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:22 amIf she and Giuliani cannot see that..then they are losers at starting point. Giuliani adopting a strategy of scaring people,and claiming to be the champion of 9/11 tragedy….Will it work..? I doubt it.
In a surprising turn of events, dumbass Iowa Republican rubes voted for a dumbass Arkansas Republican rube.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:24 amIf Edwards do well in N.H. and he wins S. Carolina the state after ,then he will be weakening Hillary’s chance for winning the nomination.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:43 amWith Obama slicing a good piece of her winning pie,then Hillary is in trouble.
Re: Post # 306 and #307 —
With regard to President Andrew Johnson, I defined surviving impeachment attempts as remaining in office, despite these efforts. How do you define “surviving”?
Although Missouri and Kentucky did not completely secede from the Union, slavery was practiced in both states, and sentiments in both states were arguably more divided than in perhaps any of the other states in existence at the time.
The is extensive discussion of the border state phenomenon on the wikipedia website. You may also wish to consider the following passage from http://www.civilwarhome.com/borderstates.htm:
“Believing Kentucky to be a buffer zone, Governor Beriah Magoffin refused the call for troops and formally declared the states neutrality. But the attempt proved futile: both Union and Confederate recruiters operated in the state, with Kentuckians serving on both sides. When Confederate troops moved into western Kentucky Sept. 1861, and Brig. Gen. U.S. Grant occupied Paducah, the legislature officially endorsed the Union. Pro-South Magoffin established a provisional government at Russellville, ratified the Confederate Constitution, and Kentucky was admitted to the Confederacy in December. The state, like Missouri, suffered the tragedy of a war that pitted father against son, brother against brother.
Missouri attempted neutrality after delegates to a secession convention in February 1861 refused to secede, but Federal invasion in May pushed many Unionists into the Confederate camp. As in Kentucky, pro-Union and pro-Confederate governments were established, the latter run in exile by Governor Claiborne F. Jackson. Missouri became a Confederate state November, 1861. Its thriving prewar economy was devastated, its people terrorized by brutal guerrilla warfare.”
Certainly, more of the lingering sentiments from the Civil War would seem to exist in these two states than perhaps any others that weren’t formally part of the eleven Confederate states. Anyone who has read “Huckleberry Finn” may recall that Jim was a slave who escaped with Huck from Missouri.
And now we all know that based upon an unassailable authority (i.e., YOU), that George Santayana must have been referring to something that has NEVER EVER occurred when he stated, “Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”
For anyone interested in reviewing examples of history repeating itself, there is the matter of Hitler’s ill-fated invasion of Russia in WWII, making a very similar mistake to the one made by Napoleon several decades earlier. There is also the matter of the United States attempting to prevail in Vietnam, a decade after the French left there in defeat. And for the more detailed current example, please consider this: http://www.socialstudiesmadesimple.com/history_does_repeat_itself.htm
Stating something with absolute certainly does not necessarily make it so.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:18 amEdwards has been ignored by the media , attacked for his hair and all but ignored by many supposedly progressive sites . He is also the most electable candidate and I say this with much unhappiness ,because he is a white male .
January 4th, 2008 at 10:40 amHillary is hands down the least progressive candidate of the top 3 and Obama I believe is little more than hillary’s corporate overlord’s 2nd choice .
Our international image is more important than restoring basic rights and pulling our troops out of a permanent presence in the mid east ? Yeah Bartlebee Image is everything….Not !!!! Can we restore our Image internationally while staying permanently in the ME and torturing abroad ?
Will hillary or obama restore habeas corpus and put an end to signing statements ?If they do not go on record Very shortly and say as much I will devote my resources to a 3rd party candidate .
Goodbye Chris Dodd you were the only candidate who was passionate about restoring our constitution amd reigning in the executive, you have my thanks and respect .
The democrats are bought and paided for .and Huckabee will be able to use this against them if chosen because he is using anti corporate rhetoric in his bid for the presidency . Stop the corporate ownership of our government and take back our democracy , there will never be a better opportunity than Now ! This may ve the ONLY opportunity .
I think the media is more than just ignoring Edwards; I think they are actively squelching him.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:43 ampete c
It’s pretty obvious to me you are right on the money.
I think the media is more than just ignoring Edwards; I think they are actively squelching him.
pete c
It’s pretty obvious to me you are right on the money.
Comment by freeman
Sure they are. The media is owned by multinational corporations. John Edwards is their worst enemy.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:54 amComment by Leigh — January 4, 2008 @ 3:01 am
“Fundiegelicals” I likey!
January 4th, 2008 at 11:54 amI think the media is more than just ignoring Edwards; I think they are actively squelching him.
pete c
It’s pretty obvious to me you are right on the money.
Comment by freeman
Sure they are. The media is owned by multinational corporations. John Edwards is their worst enemy.
Comment by shoeless — January 4, 2008 @ 10:54 am
The only members of the media talking about John Edwards were Limbaugh and O’Reilly blabbing about his haircuts and lambasting all trial lawyers as if they’re satanic and not helping their clients.
What they fail to mention is that all the candidates are paying several hundred dollars every day for makeup artists so why the attack on Edwards? He just scares them and progressives need to fight for him.
January 4th, 2008 at 12:24 pmTo all those caught under Obama’s spell…
Can anyone identify a situation where he has demonstrated real political courage in taking a stand for the common people and against large corporate power? Not just words, but actions.
Both Obama and Hillary have been bought with corporate money, and as such, have been and remain beholden to them. The fawning coverage by the MSM (which is the mouthpiece of the Bush Administration and Big Money), stands a proof positive. If either of them were suspected of ever siding with the common people rather than the corporate agenda, the MSM would completely ignore them. Don’t believe this? Just consider the lack of coverage for John Edwards, even though he came in second in Iowa.
Big Money is counting on most of the voting populace to be dazzled by style and remain oblivious to substance (or the lack thereof). And if that doesn’t work, a strong dose of fear can be injected to aid the cause.
Some of you may remember that Obama supported pro-war Joe Lieberman in his race against anti-war candidate Ned Lamont.
This writer would strongly recommend that you check the facts, and remember that actions speak far more loudly than words.
For further details, check out http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Feb2007/street0207.html
January 4th, 2008 at 7:40 pmEdwards? Are you kidding me? Even Kerry knew he was a phony…
January 4th, 2008 at 8:40 pmEver heard the saying that a person is known by the company they keep?
The following article in the Times U.K. will likely be unsettling for those disciples of Hillary and Obama:
January 4th, 2008 at 9:06 pmhttp://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article1752381.ece
curmudgeon
Obama when running for the Senate opposed the Iraq war – back when it was still popular.
January 5th, 2008 at 7:49 am