- ‹ previous
- 3972 of 8836
- next ›
How Obama Won, and What it Means for the Democratic Race
I knew there was something afoot for Barack Obama about half an hour into the caucus I attended at Merrill Middle School in Des Moines, Iowa. First of all, there was the turnout. Democratic Precinct 72 had roughly 25 attendees in the 2004 caucus, according to precinct chair Louise Alcorn. Today, it had 58. And even though the caucus represented a union-heavy neighborhood, which one might expect to turn out for John Edwards, the first count of the night identified 24 Obama supporters, 16 Edwards supporters, and just 12 Hillary Clinton supporters. The caucus also included one Biden supporter, four Richardson supporters, and one undecided voter, all of whom later spread evenly to the larger groups.
The relatively small precinct only had two delegates to give, so the Clinton, Obama, and Edwards groups all tried convincing each other that they ought to switch camps. Though the Edwards supporters in attendance were well-prepared (they had pies and candy available for converts) and committed (they gave passionate speeches advocating for Edwards), the Obama supporters sat steadfast and quiet. 
After some heated moments, including a long discussion of whether Elizabeth Edwards' cancer necessarily meant she would die while her husband was in office, the final count showed that Obama had actually grown in strength. Obama 25, Edwards 22, and Clinton 11—Obama and Edwards each took home one of the precinct's two delegates.
By the time the caucus wrapped, it was becoming clear that Thursday was Obama's night. Anecdotal reports suggested that turnout was way up—the eventual turnout number would shatter all records—a fact that favored Obama significantly because it meant first-time caucus-goers, independents, and young voters were turning out big time. Indeed, young voters in particular might be the story of the Iowa caucuses: notoriously hesitant to participate, they composed over 50 percent of Obama's support. News reports even indicated that Obama had beaten Clinton among women.
The final results—Obama 38 percent, Edwards 30 percent, Clinton 29 percent—suggested that Iowans had responded to Obama's call for decreased partisanship and a renewed politics that left special interests and lobbyists behind. In fact, they had answered it so fervently, and in such large numbers, that they had bested the best political machine in politics by nine points. In his victory speech at the Hy-Vee Hall in Des Moines, where supporters hugged, cried, and hooted randomly, a grinning Obama struck almost grandiose tones.
He called the victory a "defining moment in history," one that proved that "in the face of impossible odds, people who love this country can change it." Was Obama buying into his own legend, or simply displaying the confidence of a candidate who can finally call himself the sole frontrunner? Only time will tell, but Obama didn't abandon his bread and butter. "We are one nation," he said. "We are one people. And our time for change has come." Those themes have worked so far, and are only getting stronger.
The real question is if the time for change has come for Hillary Clinton. Obama will take this victory and its attendant glowing press coverage and rampage through New Hampshire the next five days. The bounce he will see in the next round of polls should be considerable. But Clinton took third here tonight. She can't go into New Hampshire with the same message and expect to compete with Obama's momentum. But what can she change? It's a particularly difficult question considering the fact that she is operating with a stripped-down tool kit. Inevitability is out the window, and Obama's strong showing amongst independents probably tossed electability out too. She has only experience to point to now, and the recent Des Moines Register poll that got tonight's results so correct identified that as a falling stock.
It's possible that experience was never Clinton's strength, or at least not its main component. It's possible that Clinton was the safe pick, the known quantity. Like Romney on the Republican side, she would go before every sub-constituency in her party and tell them exactly what they expected to hear. Every narrow interest in the Democratic Party would be satisfied by a President Hillary Clinton; she was the establishment. But Obama's appeal is somehow greater than the sum of those narrow interests, and now that Iowa has put its faith in him, it's hard to see how other states won't follow. That said, no one with Clinton's money and organization should be counted out.
John Edwards faces a different conundrum. Beating Clinton allows him to see another day, but he has not cultivated a strong base of support in any of the other early states. Either his second-place finish will provide him with enough of a bounce to perform competitively in New Hampshire, or Obama's megabounce will soak up all the voters willing to shift their preferences. With New Hampshire less than a week away, we won't have to wait long to find out.
One last note. Polls aren't useless, they are just usually so. As I mentioned earlier, the Des Moines Register poll nailed the results: Obama winning by roughly seven, with Edwards and Clinton more or less tied. But no other poll came close to this kind of prescience. American Research Group predicted Clinton 34, Obama 25, and Edwards 21 in its latest poll. CNN found Clinton 33, Obama 31, and Edwards 22. And so on. As it turns out, polls have a tough time predicting historic nights with unprecedented levels of voter participation.
Photos: At top, the Obama victory speech at Hy-Vee Hall; above right, a Clinton supporter attempts to persuade others to join him in the Precinct 72 caucus at Merrill Middle School in Des Moines; below, Biden supporters organize in Precinct 70 caucus, also at Merrill Middle School.
ONE reason Hillary does NOT DESERVE CONSIDERATION is because she has refused her constituents who have demanded a new investigation into 9-11. Now, before you think I am a nut, you need to know that the NIST scope DID NOT INCLUDE global collapse of both towers, and they STILL have not completed their investigation into the freefall collapse of building 7 (you DO know about 7, right?).
Thousands of scientists, engineers, architects, pilots, former military, and former intelligence personnel have legitimate questions. Here are some of the people who are asking questions:
December 13, 2007 -- Seven former engineers and scientists of the Federal government have severely criticized the official account of 9/11 and called for a new investigation.
"A lot of these pieces of information, taken together, prove that the official story...is a bunch of hogwash. It's impossible," said Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, PhD. With doctorate degrees in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering, Col. Bowman served as Director of Advanced Space Programs Development under Ford and Carter.
---
Edward S. Munyak, MS, PE, has over 20 years experience as a Fire Protection Engineer for the U.S. Departments of Energy, Defense, and Veterans Affairs.
Mr. Munyak wrote, "We will find that the ...concentric nearly freefall speed exhibited by each building was identical to most controlled demolitions. The official reports had many technical distortions...in arriving at a flawed, politically-driven conclusion of building performance."
---
Dwain Deets, MS, former Director, Aerospace Projects at NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center, wrote "The many visual images (massive structural members being hurled horizontally, huge pyroclastic clouds, etc.) leave no doubt in my mind explosives were involved [in the destruction of the World Trade Center]."
Mr. Deets also is the recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Award and the Presidential Meritorious Rank Award in the Senior Executive Service (1988). He served at NASA for 37 years.
---
Another prominent skeptic of the official account of 9/11 is James Quintiere, PhD, former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), who has publicly called for an independent review of NIST's investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.
Dr. Quintiere made his plea at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference. "I wish that there would be a peer review of this," he said [4], referring to the NIST investigation.
---
Another senior Federal engineer who questions the official account of 9/11 is Enver Masud, MS, PE, former Chief of the Strategic and Emergency Planning Branch, U.S. Department of Energy. Prior to his employment by the DOE, he served as Director of the Office of Engineering at the Public Service Commission in Washington, D.C.
Mr. Masud wrote, "The 9/11 Commission Report is fatally flawed. The major conclusions of the 9/11 Commission Report -- the official, conspiracy theory -- are false.
---
Another senior Federal engineer who seriously questions the official account of 9/11 is Joel Hirschhorn, PhD, former Senior Staff Member, Congressional Office of Technology Assessment 1978 -- 1990 and former Professor of Mechanical Engineering. Earlier this year, he wrote, "Many technical analyses cast doubt on the official explanation of the collapse of three World Trade Center buildings, including those presented by an impressive new group: Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth? http://www.ae911truth.org/announce/ (I suggest you view the power point presentation on this page at your convenience).
---
"The issue of knowing who was really behind the 9/11 attacks is of paramount importance to the future of our country, because the 'official' assumption that it was the work of 19 Arab amateurs does not match the available facts," writes David Griscom, PhD, a retired government research physicist who spent 33 years at the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, D.C. He is the principal author of 109 of his 185 published works, a body of work highly cited by his peers.
Ideally the 2008 Presidential Election's result will not be the product of gynophobia, "Hillaphobia," or anything besides the American voters' carefully deliberated reinvestment in their Democracy. Only then will we manage to nominate and elect the candidate least beholden to corporations and most effectively dedicated to the ideals of public service embraced by every front-running Democratic candidate.
I believe it is wonderful, and essential, that voters are mobilizing. I think this trend will help to destabilize what has become the modern status quo: America's disgraceful "Political-Industrial Complex." Yes, younger voters tend to vote for younger candidates. That's nothing new. It should not have taken flocks of overpaid pundits to predict those results. Younger candidates can have fresh ideas, but recent examples abound of the failures of fresh ideas in politics without an accompanying gut-level wisdom-driven approach borne of political experience and public life.
When it comes to new blood, we must be careful what we wish for. Otherwise we can easily end up with another flash-in-the-pan 70's-esque ideological fiasco. Don't get me wrong--I have always supported Jimmy Carter. It's just that voters in that election also overlooked a candidate's "big time" inexperience to put into their nation's top office a good man they correctly viewed as a new thinker. Then, despite the best intentions of the majority, Americans were not emotionally prepared to stand behind his honest, fresh, populist approach to leading the country. Nor, perhaps, was he skilled enough as a politician to react to the serious issues that confronted him, at least not in a way that translated into the perception of effective leadership. The legacy of that smashed voter idealism was ultra-conservatism, Reagonomics, and the infiltration of big business greed into all aspects of our country's government. That eventually transmogrified into its current form?the outrageously ostentatious, pseudo-moralistic Bush-Cheney Corporate Regime. Our short-sighted indulgence thirty years ago has resulted in the disastrous undermining of American Democracy today.
Though I do support Hillary as the candidate I believe to be most capable of leading our country away from the brink of disaster, I am committed to voting for my party's nominee in any case. Not a single candidate in the 2008 race can accomplish the drastic governmental turnaround needed by my beloved country to mend its evil ways--to end partisan grid-lock in which nearly every politician is beholden to corporate clout proportionally to his or her political influence. Accomplishing that reform in even two terms of office would require nothing short of revolution. So, anarchy aside, we must settle for slower progress. It will take the utmost voter diligence to ensure that the first steps taken amount to real healing progress and not to a wasted fit of self-indulgence. Please, let us not victory dance our way over the brink.
MUSCATINE, Iowa ? Ralph Nader unleashed on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton Monday ? criticizing her for being soft on defense spending and a chum of big business ? and expressed his strong support for John Edwards.
In an eleventh hour effort to encourage liberal Iowans to "recognize" the former North Carolina senator by "giving him a victory," the activist and former presidential contender said in an interview that Clinton will "pander to corporate interest groups" if elected.
Nader specifically accused Clinton of failing to challenge military spending because "she is a woman who doesn't want to be labeled as soft on defense, and she doesn't want to be shown as taking on big business."
What's most "interesting" (in an otherwise pedestrian article) is that Jonathan Stein has not disavowed his previous inside-the-Beltway perspective that Edwards' anti-corporate message would turn off Iowa caucus participants.
In fact, as the results show, Iowans preferred Edwards' message to Shillary's centrist, establishment, inside-the-Beltway, Gore/Kerry "stay the course" message.
Of course, Jonathan doesn't have the integrity to admit that his "analysis" (if you can call his warmed-over David Korn perspective that) was flat wrong.
Can't wait for Jonathan's next prognostication ? let me guess: "Obama and Edwards can't win because [insert DLC reasoning here]" and only Hillary is "electable".
You read it here first ...
ONE reason Hillary does NOT DESERVE CONSIDERATION is because she has refused her constituents who have demanded a new investigation into 9-11. Now, before you think I am a nut, you need to know that the NIST scope DID NOT INCLUDE global collapse of both towers, and they STILL have not completed their investigation into the freefall collapse of building 7 (you DO know about 7, right?).
Thousands of scientists, engineers, architects, pilots, former military, and former intelligence personnel have legitimate questions. Here are some of the people who are asking questions:
December 13, 2007 -- Seven former engineers and scientists of the Federal government have severely criticized the official account of 9/11 and called for a new investigation.
"A lot of these pieces of information, taken together, prove that the official story...is a bunch of hogwash. It's impossible," said Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, PhD. With doctorate degrees in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering, Col. Bowman served as Director of Advanced Space Programs Development under Ford and Carter.
---
Edward S. Munyak, MS, PE, has over 20 years experience as a Fire Protection Engineer for the U.S. Departments of Energy, Defense, and Veterans Affairs.
Mr. Munyak wrote, "We will find that the ...concentric nearly freefall speed exhibited by each building was identical to most controlled demolitions. The official reports had many technical distortions...in arriving at a flawed, politically-driven conclusion of building performance."
---
Dwain Deets, MS, former Director, Aerospace Projects at NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center, wrote "The many visual images (massive structural members being hurled horizontally, huge pyroclastic clouds, etc.) leave no doubt in my mind explosives were involved [in the destruction of the World Trade Center]."
Mr. Deets also is the recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Award and the Presidential Meritorious Rank Award in the Senior Executive Service (1988). He served at NASA for 37 years.
---
Another prominent skeptic of the official account of 9/11 is James Quintiere, PhD, former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), who has publicly called for an independent review of NIST's investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.
Dr. Quintiere made his plea at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference. "I wish that there would be a peer review of this," he said [4], referring to the NIST investigation.
---
Another senior Federal engineer who questions the official account of 9/11 is Enver Masud, MS, PE, former Chief of the Strategic and Emergency Planning Branch, U.S. Department of Energy. Prior to his employment by the DOE, he served as Director of the Office of Engineering at the Public Service Commission in Washington, D.C.
Mr. Masud wrote, "The 9/11 Commission Report is fatally flawed. The major conclusions of the 9/11 Commission Report -- the official, conspiracy theory -- are false.
---
Another senior Federal engineer who seriously questions the official account of 9/11 is Joel Hirschhorn, PhD, former Senior Staff Member, Congressional Office of Technology Assessment 1978 -- 1990 and former Professor of Mechanical Engineering. Earlier this year, he wrote, "Many technical analyses cast doubt on the official explanation of the collapse of three World Trade Center buildings, including those presented by an impressive new group: Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth? http://www.ae911truth.org/announce/ (I suggest you view the power point presentation on this page at your convenience).
---
"The issue of knowing who was really behind the 9/11 attacks is of paramount importance to the future of our country, because the 'official' assumption that it was the work of 19 Arab amateurs does not match the available facts," writes David Griscom, PhD, a retired government research physicist who spent 33 years at the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, D.C. He is the principal author of 109 of his 185 published works, a body of work highly cited by his peers.
Ideally the 2008 Presidential Election's result will not be the product of gynophobia, "Hillaphobia," or anything besides the American voters' carefully deliberated reinvestment in their Democracy. Only then will we manage to nominate and elect the candidate least beholden to corporations and most effectively dedicated to the ideals of public service embraced by every front-running Democratic candidate.
I believe it is wonderful, and essential, that voters are mobilizing. I think this trend will help to destabilize what has become the modern status quo: America's disgraceful "Political-Industrial Complex." Yes, younger voters tend to vote for younger candidates. That's nothing new. It should not have taken flocks of overpaid pundits to predict those results. Younger candidates can have fresh ideas, but recent examples abound of the failures of fresh ideas in politics without an accompanying gut-level wisdom-driven approach borne of political experience and public life.
When it comes to new blood, we must be careful what we wish for. Otherwise we can easily end up with another flash-in-the-pan 70's-esque ideological fiasco. Don't get me wrong--I have always supported Jimmy Carter. It's just that voters in that election also overlooked a candidate's "big time" inexperience to put into their nation's top office a good man they correctly viewed as a new thinker. Then, despite the best intentions of the majority, Americans were not emotionally prepared to stand behind his honest, fresh, populist approach to leading the country. Nor, perhaps, was he skilled enough as a politician to react to the serious issues that confronted him, at least not in a way that translated into the perception of effective leadership. The legacy of that smashed voter idealism was ultra-conservatism, Reagonomics, and the infiltration of big business greed into all aspects of our country's government. That eventually transmogrified into its current form?the outrageously ostentatious, pseudo-moralistic Bush-Cheney Corporate Regime. Our short-sighted indulgence thirty years ago has resulted in the disastrous undermining of American Democracy today.
Though I do support Hillary as the candidate I believe to be most capable of leading our country away from the brink of disaster, I am committed to voting for my party's nominee in any case. Not a single candidate in the 2008 race can accomplish the drastic governmental turnaround needed by my beloved country to mend its evil ways--to end partisan grid-lock in which nearly every politician is beholden to corporate clout proportionally to his or her political influence. Accomplishing that reform in even two terms of office would require nothing short of revolution. So, anarchy aside, we must settle for slower progress. It will take the utmost voter diligence to ensure that the first steps taken amount to real healing progress and not to a wasted fit of self-indulgence. Please, let us not victory dance our way over the brink.
MUSCATINE, Iowa ? Ralph Nader unleashed on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton Monday ? criticizing her for being soft on defense spending and a chum of big business ? and expressed his strong support for John Edwards.
In an eleventh hour effort to encourage liberal Iowans to "recognize" the former North Carolina senator by "giving him a victory," the activist and former presidential contender said in an interview that Clinton will "pander to corporate interest groups" if elected.
Nader specifically accused Clinton of failing to challenge military spending because "she is a woman who doesn't want to be labeled as soft on defense, and she doesn't want to be shown as taking on big business."
What's most "interesting" (in an otherwise pedestrian article) is that Jonathan Stein has not disavowed his previous inside-the-Beltway perspective that Edwards' anti-corporate message would turn off Iowa caucus participants.
In fact, as the results show, Iowans preferred Edwards' message to Shillary's centrist, establishment, inside-the-Beltway, Gore/Kerry "stay the course" message.
Of course, Jonathan doesn't have the integrity to admit that his "analysis" (if you can call his warmed-over David Korn perspective that) was flat wrong.
Can't wait for Jonathan's next prognostication ? let me guess: "Obama and Edwards can't win because [insert DLC reasoning here]" and only Hillary is "electable".
You read it here first ...
Smacking Queen Hillary down to 3rd Place is just a start in the process of eliminating the corporate media's and other Big Business manipulators' celebrity candidates.
Has it not occurred to talking heads and ad paper "reporters" and publishers that we're furious about the way certain candidates have been denied their right to participate in debates with equal time? We're also angry that we are denied our right to learn as much as possible about every candidate running for public office.
Barak Obama needs to reassess his priorities. He also needs to remove the rose colored shades from his eyes and take a hard look at the problems the WTO, NAFTA and other horrible policies caused in our country and to our neighbors where workers, farmers, and other everyday people are concerned. We have tens of millions of Latin American workers affected by some of these policies, who now affect US workers. We have tainted products that have harmed pets and people and threatened our children coming from China, because of these policies. We have global neighbors that are furious with us and the WTO because of these policies. We have wars, in part, because of US global trade policies.
This revolution will last as long as it takes. It's being fought by sincere freedom and democracy lovers - true American Patriots.
Obama for president
If he can win in Iowa and do well in New Hampshire with Independent support, Obama will have earned the opportunity for a final appeal to Democrats. As he does so, he will undoubtedly tout his then-proven ability to attract Independents and attract new voters into the process. That is why Clinton's status as frontrunner will be more vulnerable.
Carlos Menéndez
http://www.segurosmagazine.es
I think Obama will win both New Hampshire and South Carolins.
Do Democrats really like Hillary? Evidence is increasingly suggesting they do not.
The nomination process may come down to a brokered deal at the Democratic Convention. The question is, if this happens, will the Clinton machine try to destroy Obama and even play the race card?
Clinton should bow out and turn her support for Obama. She is an old hag riding the coat tails of her cheating husband. What a "Hoe". People will even accept the also ran Edwards over her. Clinton is tired, time to be a grandmother.
"Democratic Race". There is no "race" but the human race. That is why Obama could win in a 99% white state. The politics of racism died yesterday.
It will be interesting how this shakes out in the next month or so.
I hate that one state can have so much consideration. The big primaries are still in play. I hope for the best but worry about the $$$$ that have bought and paid for most all of the "top tier" candidates (in one way or another).
Either way . . . .
"The genius of the United States is not best or most in its executives or legislatures, nor in its ambassadors or authors or colleges, or churches, or parlors, nor even in its newspapers or inventors, but always most in the common people."
~ Walt Whitman (1819 - 1892)
I'm voting for Obama simply because he's not the status quo. Meaning, he's black. I'm a white guy, living in the white suburbs and I'm sick and tired of the white males at run this country. It's time for change. Maybe in 8 years we will see a hispanic president, male or female, and then from there an Asian president. Why not. White male does not represent this country any longer, and never has. The white males have been in charge of destruction of our people, our land, our policies and our food and so on. I hate to sound like "down with whitey", but oh well.
Joe, get some counseling. You are a racist.
I'm a racist because I'm white and stating the facts? Don't you realise how many whites are in power in this country and keep it that way? That's not being racist. Discrimination is still going on. There are plenty of intelligent blacks, women, latinos, hispanics, etc., yet the majority of CEO, chairmen and board members are white males. Gee, sorry for stating the truth.
And let's not forget how many african americans are in jail compared to whites. It's about time this country breaks free of the status quo. This isn't the United Whites of America. There are hispanics, latinos, asians, african americans, indians, etc. now than ever before and its time the President of this country represents the cultural diversity of this country for one, among other things.
Joe, why the hate?
Perhaps it was Obama's Presidential Genes that gave him the win last night.
http://www.familyforest.com/inthenews.html
Anyone who believes that Obama somehow stands apart from our dreadful system of special interests needs only to check his voting record. But, as we know all too well from 2000, checking a voting record is just too much trouble. While Obama is more independent than many, he is nevertheless tied to some special interest groups.
He is a good candidate (though not for me), but it is unfortunate that--so far--he is getting a pass from the media. I expect that to continue. Even at this early stage, he has not been challenged on some issues that clearly needed to be challenged. The Howard Dean incident drives home the fact that the American people are not interested in facts, but only in the lies fed to them by the media. So far, the media likes Obama, and will most likely continue to unfairly trash his opponents.
This is not to say that his opponents do not deserve criticism! But they deserve it for their actual shortcomings, not their perceived or nonexistent ones.
"Joe, get some counseling. You are a racist."
And the sexism in this thread is no more appealing.
I come to the conclution that american women do not support female candidates.
A question for all candidates:
Do you believe that O.J. was guilty in his trial for murder?
Unfortunately it is the International Bankers who may still pull the strings behind any elected candidate. Go google for the movie ZEITGEIST and make sure you watch the last 3rd of the movie. You should be shocked and pissed off! George
Unfortunately, many of the women responding to "Joe" come across as racist. I do not know if they are but they sure sound that way to me. Obama won in Iowa. Good for him. Calling Clinton names is so ugly. A black guy in California once said, "Why can't we all just get along?" I think the question now is, "Why can't we forget our prejudices for a while and just become the American people with the best interests of the American people in mind?
People are finally beginning to realize that many Democrats (male and female) do not want Hillary to be the candidate. Her "experience" as first lady is just not enough. She is also profoundly insincere and unlikable. One gets the sense from her that she would say anything to be president and has no guiding principle but ambition.
Give it a rest, Doger. What you think about OJ is important to you. That trial is over. If you are hoping that OJ winds up in jail, perhaps he will and all of the hate mongers can rest. Another black fella (or would you prefer the N word?) in Jail.
Do you thind Von Bulow was guilty? Just curious.
Presidential candidates do not usually weigh in on any trial. I would think you would know that.
Dude, what a candidate looks like or has between their legs matters exactly zero as to whether that candidate will be a good president....or, for that matter, whether I will vote for that person or not.
All of the candidates are too far to the right for me, but, while I'm choosing between unattractive options, Kucinich's endorsement is what won me over for Obama, for now anyway. Yeah, we could say all sorts of stuff about Kucinich, but he's the farthest to the left of all the options who have gotten any mainstream media coverage.
Fact is, whoever we get will suck in some way. Just as in a picked over grocery store, we'll pick the apple with the fewest bruises, and look for another place to shop since this place has such a persistent supply problem. I've been looking, let me tell you.
Has anyone noticed that a candidate with very little money came in second. Someone who is supported by the small contributions of individuals not drug companies. I think that John Edwards coming in second is more important the Obama's win and deserves more discussion. Obama is backed by the same corporate groups that backs Clinton. Edwards is the only person backed by the people. Individuals are willing to make contributions because of his ideals. Obama started to sound more like Edwards when he realized how effective these ideals are with voters and there was a potential to loose.
I think obama did a good job, I have been leaning toward him since he first announced his candidacy, on clinton I believe she will not stop and will pull all punches available to her to oust Obama.
If obama goes out then I will go for edwards. If clinton is in I will go republican.
Joe, relax man.
I'm with you, but these are all points that Ron Paul takes on head on...why nobody listening?
Iowa selected a governor from the South, with glaring ineptness, primarily because he fired up the evangelicals. (Does this sound familiar to anyone, Bush, Iowa 2000?) They went with Obama who has no experience, goes around shouting 'change' but never says how he proposes to bring it. Obviously, too much corn does not lead to the ability to make rational choices for president!
ONE reason Hillary does NOT DESERVE CONSIDERATION is because she has refused her constituents who have demanded a new investigation into 9-11. Now, before you think I am a nut, you need to know that the NIST scope DID NOT INCLUDE global collapse of both towers, and they STILL have not completed their investigation into the freefall collapse of building 7 (you DO know about 7, right?).
Thousands of scientists, engineers, architects, pilots, former military, and former intelligence personnel have legitimate questions. Here are some of the people who are asking questions:
December 13, 2007 -- Seven former engineers and scientists of the Federal government have severely criticized the official account of 9/11 and called for a new investigation.
"A lot of these pieces of information, taken together, prove that the official story...is a bunch of hogwash. It's impossible," said Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, PhD. With doctorate degrees in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering, Col. Bowman served as Director of Advanced Space Programs Development under Ford and Carter.
---
Edward S. Munyak, MS, PE, has over 20 years experience as a Fire Protection Engineer for the U.S. Departments of Energy, Defense, and Veterans Affairs.
Mr. Munyak wrote, "We will find that the ...concentric nearly freefall speed exhibited by each building was identical to most controlled demolitions. The official reports had many technical distortions...in arriving at a flawed, politically-driven conclusion of building performance."
---
Dwain Deets, MS, former Director, Aerospace Projects at NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center, wrote "The many visual images (massive structural members being hurled horizontally, huge pyroclastic clouds, etc.) leave no doubt in my mind explosives were involved [in the destruction of the World Trade Center]."
Mr. Deets also is the recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Award and the Presidential Meritorious Rank Award in the Senior Executive Service (1988). He served at NASA for 37 years.
---
Another prominent skeptic of the official account of 9/11 is James Quintiere, PhD, former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), who has publicly called for an independent review of NIST's investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.
Dr. Quintiere made his plea at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference. "I wish that there would be a peer review of this," he said [4], referring to the NIST investigation.
---
Another senior Federal engineer who questions the official account of 9/11 is Enver Masud, MS, PE, former Chief of the Strategic and Emergency Planning Branch, U.S. Department of Energy. Prior to his employment by the DOE, he served as Director of the Office of Engineering at the Public Service Commission in Washington, D.C.
Mr. Masud wrote, "The 9/11 Commission Report is fatally flawed. The major conclusions of the 9/11 Commission Report -- the official, conspiracy theory -- are false.
---
Another senior Federal engineer who seriously questions the official account of 9/11 is Joel Hirschhorn, PhD, former Senior Staff Member, Congressional Office of Technology Assessment 1978 -- 1990 and former Professor of Mechanical Engineering. Earlier this year, he wrote, "Many technical analyses cast doubt on the official explanation of the collapse of three World Trade Center buildings, including those presented by an impressive new group: Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth http://www.ae911truth.org/announce/ (I suggest you view the power point presentation on this page at your convenience).
---
"The issue of knowing who was really behind the 9/11 attacks is of paramount importance to the future of our country, because the 'official' assumption that it was the work of 19 Arab amateurs does not match the available facts," writes David Griscom, PhD, a retired government research physicist who spent 33 years at the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, D.C. He is the principal author of 109 of his 185 published works, a body of work highly cited by his peers.
WE MUST NOT REPEAT YEAR 2000
This could be "2000" all over again... with candidate George Bush and his great feel good down home rhetoric of "we need a change in Washington", as he was campaigning against the better qualified candidate Al Gore. We all know the results, and what has happened the last seven years. Well, the American people won't be that gullible this time. Mr. Obama is a gifted orator, outstanding script, brilliant feel good rhetoric, great baritone voice for his delivery, but the rhetoric is all "feel good". Paul Krugman writes in the New York Times with his article on December 17th in his piece titled "Big Table Fantasies", that Mr. Obama is "naive". I agree. Hillary Clinton has a plan that will work to make the changes we need in our Executive Branch from day #1, and we have to start then, not on day #2. From Iowa, there are 49 more states, and Hillary Clinton will be campaigning aggressively in each. I hope and believe all Americans will see that she is the best person to lead our Executive Department forward as President, and not someone who is just well meaning, and who only gives us "feel good rhetoric", and quite frankly would be well suited as a Talk Show Host or Game Show Host on Network T.V. with his great stand-up delivery. Thank you.
At first I thought Obama would be a good second pick, especially after Kucinich, my real favorite, was black-listed in a new level of silencing truth. Then, I learned that his main campaign advisor, and who will undoubtably become part of his cabinet, was a man named Zbigniew Brzezinski, who worked in Carter's administration, I believe as his SecDef. But it is Z.B.'s book, "The Grand Chessboard" that lets one know what sort of man he is--a man like Dick Cheney--highly intelligent, but without a bone of compassion in his body. In his book he describes U.S. strategy for American Imperialism and furthering and maintaining our Empire. His final hope and prediction is that all gov'ts will fold into one New World Order.
Obama stands up to the New York money people who have Clinton and Rudy Giuliani in their pocket. They hate Obama because his father was Muslim and Obama thinks that we should not support the apartheid that Israel is practicing.
To continue, knowing that Zbigniew Brzezinski is employed by Obama points to the fact that Obama is NOT the man of and for compassionate change that he claims, and I know that Kucinich would not have endorsed him if he knew of Z.B. and was familiar with his book, "The Grand Chessboard" which is one of the most insulting, fascist pieces of non-fiction I've ever read. The fact is, there is no candidate that is going to pursue a course reflecting the wishes of the American people, except maybe Kucinich, and you see they won't even let him speak!
He sounds good. But who gave him a hundred million bucks? And what did they pay for?
Alan, Kucinich took a cheap shot at Edwards by directing his voters to support Obama. Edwards is more closly allied with the political philosophy of Kucinich than Obama. I hate a sore loser. And I will not vote if Clinton is the nominee.
Check out today's edition of Democracy Now! There is a discussion about who is advising the candidates. www.democracynow.org
Sen. Obama is going to have to be much more specific about his policies. Hope/Change is not a strategy. Hope for what? Change to what?
Ideally the 2008 Presidential Election's result will not be the product of gynophobia, "Hillaphobia," or anything besides the American voters' carefully deliberated reinvestment in their Democracy. Only then will we manage to nominate and elect the candidate least beholden to corporations and most effectively dedicated to the ideals of public service embraced by every front-running Democratic candidate.
I believe it is wonderful, and essential, that voters are mobilizing. I think this trend will help to destabilize what has become the modern status quo: America's disgraceful "Political-Industrial Complex." Yes, younger voters tend to vote for younger candidates. That's nothing new. It should not have taken flocks of overpaid pundits to predict those results. Younger candidates can have fresh ideas, but recent examples abound of the failures of fresh ideas in politics without an accompanying gut-level wisdom-driven approach borne of political experience and public life.
When it comes to new blood, we must be careful what we wish for. Otherwise we can easily end up with another flash-in-the-pan 70's-esque ideological fiasco. Don't get me wrong--I have always supported Jimmy Carter. It's just that voters in that election also overlooked a candidate's "big time" inexperience to put into their nation's top office a good man they correctly viewed as a new thinker. Then, despite the best intentions of the majority, Americans were not emotionally prepared to stand behind his honest, fresh, populist approach to leading the country. Nor, perhaps, was he skilled enough as a politician to react to the serious issues that confronted him, at least not in a way that translated into the perception of effective leadership. The legacy of that smashed voter idealism was ultra-conservatism, Reagonomics, and the infiltration of big business greed into all aspects of our country's government. That eventually transmogrified into its current formthe outrageously ostentatious, pseudo-moralistic Bush-Cheney Corporate Regime. Our short-sighted indulgence thirty years ago has resulted in the disastrous undermining of American Democracy today.
Though I do support Hillary as the candidate I believe to be most capable of leading our country away from the brink of disaster, I am committed to voting for my party's nominee in any case. Not a single candidate in the 2008 race can accomplish the drastic governmental turnaround needed by my beloved country to mend its evil ways--to end partisan grid-lock in which nearly every politician is beholden to corporate clout proportionally to his or her political influence. Accomplishing that reform in even two terms of office would require nothing short of revolution. So, anarchy aside, we must settle for slower progress. It will take the utmost voter diligence to ensure that the first steps taken amount to real healing progress and not to a wasted fit of self-indulgence. Please, let us not victory dance our way over the brink.
Duky you are absolutely correct when you say "Obama is backed by the same corporate groups that backs Clinton." Again it's the American people voting for whoever puts on the best show, generates the most buzz. Our biggest threat today are the corporations that have taken over the government. Edwards has made a career out of taking on these corporations and beating them. He's the right person at the right time but the people of the US are going to be too stupid to realize it.
'Atta boy, Joe!
Wiring from Melbourne, Australia Senator Obama will more than likely win the Democratic party's nomination to contest the 2008 US Presidential race. I hope he wins. My question is America ready to put an Afro-American into the White House?
If that occurs, then America can move forward as a nation. Good luck.
Joe, I am with you all the way. I am a white female 77yrs of age and I am thrilled with the outcome in Iowa and I am hoping it will be repeated over and over. I am thankful for all the young folks who came out and joined in the voting process. Three cheers for OBAMA...and thanks to the youth in Iowa.
Carol
It would be great to make history and put a person in the White House other than a white male, but lets not put some one in the White House just for history's sake. Lets put some one who has the experience dealing within the Federal Government and has shown a propensity to work for the common man. Someone who has served this country for decades without one blemish on their record in spite of numerous attempts by the neo-cons, right wing fanatics and GOP to discredit and sully that record.
We need a compassionate, experienced and wise politician to lead us back from the corporate-Christian maniacal world of Bush and Cheney.
And although Obama and Edwards are good men they do not have the where with all that Hillary Clinton has. From day one the change will begin and it will not only be good for America but for the world
And what greater statement could this male chauvinistic country make than to elect a woman and a very special woman at that, to the White House and at the same time make history.
It really is time to change and the greatest change of all would be to elect an especially capable and compassionate woman named Hillary
If Obama gets the nomination, the Gay community will go all out for his defeat. He has the Black homophobic pastors to give him advice(previously covered in Mo-Jo). You know how the Muslims treat Gay people. Obama is not the one. Senator Clinton understands the issues in the Gay community. Obama must be defeated. Don't be fooled.
Obama has been working for more transparency in Washington, as he did in Illinois. Edwards has been campaigning in Iowa for the past for years. He has visited each of the 99 counties.
Obama's money comes from small donations from individuals. He does not accept PAC or lobbyist money.
I was troubled by Edwards' "concession" speech in that he mentioned the little girl who died b/c of the insurance company's rejection of her claim, then talked about breast cancer and Elizabeth....his grandmother the miner and then the paralyzed grandfather..He's rather crafty...he didn't mention his deceased son..Well, I don't believe in publically sharing family concerns...I'm listening because Obama has to pick a running mate...
Obama has integrity-vision-experience (8 years in Illinois and 3 years in Senate) and he is a uniter..we saw that yesterday and we'll see it again in NH
Obama is the one...now is the time.
Obama '08 Fired up and going