I don't like Obama. As far as him reaching across the aisle, well maybe that explains why the Illinois DNR is wholly-owned subsdiary of big coal whose longwall mining is turning his home states most precious farmland - a resource of national importance for millenia to come, into useless swamps.

Praise of him coming from a Republican is NOT a good thing.

And as far as Kucinich sending his votes to Obama, he also sent his votes to Kerry.

Edwards isn't perfect, but he is the only one who wasn't born with a silver spoon in his mouth and has demonstrated that he knows waht the US working class up against.

But every time I hear any of these three say "affordable healthcare" I pull a few hairs out. Healthcare isn't to be made "affordable" it is to be made a publicly-funded HUMAN RIGHT.

Obama=Change? Don't think so.

"Never mind that Obama has lent his support to the aptly named Hamilton Project, formed by corporate-neoliberal Citigroup chair Robert Rubin and "other Wall Street Democrats" to counter populist rebellion against corporatist tendencies within the Democratic Party (David Sirota, "Mr. Obama Goes to Washington," the Nation, June 26).

Or that he lent his politically influential and financially rewarding assistance to neoconservative pro-war Senator Joe Lieberman's (D-CT) struggle against the Democratic antiwar insurgent Ned Lamont.

Or that Obama has supported other "mainstream Democrats" fighting antiwar progressives in primary races (see Alexander Cockburn, "Obama's Game," the Nation, April 24, 2006).

Or that he criticized efforts to enact filibuster proceedings against reactionary Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito."

from The Obama Illusion, Z Magazine,by Paul Street February 2007

What makes this so remarkable, that Obama won in white Iowa, is that only about 50 years ago people who were black were being denied the right to vote and blacks were put into separate schools by the government in the US. In 1963 MLK had his famous speech about his wish that we could all come togehter (I have a dream) Now there is the possibility that some one who is black could be elected president. This gives us hope that humans are capable of change and that in 50 years maybe some of the hatreds we see today between peoples could be reduced.

Its a glimmer of hope.

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." MLK

I was going to use the Haha myself.
In the end--all the candidates will disappoint.
BUT-they cant be worse than Bush.

Although if its a black man vs a southern preacher....
I think we may end up with a jesus thumper..again. Though this one would be more sincere than Bush which isnt a goodthing.

CBC coverage - pay special attention to Henry Champ:

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/01/03/iowa-caucus.html

Obama talking about the President of Canada:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZjU2CBEIfh4

I have been supporting Obama...and enjoyed reading Arianna's column on the Iowa win for Obama:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/obama-wins-iowa-why-ever_b_79663.html

"So voters in Iowa remembered the past and decided that they didn't want to go back.
They wanted to move ahead. Even if that meant rolling the dice.

Again, this moment may not last. But, for tonight, I am going to savor it --
and cross my fingers that it may stand as the day that fear as a winning political tactic died.
Killed by an "unlikely" candidate -- as Obama called himself again and again --
who seized the moment, and reminded America of its youth and the optimism it longs to recapture."

i love that picture. Ugly woman, looks like rudy with hair.

Obama rocks the raucous caucus
by David Goodner
Straight Out of the Cornfield blog

Barack Obama won because of the young vote. May the young vote sweep across this nation and bring with them the change THEY wish to see. Then, the young vote needs to work its ass off creating the change they want.

What exactly is Obama gonna change? Asking the corporations, nicely, to give up their power and their strangle-hold on our so-called democracy?

I agree that the big loser is Hillary Clinton (even though she was technically neck and neck with Edwards). A few months ago she was so far ahead of the pack that she was seen as unstoppable. The momentum is not with her.

I don't like Hillary because she sees imaginary people crossing borders - let's call it Hamdanigate:

So Edwards is in second place and Obama is in first.

The person in first place has a big target on his back.

No comments yet, so let me be the first to say "HA-HA", in a Nelson Muntz style.

usarmyguy - I know that there are rules against even married couples serving together in Afghanistan kissing, but please keep your sexual fantasies to yourself.

(when edit goes through, this thread will stop stretching)

realitychecker

No one knows yet whether Obama can do it...make at least some of the changes that America needs..
but this article about Obama's record in the state legislature suggests there is the possibilty he can do it:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303.html

Judge Him by His Laws
By Charles Peters
"Taken together, these accomplishments demonstrate that Obama has what Dillard,
the Republican state senator, calls a "unique" ability "to deal with extremely complex issues,
to reach across the aisle and to deal with diverse people."
In other words, Obama's campaign claim that he can persuade us to rise above what divides us is not just rhetoric."

"Charles Peters, the founding editor of the Washington Monthly,
is president of Understanding Government, a foundation devoted to better government through better reporting."

(and Kucinich sent his votes to Obama)

Who cares?

Clinton has actually been in freefall for awhile, but I can't help but think of Iowa when the Dean troops decended. The institutional party rallied around the "most electible" candidate and rejected change. Maybe they are on a course correction--recognizing the error of their ways? After all, it was a losing strategy. It is unfortunate that the projections used to play out the scenario are little more than symbols. Obama, other than his slick exterior offers little substantial shift away from the Clintons--on the issues--he just puts a glossy new spin on it. That is the superficiality of this "change" away from the Bush-Clinton dynasty--but no real threatening shift in business as usual. Wouldn't it be a sad irony that this rallying meme around "change" become just as much of a mistake as the "most electible" meme turned out to be? Kerry certainly was not the most electible and Obama does not represent any real change. Both Kerry and Obama are safe candidates--upholding business as usual--and both are easy to cut down if need be.

Personally, I find the ageism the rejection of the battles of the sixties, the false embrace of change in terms of generational shifts as deeply offensive.

The fact that both Kucinich and Richardson told their supporters to give their second-place votes to Obama seems a little strange and like a set-up to control the rest of the election. Given Obama's corporatist leanings, that can't be a good thing.

Ding dong! This may be the beginning of the end of the Wicked Witch of the NRA, KKK, DLC, NDN, SHIT, and the GOP.
Everybody, let's push on the coalitionization! Give 'em Rainbow, Obama!

Obama is a better choice than Hillary, and a MUCH better choice than ANY GOP candidate, so there is a bright side to all of this. Edwards would have been the best bet to reverse the horrific effects of the "Reagan Revolution," which is reaching critical mass as we speak.

coleen,

Obama is NOT an African American, he is a son of a rich Kenyan and a rich white American, raised in Hawaii. He shares none of the roots and culture of African Americans.

This link will give a break down of how hte votes went according to age , sex income etc

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#val=IADEM

and what is very good for Obama is that across the board he did well, even with women.

There is a preference by younger voters for Obama though...
57% of 17-29 year olds voted for Obama
42% of 30 to 44 year olds
27% of 45 tp 64 year olds
18% of 65 and older

That 18% is is his lowest %.

PJD

90% of what are called blacks in the US have some white blood. There is not a pure race and all of us in the US have been influenced by what is called "black culture"

The US has been very fortunate to have the influence of the black culture in the arts and in sports...and also in politics.

Hillary, Barack and Mitt and maybe a few of the other candidates in the race's highest-spending campaigns are supposed to be thrown out of the primary election race for being in unethically-high-spending political campaigns!!

Colleen:

Have you seen any footage of the culturally white yuppie Obama speaking his version of blackese in front of a Southern African American audience?

Gees, I hope he dances better--I truly felt embarrassed for him.

Obama, Edwards and Clinton are all pro death penalty, hardly something for progressives to cheer about the US is a beta version of democracy corrupted by the original sin of having to deal with slave states (electoral college, 3/5 rule, etc) that is starting to feel its age, sigh, what a circus, I suppose we have to talk about this because its the "big political thing" now but frankly people, the horse has left the barn, 2004 was the big election, the country and the world lost that one and we will be dealing with the after affects for a very long time.

simply because everyone is against hilliary,dems,repubs and progressives,alike.i am now certain that hilliary would have been the better choice.she looks like a snowball in hell,now.obama will dance his way into the white house and soon you will have a nuclear power plant near you.dick cheney's eighth cousin, blood will tell.

The headline for this article says "Clinton Loser." It should say

BARACK OBAMA THE WALK-AWAY WINNER!!!

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

Imagine that. Son of a Kenyan and a White American woman, 46 years old, former Nader NYPIRG campaigner, Black as black in the eyes of America, stands trembling at the threshold of power to change the direction of this country and the world.

And here we have the self-syled "Left" carping that he gets some money from bad people and the corporate media isn't trashing him because he doesn't talk the Edwards rap about fighting corporations.

As George Herbert Walker Bush once said, "Watch. Listen. Learn." Maybe when you're marching in the streets or barricading the doors, speaking truth to power, it's good to have a strong message, but if you want to get past those doors, if you want to have power, if you want to make change real, you need to soften things a bit, you need to reach out and you need to offer hope.

Barack Obama's mission is change, the kind of change we all want, and his message is hope and unity. That's what it takes, and that's why Obama is going where he's going.

Forget the platforms and campaign promises. The differences between Edwards and Obama are small enough that you can't realistically expect Edwards to deliver those differences even if he were president. You have no way to hold him to those small differences, even assuming he would have the power to deliver. Obama is doing what it takes to be able to deliver. Even on the rhetoric alone, Obama is a better bet for an effective progressive presidency.

Good enough for the arrogant Hillary---she sold herself to the mush-mouth corporations and this time people are awake enough (desperate enough) to reach for something else. The irony is (if you look at Obama's website) that he's just about the same as her: war is going to keep us safe and make the world more secure/peaceful. I'm disappointed in Kucinich's recommending Edwards, whose anti-corporate rhetoric sounds simple and shallow (he's not going to get elected threatening businessmen)...but to me he's still the most "progressive" in the field after Kucinich. Ironically again, I heard a mainstream media bimbo wondering if Edwards will now call it quits. WHAT? Guess they're already working to let us know that there can be no anti-corporate candidate....GO NEW HAMPSHIRE! Show the punditocracy what a worthless bunch of clowns and liars they really are...

Vern

Did the "Southern African American audience" like him? or is he being judged now by your standards ..which are?
(my guess middle class white male?)

I think considering where most Americans are now politically..Obama is the best we can get. and we won't know what he is capable of until he is in the presidency...

Colleen

I believe that half of the white race has some black in them. I know I'm no pasty white boy and my family has been here since the 17th century.

Kucinich backed Obama..Richardson also backed Obama

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/03/obama-will-get-richardsons-second-choice-votes/

...............................................
Politics involves compromises with people whose opinions differ.

nayoibi says "obama will dance his way into the white house" and a bunch of other enlightened words of wisdom.

I find this sort of declaration after just the first caucus almost as irritating as declaring front runners before a singe vote is cast. Iowa is not the end, it is just the beginning. Historically the results of Iowa are irrelevant as often as they are relevant.

Billary still has a good shot at the nomination, though I sincerely hope the Dims can do better.

Furthermore your assertion is ridiculous on it's face, Obummer is unelectable in the general election. If the Dims nominate him they are casting a vote for the repug whoever it is. Polls be damned as soon at the Swift Boaters go after him in the general election he is done. That is just reality like it or not.

The Dims best chance is Edwards. He is the most electable and the least repulsive. I wish our first Black Man and First Woman candidates actually had character, but they do not, so I do not mourn that they will not likely make it in the general election. Though Billary has a chance, Obummer has none!

the division within the democratic party is sickening. i read an article on yahoo about the iowa caucuses, and a shocking statistic was that only 10% of democratic voters care whether their candidate is electable. Ummm, that is just a braindead mentality. What the fuck is the point of even voting if you can't get your candidate into the whitehouse? and i thought liberals were the intelligent party. thats like saying well we got to the superbowl thats good enough, dont care if we win. For all you haters of Obama and Hillary and Edwards and even Gore who isnt running, and since noone is good enough for you braindead assholes, you fucking Deserve President Huckabee. fucking know it all assholes....

jxh261

Marriage (consensual sex) is a wonderful way to bring together peoples from different backrounds ..and it seems to be natural for people to be attracted to others who are different imo.

Please support the one that the democrats nominate to go up against the republicans. Chances are they won't make most of the changes that we all long for, and the changes that they make will come slower than we'd like them to.

It's going to be a two party contest, and we need support the best person that has a chance of winning.

Yes the Bush regime cheated in the last two prez elections, but that doesn't mean that we should throw in the towel... Fight the good fight!

There are lots of people in power - including CIA, NSA, FBI, etc who are sick and tired of the corruption infested Bush Regime/GOP. It would not be unreasonable to expect some of them to help get the USA out of the gutter.

So, Nader 2000,

Are we to vote for him assuming he is lying and is really a stealth progressive? Haven't we already been precisely here before in the form of the failed Kerry campaign and the failed Gore campaign before that.

Haven't the Democrats figured out that people see right through this spineless waffling style of campaigning?

RE: - What makes this so remarkable, that Obama won in white Iowa

I think I heard that on CNN last night also. Isn't Iowa a northern State? The southern States are the ones with the bigger Black populations because the people who owned the plantations brought them there as slaves.

Obama has charisma but he needs more experience. I would like seem him again in 8 years. Either that or with a Vice President who can pick up the slack.

About Hillary - an Olivia Chow she is not!

(wikipedia has an entry for her and her famous husband)

PJD - Obama is NOT an African American, he is a son of a rich Kenyan and a rich white American, raised in Hawaii. He shares none of the roots and culture of African Americans.

coleen: - 90% of what are called blacks in the US have some white blood.

There is a bit of a difference between "some white blood" due to the inappropriate behaviour of some plantation owner and being both. Obama is both - why should he deny either his mother or his father!

That said, there is no such thing as not being black enough or not being white enough.

And I doubt that being black in North Dakota is the same as being Black in Texas. And that being poor and black is the same as being rich and black. I think that we had this debate on Prince of Bel Air (sp?) where Will admitted that his Barry Manilow loving cousin was just as black as anyone else there.

No, Colleen, I am not a white middle class male.
And my guess would be they were embarassed for him as well, but politely tolerated the dark-skinned white man pandering to them.

vaudree

"But I don't think he has exhausted all the possibilities yet either."

lol..yes I'm sure we will yet be amused by all the mistakes made in this campaign cycle. :)

I can remember when Bush was running for president and could not remember
the name of the leader of Pakistan (it was Musharef) and people criticized the reporter
for asking such a difficult question !!!!!!

This is such good news. What, after all, is the point of even having democracy if we use it to elect the arms merchant's, insurance thieves', and Israel's far right wing politician's favorite candidate? Hillary (or Bush) is what we would have if we didn't have democracy. We still have a way to go before we can say we have seen clear of power's mind manipulation telling us that democracy is like a horse race. If we all just went to the polls and wrote down our positions on the issues and those were matched to the candidate that best represented those views, Dennis Kucinich would win by 87 percent, but obviously we are not that capable of exercising our democracy, or even operating our own minds.
None the less we should rejoice in Hillary's humiliation, and hope that she doesn't recover from this defeat.

Considering that Clinton outspent Edwards 3 to 1, I think the winner is Edwards. But then, I'm partial to candidates that actually want to change something rather than just yap about it cause it sounds good. Both Obama and Clinton have huge corporate backing. Edwards is passing on the bribe money and going with matching funds. That is a huge disadvantage. Yet... there he is in second place. Hmmmm. The other question... all those young people... will they stick it out and show up at the polls like the evangelicals will to vote for Huck?

vern

Well we will see where the black vote goes..and my guess is that they really really like Obama..with Oprah backing him up..

I would love to see a series on Oprah about US health care..showing the people (some of them children) whose lives have been damaged and destroyed by a medical system that no sane nation would use to provide heath care to its people...

"Obama, Edwards and Clinton are all pro death penalty, hardly something for progressives to cheer about"

Also their healthcare plan is pandering to big insurance by shifting the problem onto the backs of average Americans. They have all proposed a system where if uninsured, we are mandated to pay insurance companies for insurance. (A similar law is in effect in Massachusetts, where it has recently been reported that statistically it has failed. People who couldn't afford health insurance through corporate insurers were still unable to pay for it and broke the law.)

Obama at least has suggested we don't need the program to be mandated by law. Other than that their proposals for healthcare are offensive to me.

If we can afford a trillion dollar war without any potential to really benefit Americans (and Iraqis, to say the very least) we can afford a system that covers our uninsured through our taxes.

Not one of these candidates wants to call a spade a spade, when it comes to this. They certainly do not say what is true: they are too entrenched in the system the way it is-- to try to break with it to really solve this problem.

What Hillary, Obama and Edwards are communicating through their healthcare proposals is that they all believe that it is impossible to fight big insurance, because big insurance controls the issue, controls their "solution" and hence in some way, is controlling us, our fears, needs, whether we get treatment we need or not.

w/o all the profanity, i agree w/liberal w/an attitude. the point is to win the election, have a democratic president & a democratic congress. if the gop wins the election, it doesn't matter that we have a historic first of either a "somewhat black" nominee or a woman as the nominee. yeah it will break a glass ceiling either way but we'll still wind up w/gop pres who does nothing useful about healthcare & insurance, global warming, the war, crumbling infrastructure, the economy, taxes and incomes for the middle class working class (what's left of it) and the poor ,and so on. i don't want that & neither do you i hope. so even tho i think hillary would do the best job, i will support, campaign for and vote for the yet to be named democratic nominee. because, out of all those running, he or she will be better for the issues i've named than of the gop potential nominees.

And, as far as Kucinich, and Obama, this article from Chicagoan Paul Street (Obama's adopted city to launch is ambitions) says it all.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=14637

chunga, i am getting quite used to being the 'hilliary' of the cd forum. the one everybody loves to hate. a rough job, but i suppose every congregation of humans,must and will have their scapegoat.i am not bigoted or racist,i don't see skin color as being 'the issue' here,at all. the issue is that it is crystal=clear that there is a helluva lot of money to be made for the 'elite' pocketbanks off of nuclear power plants and uranium.the british royal family is invested heavily and it seems to me that obama could be their man ,to carry the torch of this new big business venture,all the way to a neighborhood near you.now if you are one of the many people that believes nuclear power is clean safe and economical,well,bully for you. uranium has replace oil,as their favorite resource to reap. god,help us.

I have been trying to edit my post here, but to no avail! Sorry for the typos.

vern, obama's skin isn't that dark!

And, we should be discussing the fact that he thinks Canada has a President (rather than a Prime Minister).

Like I said, Hillary Clinton is no Olivia Chow or Dawn Black or Rebecca Blaikie or Alexa McDonough

And Obama is no Howard McCurdy or Lincoln Alexander

(except for Rebecca all Wikipedia names)

An enormous problem that Obama has in winning a general election is that he will be pressured to pay homage to his "black" heritage. This problem, I believe, is compounded by his support from Oprah who, while popular with women, makes no qualms about emphasizing the importance of being black. I know it's the politically correct think to do but, regardless of whether we want it to be or not, it is divisive. Much more of an issue and where more people share a commonality of struggle is "class" in this country, and especially the daily marginalization of clout for those without financial means. This is why as a rolling stone, Edwards may be gathering moss; hi speaks directly to this disparity. The most pressing issues we presently face, transcend race or creed.

allyourbasearebelongtous

while I agree that a democrat might be better than what we have now (as long as it's not hillary) what I have seen over the past several years are my democratic reps and senators selling out to big business and to the republican war agenda. It's going to take keeping the heat on that party seriously to get anywhere away from where we are now. The damage is done, they can't continue just going along with things. They have to show some balls as far as making serious changes are concerned.