Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- This Is What Happens When You Rip a Hole in the Safety Net
- New Sanders Bill Would Break Up Big Banks
- The Day That TV News Died
- The '147 People' Destroying the US Economy
- So Your Groundwater's Poison and Your Tap Water's On Fire. Not to Worry: Fracking Chemicals Are Trade Secrets You Don't Need To Know About
Popular content
Today's Top News
'Skinny Kid with a Funny Name' Reshapes US Politics
"They said this day would never come," said the Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama at the outset of his barnstorming victory speech on Thursday night. But as he arrived in New Hampshire early yesterday, Americans woke up to the historic possibility that the day when they might have a black president was closer than they thought - not just within their lifetime, but within the year.
Until Thursday night that was little more than a remote likelihood - a fresh-faced, freshman senator whose middle name is Hussein up against the daunting might of the Clinton machine in the sixth whitest state in America. Last month, former president Bill Clinton asked if the United States was ready to "roll the dice" on an Obama presidency.
Iowa caucus-goers rolled. Obama won, leaving Iowa with 38% of the vote, eight percentage points ahead of John Edwards and having pushed Hillary Clinton into third place with 29%. They also took a chance on the Republican outsider, Mike Huckabee, who vaulted to a commanding victory over his main challenger, Mitt Romney, in just a few weeks, leaving the Republican field in complete disarray.
But the night belonged to Obama, who told his supporters: "Hope is the bedrock of this nation. The belief that our destiny will not be written for us but by us." He then flew into New Hampshire brimming with confidence. "I think [Iowa] is a harbinger of what's going to happen around the country," he told reporters on his flight.
But even as the Democratic field narrowed slightly, as senators Chris Dodd and Joe Biden withdrew, both Clinton and Edwards were in hot pursuit. Clinton still emphasised her experience: "Who will be the best president based not on a leap of faith but on the kind of changes we've already produced?" she asked.
Meanwhile in Manchester, New Hampshire, Edwards painted himself as the underdog in a battle against Obama. "I am not the candidate of money, I am not the candidate of glitz, I am not the candidate of glamour. Nor do I claim to be," he told a morning rally.
Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas, owed his win to white evangelical voters who backed him by more than two to one over his nearest rival. He now heads to New Hampshire, a libertarian state where religion plays less of a political role, trailing Romney and Senator John McCain in the polls.
The Republican hopeful and former New York mayor, Rudy Giuliani, has decided to forego competing seriously in Iowa and New Hampshire and wait to make his mark in Florida later in January - a strategy some say is doomed to failure.
Obama's win was the result not of mobilising the Democratic base but transforming it. More than a third of his support was from the under-30s and most of those who backed him had never been to a caucus before. A large number of independents also flocked to him, helping to boost Democratic caucus goers to almost double the number four years ago.
In so doing he not only helped remould the electoral landscape of the Democratic party, he also refashioned the racial expectations of America's electoral politics. The days when black politicians stood for office in order to force the issues affecting black communities from the margins to the mainstream are over. Now they can stand to win. In the last 50 years the number of white people who said they would not vote for a black presidential candidate has nosedived from 53% to just 6%.
But that requires new strategies. Obama has played down his race and white voters have so far mostly played along, pretending either not to notice or suggesting that America has overcome such obstacles.
Obama does however use the rhetoric of the civil rights era in a manner that no other candidate would. With Oprah Winfrey by his side he quoted Martin Luther King about the "fierce urgency of now".
Some are sceptical however that his victory may represent a racial advance that is far more symbolic than substantial.
Obama's theme has been change - healing the polarised political culture that has become entrenched over the last eight years. In a country embroiled in war, facing a possible recession where 71% believe it is on the wrong track, his message of hope and change clearly resonated.
It was not entirely clear what that change would mean in practice, but it was always clear what it would look like. Him. With a Kenyan father, Kansan mother, raised in Hawaii, studied at Harvard - some believed that literally he embodied change. From the outset he had described himself as "a skinny kid with a funny name". That his name was neither Clinton nor Bush may have mattered more than the fact that it rhymed with "Osama".
These are early days. The polls have him trailing Clinton in every state apart from his own. On Tuesday he must do it all again in New Hampshire, where Clinton has stronger roots and until recently had a sizeable lead which he has been closing. In the language of American commentators Iowa will provide a bounce that could in turn give him momentum. In short, he is on a roll.
© 2008 The Guardian
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


186 Comments so far
Show AllCNN Match up polls (12/12/07):
"As far as we can see, the Democrats continue to maintain their advantage over the Republicans. Clinton is 6% ahead of Giuliani, Obama is 7% ahead while Edwards is best of the pack: 9% ahead of Giuliani.
Clinton is 2% behind McCain while Obama is neck and neck with him. Despite the fact that they are both in statistical dead heats, John Edwards holds a whopping 8% lead over McCain.
Edwards is the most electable Democrat. Against McCain, Edwards is slightly ahead in terms of Electoral votes (234 to 228), Clinton is way behind (300 to 222)."
Don't forget, it's not the popular vote, but the electoral vote that decides the president. And small states have an advantage of up to 7 to 1 in votes over large states. Guess how they tend to vote?
There's a lot of information at that website. These numbers tell me that the Democrats could well carry on their long tradition of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Certainly the behavior of Congress isn't making them the beloved party of the people.
I don't think the numbers coming out of Iowa are very realistic, partly from the reasons given in the above article, and partly because in Iowa, Republicans can cross over and may well have done so. If Obama was talking like Edwards, I wouldn't hesitate to vote for him, but he isn't. From everything I have heard, he is a charismatic and motivational speaker, but his website, while promising to some extent relief to middle class Americans, isn't addressing the problem of corporate theft of our country. Of course, those who have done so have been "disappeared" by the Propaganda Ministry (AKA MSM), namely Kucinich, Gravel, Paul, and now Edwards. They're having a problem with ignoring Edwards, because the public already knows he exists.
My main problem with Obama is that he is steeped in corporate money, and like the mafia, you DO NOT bite the hand that feeds you. So all he could really accomplish is to throw an extra handful of crumbs off the table in our direction. But more importantly, there is way too much racism in this country for him to get elected. I'm wondering how many of those Iowans who voted for him in their caucus would actually vote for him in the general election? Any Democrat winning the election would need a whopping lead to counteract the Republican theft of votes. Only Edwards can deliver that. Our country has come to a sad state of affairs.
I posted this in another thread, but I'm reposting it here because today I have to speak my piece about Obama.
A good friend of mine, a Scottish virtual socialist, just wrote an email explaining her excitement about Obama. That depressed me. Never mind that Obama has no plan to remove the troops (unlike Edwards), supports the Robert Rubin Hamilton project (more neoclassical pro-globalization), and ultimately supported his "mentor" Lieberman in the Lamont/Lieberman race,
I lost heart with Obama during the Scalito nomination fight. Kerry and Kennedy had actually mounted a filibuster against the nomination (and imagine, the world DIDN'T end when that tool was used by a Dem. Amazing). They had garnered dozens of votes. Then on the Sun. before the vote, Obama went on the Sun. talk shows to speak out AGAINST the wisdom of the filibuster. I couldn't believe that the Rising Star with Mucho Political Capital had decided to finally expend it to make sure that Scalito got in. To make matters worse, when the vote actually occurred, he voted against Alito and FOR the filibuster! Why? Because that way he'd have a record that, well, despite all the talk, he actually voted for the filibuster (of course, by that time he'd help assure it would fail).
Contrary to his smooth, non-politician persona, this guy out-machiavellis Bill Clinton himself. You gotta admit, the guy's smart.
But, as Nader acknowledged, he has no progressive agenda. As usual, I imagine that a majority of Dems will be satisfied with the non-GWB candidate. But do they really think that a majority of this country–that TWICE almost voted in the most fascist pres. in our history–would vote for a black guy named Obama Hussein?
Al Gore's right. Reason has disappeared from our political discourse.
"What happened to all the "never again" democrats that once filled these pages?"
We are still here lurking ... this moment will pass the moment Obama is elected and he feels the same pressures the others did. Obama alone cannot change the Democratic party. The Democratic Party needs to be disembowelled and reassembled with true Progressives who actually mean what they say. I have absolutely no faith in any of these candidates.
Does anyone get a distinct feeling that CD has become filled with paid, Democrat Party shills? "Dmia's" gushing comments make me sick in the stomach.
Kucinich fooled me once - in 2004 when he folded up his whole peace-plank delegation and fell in like behind Kerry. Now he tells his spupporters to get behind Obama. Fool me twice - shame on me - I'm through with him.
I will make one more compromise - support Edwards, as Nader, who has a sharp eye for who is and isn't a corporate shill, is now recommending.
If not Edwards, then I'll just withhold my vote.
The man who looks most like Tiger Woods got the 'youth' vote. Edwards got the '30s-'40s set, and the aging whore got the aging set. Bible thumpers preferred The Bible over The Book of Mormon on the other side of the coin.
Honestly, there sure is a lot of pablum, pap, and poop coming out now, is there not? America with the runs!
Tiger Woods? - what you on?
Iowa is just the first inning. there are more deligate votes in Florida, than in Iowa, New Hampshire, NC combined. Obama is on a roll however and John Edwards has a tough fight here. We'll see. Obama and Hillary are getting all of the press and TV, Edwards name barely comes up. It is a if he does not even exist. Kucinich gets more news time than Edwards does.
If you are progressive and if you have a clue, you should be very, very happy right now.
Obama is is a genuine progressive who has moderated his positions somewhat to enable him to rise to this level, and has crafted a winning message of unity and hope. He is going to win on a landslide, with a mandate for change and a Democratic majority in Congress behind him, though how large remains a question. This is the best chance we've had in a generation for real progress in America.
We need Barack Obama, we need the Democratic majority, and we need strong grassroots movements demanding the kinds of change that Obama wants to implement but will need help in order to pull off.
Forget Edwards and his anti-corporate schtick. If he fights too bitterly now, he's out. If he stays in but plays nice, he'll make a good vice president.
Remember that Stockwell Day (aka "Doris) was also a skinny kid with a funny name who was supposed to reshape politics.
Edwards is the last bastion of anti-corporatism left. Now that ABC as excluded Kucinich from the political debate (their biggest threat) after an ABC poll showed that the majority of Democratic voters felt Kucinich expresses their political views better than any other candidate (ABC decided not to publish the poll incidentally) that leaves only Edwards to be silenced.
Obama appeals to corporate America with his empty rhetoric and his promise to 'sit down with the health care industries' and discuss alternatives. That's like asking the Gestapo to sit down and discuss solutions to the European Jewry.
Hillary has already shown her colors by backing the military industrial complex by saying such ridiculous things as 'you can't just leave Iraq'. Why? Would chaos break out?
The election is rigged and populism is made irrelevant by the MIC. ABC and NBC are owned afterall by Westinghouse and General Electric respectively... the two largest manufacturers of nuclear weapons on the planet.
I beg all readers not to vote for the status quo. We have to put an end to the raping of the American taxpayers before our Republic is bankrupt!
It was beautiful to hear: "Hope is the bedrock of this nation. The belief that our destiny will not be written for us but by us".
These words are so profound, if only the MSM was free enough to expand on the important meaning of these words!!!!!! There is the problem. We the people will not be free until our MSM is free from corporate rule.
FOR ALL SO CALLED PRGRESSIVES THE CHOICE IS NOW EDWARDS OR Corporations.
Obama strongly resembles Ross Perot in his appeal to the know-nothings who are either 17 or dont pay attention and just want to watch Football.
Yes I know of Edwards background.
But for eight years opposition to the Bipartisan Corporate Agenda has been like a french horn without a mouthpiece.
Edwards offers– to some degree– the mouthpiece that has been so strategically withheld, the mouthpiece to the NATIONAL STAGE. READERS of Federalist 10 will remember just how important this is, and they know that it is the single biggest reason– the lack of a national mouthpiece– why the bipartisan coporate agenda has gone unchallenged for so long. I even sent Edwards 100$ yesterday,even though I am not naive about his hhistory.
He had his biggest fundraising day ever yesterday.
Thanks Nader2000 above. You're right about Obama now being our best choice and hope, and I'm (tentatively) feeling a little happier already, after Iowa.
The skinny kid with the funny name could not only focus our domestic policy but help restore admiration for the U.S of A all over the world. The two most known words in the world are "okay" and "Coca-cola". The word "Obama" in eight years might come in somewhere in the top ten----and that would be a very good thing.
I couldnt disagree more with Nader2000. The real Ralph Nader backs Edwards. HE AT LEAST CAN READ THROUGH OBAMAS FAKE BIPARTISAN SCHTICK! Obama is shiny smiling status quo, because he wont challenge Corporate interstson Oil, War, or healthcare.
Dont believe me look at his HUGE CORPORATE donations on the Open Secrets site.
These comments by Alex are right onward:
"Edwards is the last bastion of anti-corporatism left. Now that ABC as excluded Kucinich from the political debate (their biggest threat) after an ABC poll showed that the majority of Democratic voters felt Kucinich expresses their political views better than any other candidate (ABC decided not to publish the poll incidentally) that leaves only Edwards to be silenced.
Obama appeals to corporate America with his empty rhetoric and his promise to 'sit down with the health care industries' and discuss alternatives. That's like asking the Gestapo to sit down and discuss solutions to the European Jewry."
I love both Edwards and Kucinich. I love Ron Paul, the other candidates who have dropped out because of the money mantra. And I hate what the mainstream media is doing with its Spanish bit cruelly curbing natural, spontaneous debate at such a necessary moment for our country and the world. How dare they?
I hope this is the last and worst example of the kind of campaigns this country has been forced to endure. I hope that the lesson from this campaign will be that an enlightened public spurns big money and turns instead to character and message, in spite of the shackles and shameful treatment the candidates have had to endure.
For Edwards, whose message I love, he like Gore in 2000 made the mistake of bending his ear to Mrs. Clinton as she whispered that message of exclusion - and we all saw it. That's corrupt power, and we know it when we see it. But I agree that he has been shamefully treated by the press.
The distortions and guilt by association, and the suppression of message can all be laid at the feet of a too powerful mainstream media run by too powerful corporations. The public is not served by them; we have had to ignore them. And we will.
Re: Nader2000 Obama "...has crafted a winning message of unity and hope." His unity includes assuaging the MIC, health care bandits and big oil. Did anyone hear Obama mention things like scrapping all nuclear weapons, an immediate withdrawal of troops in Iraq and elsewhere, universal health care (non-profit of course), boosting minimum wage, supporting unionized labor by scrapping NAFTA, Kyoto adherence or any other anti-corporate message? Where does this ephemeral hope come from?
It's either John Edwards or a republican.
Obama will not beat the republican. It will be either Juliano or Huckabee.
The media is all GAGA over Obama winning in Iowa, ___ it's news!!!
The "ephemeral hope" comes from 1992: Recall Clinton's attempt to portray himself as an empoverished child from Hope, Arkansas. Please note the parallels between Clinton's words and the framing of Obama's books and rhetoric, http://www.4president.us/tv/1992/clinton1992hope.htm
The only way he gains my support is because he's an ABC--Anyone But Clinton--but even that is looking tenuous.
Obama ain't no Ron Dellums. He's more like Al Sharpton, the media whore. Except Obama is a political whore. Like all the rest, with the sometime exceptions of DK, he is saying whatever it takes to make people feel happy. He doesn't want to be a leader and knows he can't anyway. His base is corporate America. They are the ones who select our politicians today. America needs to do more than just change the king - they need to change the kingdom.
Hoa binh
I agree--Obama stands less of a chance of winning a general election. Though he stands a better chance than Clinton. With Obama the media "might" have to play down its attacks on him because of the race issue. With Clinton they will go at her full force.
Edwards is probably the best to swing republicans. Too many red necks in states with voting power.
How can anyone think Obama is "progressive"????????????????????????????
1) His TONS OF CORPORATE MONEY > OPEN SECRETS SITE
2) HIS MILITANT MEETOOISM EVIDENCED IN HIS PAKISTAN COMMENTS> BY NOVEMBER THIS WILL HAVE BECOME"
WOULD HAVE INVADED IRAQ TOO EVEN HAD I KNOWN THERE WERE NO WMDS" OR THE 2008 EQUIVALENT.
3) HE DID NOT OPPOSE BUSH AT ALL WHEN HE GOT TO THE SENATE. HE STABBED DURBIN IN THE BACK AFTER THE
LATTER OPPOSED BUSH ON NSA
4) OBAMA> LOVED BY THE CORPORATE MEDIA> BECAUSE HE IS ANOTHER """CENTERIST""""""""" WHO WILL MAKE
REPUBLICAN EXTREMISM SEEM MAINSTREAM.
Corporation is the word is the word is the word....... Edwards 08!
The reason Edwards can swing the center is because he goes for a money defined center not a CULTURAL ISSUES defined center the way the Corporate Media want us to think of it.
Edwards hypocrisy is so transparent- he will lose to any Republican, but then so will Obama and Hillary.
Kucinich is the only candidate with crediblity- and guess what KUCINICH IS STILL RUNNING! Vote for the real progressive.
Do you get the feeling that the Republicans want to run against Obama?
It is a matter of keeping him alive until he faces a republican.
BTW - why does Oprah have so much clout in the US? She can recommend the shittiest book in the world and everyone will go out and buy it. I am sure that the publishers are giving her kickbacks.
Go to the ABC network website and tell them you're INSULTED that---even though Kucinich has CLOBBERED every other candidate in ABC's OWN polls---they have banned him from the big New Hampshire debate. Kucinich was on Bill Moyers Journal last night and Moyers himself reported this. Kucinich was reserved about it though he is rightly going to sue the FCC. There hasn't been ONE REAL PRIMARY yet and the network executives think it's their right to "winnow the field" already: why? Because with many fewer candidates, they save money being able to seem to "cover it all." This is exactly in line with the amazing fact that all networks have CUT international reporting since 9/11....Let's CREATE OUR OWN media (such as "Real News") and leave them to suck on the hollow shells and dry canals of their "empire"....
A lot of race talk here. These horses are all dogs though.
Osama .... er, Obama won't win in the presidential election. I'll write in John Edwards. Obama is too far to the right and too much of a warmonger. But what do you expect of a relative of Dick Cheney? LOL
The GOP will rip Obama to shreds regarding his admission of drug-taking in his younger days. By the way, would he admit to it? Is he proud of it?
I'm an Iowa farmer and political activist. Over the past year I saw all the Dem candidates up close and in person, many several times. None of them were my perfect candidate, which would be some weird blend of Ron Paul and Kucinich and Obama. I liked Edwards' message and while I was personally inspired by him, he wasn't drawing in many new people. Obama always had bigger crowds, including many Republicans (I live in a heavily Republican rural area.)
Obama's magic is that he inspires and unites at the same time. He is the least ideological and most willing to listen. Last summer I attended an all day workshop on rural issues that Obama held. (He had many such workshops in Iowa.) We broke into small groups and talked about stuff for hours, brainstorming, gut-spilling, no idea off the table, no voice too radical or too conservative to be muzzled. Obama would quietly sit in on these small groups for a while and just listen, occaisionally asking a question. At the end of the day Obama gave a nice little speech and simply told us what he had learned. He didn't trot out grand policy fixes or top-down marching orders. How completely un-Presidential! And exactly what he needed to do at that stage.
I went to my rural Iowa caucus and stood up for Kucinich but when he wasn't viable, myself and the one other guy for Kucinich and went to Obama's group. It was weird. I know most of those people and they we young and old and rich and poor. There was a bank president and a union leader in that group! I met with a little old lady in the Obama group who hadn't even voted for anyone since Ike! That's why Obama won. Because he makes the unregistered voter, the poor, the independent, even the disenchanted Republican feel as though they matter, and he doesn't alienate anyone.
Obama is the most inspirational politician I've seen since Bobby Kennedy.
Why would Obama admit to taking drugs in the past? Is he proud of it?
Listen closely to Obama, and you'll find its all content-free drivel that comes out of his mouth. He stands up and spouts lots of nonsense about hope and unity. And it sounds good. Then, afterwards, stop and ask yourself, what did he really say? He talks about 'change', obviously a word that's worked well in the focus groups. But what 'change' does he actually propose.
In fact, when I stop and look at both what he says and what few policy positions he's been nailed down on, here's what it really comes down to.
Division is bad. We have division in the country because of the evil 1960's, which happens to be the last time that the people of this country made any serious attempt to stand up to corporate rule. This was wrong and evil and has divided the country. So, we need to forget this idea of opposing the corporations and end this division. We need to have consensus with the Republicans and the corporations. And since they never compromise, that means we need to just surrender and give in to them.
We need to learn to love nuclear power, higher rates of cancer and leukima, and piles of radioactive waste that no one can do anything with. We need to abandon any hope of a national single-payer health care plan and accept a corporate controlled health care system that serves only to generate profits. We need to accept the war in Iraq and that we'll have troops in Iraq even in 2013. Its obviously too important to corporate profits to end. We need to learn to love corporate rule, and abandon all hope of anything different. Welcome to an Obama presidency. Barf!
There will of course be an election in 2008. Its complete nonsense to suggest otherwise. The election is so well under control, where it will be two pro-corporate candidates running against each other (exact names still to be determined), that there's no way they can lose.
Not holding an election would be highly disruptive and might just wake the sheeple into the realization that they've lost their free and democratic nation. So of course there will be an election.
He is the least ideological...
But please consider Zinn's dictum: "You can't be neutral on a moving train". To be neutral IS to support an ideology - the hard-right one of the status quo.
EDWARDS 2008!
Gawd, are the Kucinich-nicks still here?
If you think of Kucinich as someone who is seriously trying to win the nomination of the Democratic Party, then the only possible conclusion that one can draw is that he is a complete political incompetent and a political moron.
He just stood up and made a national announcement for his supporters to support Obama. And yes, I live another caucus state, I know how they work. I know the details of what he was saying. But where he appears to be a complete political moron is that he doesn't seem to realize that he just stood up in the national media and made an official statement that his supporters should support Obama.
No other candidate was that stupid. And many others were in a similar spot. Other campaigns probably did the same thing even. But they do it quietly, by sending the word out to their precinct leaders on how to handle a caucus. Only Kucinich is so freaking stupid as to send out a press release.
Of course, I seriously doubt that Kucinich really wants to win the nomination or change the Democratic Party. His campaigns to me just look like a tool to suck up progressive energy and money into a completely useless cause. What he actually does just doesn't line up with someone who's really trying to change things or seriously be the nominee? Lots of examples, from him endorsing Kerry in 2004 to him deciding to talk about UFOs in a debate.
And the big question. If you want to change the Dems from within, you need something more than just one Don Quixote like Presidential campaign. You need a movement. You need a flood of campaigns from that movement challenging every pro-war, pro-corporate Dem in the primaries. You need to build something much bigger than a weird presidential campaign. The Kucinich folks have been working within the Dem party for 6 years now, and I don't see any of this.
All I see is a lot of time and effort and money wasted when Kucinich always ends up endorsing a pro-war, pro-corporate candidate like Obama or Kerry. And if Hillary still gets the nomination (the wicked witch still hasn't melted yet), then Kucinich will line up as a good party member and endorse her. What a waste.
Hey, there's an activist idea. Someone try to get close enough to Hillary to toss a bucket of water on her to see if she melts.
Yeah, I know it probably won't be that easy. :) But hand out lots of press releases and statements tying Hillary to the wicked witch and you've scored a nice political body blow. Just use the pictures CD uses of her, especially when she wears black.
"Obama ain't no Ron Dellums. He's more like Al Sharpton"
That's a severe insult to Al Sharpton. Who's really pretty good if you listen to him in person instead of just listening to the corporate media smearing him all the time. For awhile, CSpan had his speech to the 2004 convention up. Sharpton went off the Kerry-approved script and gave the best speech of the convention. Of course, it wasn't on national TV, you only saw it if you knew to go look for it.
Comparing Obama to Al Sharpton is definitely insulting Al Sharpton.
daniel david -- "but help restore admiration for the U.S of A all over the world. "
This will take a good 100 years of keeping our dicks in our pants and not screwing the world. Keep dreaming ....
Thank you Nader2000! I don't know if you are inside or outside of Iowa, but you obviously know what's been going on here. Obama is like nothing I've seen before. We need him so much. I have seen a lot of presidential elections in my lifetime, and I've never seen anything like Obama. He is absolutely on target with what people so desperately want for this country. He is going to lead the way for us to get our country back.
Kindest regards to you, Nader2000, and best wishes.
COMarc, you are wrong to trash-talk Dennis Kucinich and Barack Obama, one fine man and one great man in the making.
But you got this right:
"If you want to change the Dems from within, you need something more than just one Don Quixote like Presidential campaign. You need a movement. You need a flood of campaigns from that movement challenging every pro-war, pro-corporate Dem in the primaries. You need to build something much bigger than a weird presidential campaign."
Couldn't have said it better.
Presidents don't change things, large groups of energized, motivated people do.
Yeaha for the dems...i guess.
Any dem that wins will be fought tooth and nail by the establishment Left and Right and get little accomplished.
On top of that they will get portrayed by the msm as so far left as to be out of this world, when really they are barley center if not right (in their attempt to compromise and work together).
that's why
Hillary is getting the Saddam treatment(not that I care). She is more likely to make decisions based on her ego and legacy as first woman pres than what the masters say, Obama would be far more compliant as in lets work together, or as COMark astutely points out "Division is bad".
funny how the order of prospective presidents electability is the exact inverse in regards to the interests of the people, coincidence?
The elections are the super bowl of a spectator democracy.
Iowa and N.H. are like the wildcard games.
Too bad espn doesn't do politics.
What happened to all the "never again" democrats that once filled these pages? All I read now is Obama this and Edwards that, mixed with some Kucinich holdouts. Hope does spring eternal, regardless, the machine will grind on no matter who wins.
I think Edwards and Obama are the One Two knockout punch and if they work together and don't trash each other, the Dems will win!
Obama's main strength is that is is brave to "Talk to your enemies" like Jesus said.
If anyone thinks that they will get too specific on the issues, than they don't understand the rules. specifics and hot button issues gives the voters and media too many reasons to question and lose votes... Most voters really want animal magnetism and a father figure and go along with these unspoken rules because they want the person they like to win and they want to hope that they will do good things.
Any Candidate who has Socialistic leanings will commit suicide by letting it get out...people want a strong leader now who has the charisma to win.
With Osama a Ghost of an enemy, a Black Obama actually evens the fight... Obama VS Osama....
Dead or Alive?
Bush doesn't care but Obama's big strength is that folks think he can get to the bottom of it.
Edwards is the populist who openly goes after the corporate government... Together it is a near perfect team....
What I meant to say is Bush doesn't care but Obama's big strength is that folks think he can get to the bottom of it.
Ha, I keep doing that!
It makes my point How do we fight a ghost?... they are set for the fight and it works.
To see just how meaningful Obama's victory in Iowa is, check out the number of delegates each of the candidates currently has...
One would think Obama would have the most, right?
Hillary: 167 or thereabouts
Obama: 66 or thereabouts
Edwards: 47 or thereabouts
(See Katrina Van den Heuvel's article on this site or the Nation's site about superdelegates).
Another fabulous trait of the "democratic" party is that 40% of its delegates ("superdelegates" who are party insiders) have no tie or obligation to any caucus or primary, can vote for whomever they want, and as you can see, many have already cast there lot of lovely Hillary. All of this hooplah about Iowa seems rather pointless if the Party can put in whomever it wants, with media providing yet another layer of censorship (the latest example being ABC's removal of DK from tonight's debate). More than anything, we need deep and serious election reform from top to bottom: from campaign finance, to voting machines, to fair and equitable media coverage, to reform of the parties' rules.
PJD you/re exactly right. I took a second look at Edwards when Nader supported his position (didn't exactly endorse his candidacy, but approved what he said). I know of no one who is as aware of what is really going on as Ralph is, nor do I trust any one's opinion as I do his. I am deeply disappointed with Dennis, and now I think that although a populist himself, his loyalties lie more with the Democratic party than with the proletariat.
I'm ready to take his bumper sticker off my car and put an Edwards sticker on. Now that the Ministry of Propaganda is ignoring edwards, he needs some help.
kathyodat
The Demoks invite you to join in the excitement. You may help them row the boat. Don't mind where the captain plans to go. That is not important.
"Honey, I promise I'll never do it again." Said Democrat to Progressive. "I promise I'll protect you, and respect you, and I'll always treat you right. I know I've done you wrong, but I've changed, and this time..."
"Shush. Say no more." Said Progressive to Democrat."Baby, I forgive you, would you like a campaign donation? Can I put a bumper sticker on my car? Baby, you just sit right there, I'm going to call all my friends. They're going to be so happy..."
The preceding story was brought to you by "Americans with Half a Brain". And is a tribute to all Common Dreamers, who have successfuly avoided vomiting their guts out, as they watch their fellow progressives (once again) take back their abusive Democrat spouse.
Ha ha ha ha (I'm laughing to myself, I know it's sad and cynical, but the alternative is to cry.)
Ramsay
One thing Obama hasn't spouted yet is Fear. Nor has he inspired any in the public.
If conservatives are the fearful types who traditionally vote Republican what better way to attract votes than to appear and sound safe?
Maybe what everybody needs is courage. Courage never to need to vote Rep. again.
Link posted earlier by ???. How Conservatives think...
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Society/Conservatives_Deconstruct.html
Look, a lot of people are trying to decide between a lot of bad choices. Most of us have admitted, that while Obama is much better than the she-devil, his message of unity = a message of giving into corporate rule.
Many of the rest of us as drawn by what Edwards talks about, but aren't sure if we can trust him.
A few of us are so discouraged by this farce of a democracy we are considering not voting at all.
It is to those folks I'd like to speak. Please, if you already are so discouraged as not to participate, at least go and cast a vote for the Green Party to vote for the kind of politics that truly stand up to corporate dominance.
Doesn't anyone understand the nature of making a statement? I mean if everything is fucked regardless, we might as well vote Green.
What would the long-term effects of a green getting even 10% of the vote be? What would the democratic party do differently? If they got 10% one year, what's to stop 15% the next?
You have to remember that the worse things get in this country, the more likely revolution becomes. Let the republicans rule, at least then they take the heat for foreign policy, a vanishing middle class, and a polluted world.
Think long-term here people. A democratic presidency means things stay the same while the media beats up on the president for being too "liberal", until by the next election swing voters are voting republican again.
Vote the Green Party! Stand up for what you believe in. Let's not forget there's more to a ballot than the presidential race. No reason you can't go to vote on important local issues...