It may be too close to call, but not too close to feel. It feels like Obama to me. Hillary stripped of a few of her seven veils of inevitability will not be pretty. It does not look good for her.
_____________________
Posted by Toby Harnden on 02 Jan 2008 at 07:04
Telegraph
Was I witnessing the last throes of the 15-year-long Clinton political psychodrama in Ames, Iowa yesterday? Here’s my newspaper piece on Hillary’s final plea for support in tomorrow’s caucuses. The case she made was far from compelling – that she’s human (honest) and that she has unrivalled experience. Both propositions are debatable and she was much less compelling than Barack Obama and John Edwards have been in recent days. She seems to have had some kind of speech therapy to create a softy-soft voice that made me long for the grating shrillness of yore.
The Obama campaign is supremely confident that victory is within its grasp. “So what?” I hear you ask. Iowa is a sparsely populated, unrepresentative state in which on the Democratic side only 124,000 people caucused in 2004. Surely it can’t matter that much? Don’t bet on it. If Hillary loses tomorrow, her presidential bid is likely to collapse like a house of cards.
For all the arguments against Iowa having such disproportionate influence – and Christopher Hitchens airs some good ones with characteristic aplomb here – it does mean that pre-packaged, calculating politicians like Hillary are scutinised and exposed (we’ll see if Mitt Romney is too).
All the money and establishment backing she had behind her couldn’t prevent her getting caught out by voters asking her about Iran and Iran, discovered planting softball questions and rumbled for having advisers forwarding smear emails about Obama. She tried to remain aloof and away from the voters but it didn’t work – if anything, the seeds of her demise (if that’s what it turns out to be) lay in that strategy.
When an incumbent-style campaign is built on a sense of inevitability, it comes under huge strain when hit by an early defeat. The bubble is burst – which is what will happen if Hillary loses Iowa to Obama in Iowa (if she loses to Edwards, the picture will be less clear).
Of course, if Hillary pulls through then it’s difficult to see how Obama and Edwards can beat her – this is absolutely their best shot. Adam Nagourney of the “New York Times” argues here that Iowa might mean nothing. That’s possible. But my hunch is that it will end up meaning everything.
1988 Gephardt - Dukakis nominated
ReplyDelete1992 Tom Harkin - Clinton nominated
1996 No Dem Caucus,
2000 Al Gore
2004 JFKerry
1988 Bob Dole - Bush41 Nominated
1992 No GOP Caucus
1996 Bob Dole - Dole Nominated
2000 George W Bush
Bill Clinton, losing both Iowa and New Hampshire in 1992, went on to the nomination and the White House.
Hillary is no Bill Clinton and it is not 1992.
Is this the end of the Clintons?
ReplyDeleteNah, they've got their evil, inbred, separated at birth, half-brother getting ready to win the Republican Caucus.
The F'n Party of Stupid is really earning it name this year.
Relax Rufus, Huckster is highly unlikely to win the republican nomination. California? New York? Nah.
ReplyDeleteI admit that seeing Hillary sweat gives me a big grin, though I don't know who would be the easiest for the republicans to beat. I'm starting to think Thompson is our best guy, though I don't tell my wife.
Rufus, some jackass doctor is getting up a petition, has gotten up a petition, to put the nuclear power plant here up to a vote of the people. Hopefully the Idaho Legislature can stop that, but I am uncertain if they can, not knowing for sure what is covered in our referendum laws. The guvner is for the nuclear power plant.
ReplyDeleteBob, it'll get built today, or tomorrow; but, It Will get built.
ReplyDeleteRobert Novak has it Obama, Edwards, Hillary; and Romney beating Huckster.
ReplyDeleteShow for Hillary would be embarrassing.
I'm not sure how Idahoans would vote, but if I had to place a bet right now, I'd think they would vote for it. Got to go.
ReplyDeleteOil trading at $99.00/barrel. It'll get built.
ReplyDeletehmmm, bobal, you an authoritarian or a democrat? Let the people decide -- ain't that the 'merican way? Or should we let the elected governing officials do what they are paid to do; govern? oops, government can't do anything right...
ReplyDeletedagnabit }-|
The end of Hillary?
ReplyDeleteOh please, let it be so.
You guys played the new candidate quiz on Fox website?
ReplyDelete#1 - Hunter
#2 - Thompson
Authoritarian when it comes to the important stuff, Ash, cause the people is a fool. Authoritarian, in the sense of the Idaho Legislature deciding, the people's elected representatives.
ReplyDeleteLate-Breaking Surge for Thompson [Peter Robinson]
ReplyDeleteThe latest news from Iowa? According to Zogby’s latest—and I quote: “Sen. Fred Thompson…has seen a late-breaking surge.” (Rich notes the same poll below.)
What’s going on here? My guess is that there are whole lot of Iowa Republicans who have about the same attitude that David Limbaugh displayed in his column yesterday:
Fred is the only [candidate] I don't have major reservations about….I find his lack of "fire in the belly" refreshing. He strikes me as one of the few presidential candidates since Ronald Reagan whose primary motivation is not personal aggrandizement but rather serving and leading the nation in very troubled and dangerous times. I see him as almost being drafted into this project, and his refusal to drool publicly over the prospect of becoming the most powerful man in the world is positively delightful.
That said, he needs to make a more convincing case to the voters, which will require a greater display of enthusiasm that he views these as both perilous and promising times and that he is the best man, overall, to navigate the ship of state through these times.
So, Fred, please, as distasteful as it may be to you, it's time to step up and prove you want it.
Iowa Republicans, in other words, have wanted Thompson to do them the courtesy of actually campaigning—and now they’re beginning to realize that he has. First Thompson conducted a two-week bus tour of Iowa at which he campaigned in more than 50 towns and cities. Then he taped a 17-minute video in which he makes his case more calmly, deliberately, and and with incomparably greater respect for the issues than has any of his opponents. And? For a lot of Iowa Republicans, that’s all they needed.
The Thompson campaign may be shaping up as something like the precise reverse of the Clinton campaign. Presenting herself as the candidate of inevitability, Hillary dare not slip in the polls for fear of suffering a rapid and irretrievable collapse. Fred is by contrast the candidate who just can’t get elected—solid, likeable, and best on the issues—but, well, a man for whom it just isn’t going to happen. But as modest as it so far remains, his sudden rise in the polls—this “late-breaking surge,” to quote Zogby again—could persuade whole slews of Republicans that Fred could indeed win after all, leading to a definitive breakout.
From an unexpectedly strong third place in Iowa…to first place in South Carolina?
(If you have yet to see this message to the people of Iowa, by the way, take a look. YouTube is reporting more than 135,000 hits.)
You an Authoritarian when it comes to your Dogma on illegal immigration, Ash, or do you think the laws of the land and the will of the people should be respected?
ReplyDelete---
Americans for Legal Immigration PAC ALIPAC
Varied polls indicate that over 75% of America's legal citizens want more done to control illegal immigration, yet the elected officials who are willing to address this concern constitute a minority of members in the US Congress and Senate at this time. This must change.
Even more alarming is the disparity between our current laws and what is actually happening in the country.
Illegal immigration is exactly as the title implies; it's illegal.
If three fourths of America's legal citizens want illegal immigration curtailed and laws are in place to facilitate their wishes through a constitutional democracy, then why is America experiencing the largest population increase through illegal immigration in our history?
Huckster probly won't make it out of Iowa, never make it nationally, DESPITE the evangelical crazies that close their eyes and ears and say,
ReplyDelete"Vote Huck, he's one of us!"
(often so rudely, loudly, and stupidly, that it brings more than just their faith into question)
So the question (my previous question being largely ignored) from the
ReplyDelete"2008, I Wonder What Was Happening in 1008?"
thread,
Is:
Has everyone seen
"Lost in America"
...and if not, why not?
"For her part, Sydney looked a bit crestfallen after Chelsea turned her away. But luckily for Hillary Clinton, Sydney's mother has made up her mind to caucus for the former first lady.
ReplyDelete"I like her position on family values and health care. And I think it's time we have a female president," Robyn Rieckhoff said."
---
What's her position on family values?
Returning troops strip on airport tarmac after uniform ban
ReplyDeleteMore than 200 soldiers on their way home from Afghanistan had to strip off their uniforms on the tarmac at Birmingham International Airport and don civilian clothes before being allowed access to the terminal building.
Doug:
ReplyDeletere: Forcing returning soldiers out of uniform in Birmingham, England.
That is a bizarre!
I saw Lost in America (and every other Albert Brooks film) - that sad reminder to Baby Boomers (correct me if I'm wrong here) that their joyless rat race existences are infinitely preferrable to anything else they might do with their lives, esp. given a side trip to Vegas and a latent gambling addiction.
ReplyDeleteI don't see your prediction on the board, Doug, or Trish.
ReplyDeleteObama, Edwards, Clinton
ReplyDeleteMcCain, Romney, Huckabee
In response to the question, What if there's no clear winner?
ReplyDelete"At the least, though, we know what to watch for. We should watch for how the media interprets the Iowa results. If the media calls it a push, it's a push. If it doesn't, it isn't a push. Our personal interpretations will not matter - the collective interpretation of journalists and pundits will. We should also watch for any trends that appear in the New Hampshire polls. We should have time for a round or two of post-Iowa New Hampshire polls. They will be our first and best clues on how New Hampshire has reacted to the results of the caucus."
- Jay Cost
Horse Race Blog
Realclearpolitics
Over there we have (as War Nerd Gary Brecher puts it) the chronic fatigue war. Over here we have the chronic fatigue campaign.
Pissin' in the wind
ReplyDeletebettin' on a losin' friend
makin' the same mistakes we said we'd never make again
South Carolina, historicly & Florida, this cycle, is where the rubber meets the road
Iowa - Huckabee/Romney
New Hampshire - McCain/Romney
South Carolina - Thompson/Huckebee
Florida - Rudy
Super Tuesday - Thompson surge
California - Rudy
Arizona - McCain
Brokered Convention
Iowa - Clinton/Obama
New Hampshire - Clinton
South Carolina - Obama/Clinton
Florida - Clinton w/o campaigning, delegates eventually seated at Convention.
Super Tuesday - Clinton sweep
As to the Levant ...
As linked previous and well known,
the funding and support to the Palistinians and Israelis, as it increases, so does the conflict.
The US increases funding to both, rhetoric of peace, funding for conflict.
The US provides state of the art attack aircraft and air defense systems to the Saudis and other Gulf Arab States.
Pakistan provides nuclear capacity
to the Sauds, who funded their development.
The US provides state of the art attack aircraft and air defense systems to Israel.
Neither side will reconcile on the major points of contention.
Guarenteed by ever greater funding to support each side's refusal to compromise on the most contentious points.
War is assured by the continuation of US, EU, Israeli and Saudi policies. The destruction of mussulman population centers and Israel assured by the capacities and capabilities each side has been provided, by the US & EU.
The US publicly announcing the Israeli policies to be racist. Those without power, under US definitions, cannot be racist.
The Palis, disempowered by Israel, cannot be racists, judged by the US Standard, as practiced by the US Government.
Putting even more pressure on the Israelis, to make reconciliation impossible.
Facts of life.
Why does the US & EU continue on the current course of funding, when the trendlines to violence and war are easily predicted, seen & charted?
Who makes those decisions?
Who wins when the Mussulman and Jewish sectarian societies are mutually destroyed?
Reading the tea leaves and predicting the what the 'people' will decide is a mugs game but I'll give it a shot:
ReplyDeleteObama is going all the way to the top.
In Iowa...
Statistical dead heat for the top 3 democratic candidates with Obama or Clinton slightly on top. For the repubs Huck will be the man on top (by a tiny bit) in Iowa but he will fade away as the race goes on, huckster that he is. As for the eventually winner for that party...I dunno, probably Romney 'cause he's so slick, or McCain 'cause the surge solved all the problems in Iraq and just a few more of those and the world will be a peaceful happy place.
The War Nerd (thanks trish - DR he's a man cut from a similar cloth as you, methinks) was talking of Kurds but it applies to many:
"ould you draw a map of Kurdistan? Basically it's a peanut-shaped footprint across SE Turkey, Northern Iraq and a patch of western Iran. But it's not on any world map, because the Kurds, like the Tibetans and the Tuareg, are stuck in the Hell of the Landlocked Tribes, a seriously bad Hell when countries are mostly defined by their chunk of coastline. There are 25 million Kurds just festering in that peanut, but they don't have their own country and never will unless a new Woodrow Wilson comes along and gives the world another shaken-not-stirred roll of the liar's dice like Woody did in 1919. We get a lot of our dumbest ideas from that fine Presbyterian gentleman, but Wilson would've been better off sticking to showing off his stiff collars as president of Princeton instead of doing his Jurassic Jimmy Carter routine by playing Sir Noble Knight defending "the rights of small nations." The right of small nations is to duck, shuck and say "Yessuh." That's about it. That's how they survive. Small nations that can fight for their rights usually keep going past the tribal borders till they're stomping on the rights of other small nations that can't back their "rights" up with guns."
http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=14150&IBLOCK_ID=35
Woodrow did not draw the map of the Middle East, Mr Churchill did.
ReplyDeleteLet us build wisely,
let us build surely,
let us build faithfully,
let us build for the years that are to come,
and so establish here below what we hope to find above-
a house of many mansions,
where there shall be room for all.
Winston Churchill
Dundee, May 4th,1908.
A man that knew how build, knew the importance of a well planned design.
ReplyDeleteHe did not redesign the cartography of the MidleEast, by happenstance.
The truth is incontrovertible.
ReplyDeletePanic may resent it,
ignorance may deride it,
malice may distort it,
but there it is.
Winston Churchill.
HOUSE OF COMMONS
May 17th 1916.
Mr Churchill still has great presence, in the Halls of Power within the Oval Office.
President Bush accepts a bust of Sir Winston Churchill from ambassador of England, Sir Christopher Meyer July 16, 2001. "He was a man of great courage. He knew what he believed. And he really kind of went after it in a way that seemed like a Texan to me," said the President explaining why he would like the likeness of an Englishman placed inside the Oval Offfice. "He charged ahead, and the world is better for it."
"He charged ahead, and the world is better for it."
ReplyDeleteCannot redraw Winston's maps.
The world would be worse for it.
dr:
ReplyDeleteAs to the Levant ...
As linked previous and well known,
the funding and support to the Palistinians and Israelis, as it increases, so does the conflict.
the point is 1/2 correct, as the funding for the palios increases the MORE the palios demand. Israel ecomonic aid was scheduled to go to zero as of 2008, and from most UNbiased people, israel HAS agreed to the sharing of Jerusalem, the evac of lebanon, the evac of the sinai, the evac of gaza and the evac of 98% of the west bank. The problem lies with the arab mind set, as long as they think they are winning they will UP the ante.
DR: The US increases funding to both, rhetoric of peace, funding for conflict.
As the price of OIl goes up, the arabs (not just the fake issue of "palestine") & the persians (and other islamists) pump more cash into training jihadist black rockers. The amount of money the US provides Israel is but about 13 minutes of a day compared to the total budget that the arabs, persians and islamists spend on armies, schools and weapons
DR: Neither side will reconcile on the major points of contention.
again, sounds nice but total bullcrap.
Israel UNLIKE arabia and the arab world has freedom of religion in her country, and allows the moslems to control the temple mount (as well as hundreds of arab towns and villages of israel) as compared to your example that israel vrs arabia, arabis it's a crime to have a schul or a church...
DR: Guarenteed by ever greater funding to support each side's refusal to compromise on the most contentious points.
again, sounds nice but utter crap... the arabs refuse to accept israel right to be a jewish state, israel accepts the right of the arabs to steal and occupy 649/650th of the middle east.
So since my point is that we need to have a new set of contentious points...
LIKE:
All arabs must be returned to Arabia, except Medina, which is a Jewish and shall be returned to the Jews.
1/2 of all oil revenue that arabia has produced shall be turned over to the jews
The temple mount shall be cleansed of all pagan shrines starting with the horrible dome of the rock
All arabs shall be ethnically cleansed from Europe, America & Asia, to be returned to arabia
Now those are contentious points not to be resolved
Oh a few more...
Islam must publicly admit that Mohammed was an illiterate that stole Jewish and Christians scriptures and twisted them into a black rock cult...
now that is a start of contentious points...
dr: War is assured by the continuation of US, EU, Israeli and Saudi policies.
no, war is assured as long as saudi polices (and islamists states) do not recognize israel as a jewish state, just as the world accepts the fact that there is an arab league and and ois (organization of islamic states ) and that there are MANY islamic countries. It is ONE sided, not equal division to blame.
the Modern Israel was created in 1948 (dr holds nothing to the league of nation, nor the history of the jewish people in the land of Zion) In 1948 the arabs attacked and lost (there was no palestinians at that time), again, from there, there were numerous times to settle the conflict BEFORE 1967 and the arabs refused, this is real and it is history. Then 1967, Nasser starts a war the USA COULD HAVE STOPPED WITH ONE SHIP AN REFUSED TO LIVE UP TO HER TREATY OBLIGATIONS. After the 67 war, Israel offered to return lands for peace and what did she get?
she got the famous 3 NO's.. from the arab world,
Nope this whole issue aint israeli's issue, it's the arab & black rockers issue...
DR:The destruction of mussulman population centers and Israel assured by the capacities and capabilities each side has been provided, by the US & EU.
Well at this point, Israel still holds the upper hand...
DR: The US publicly announcing the Israeli policies to be racist. Those without power, under US definitions, cannot be racist.
I can live with being a racist IN THE DISPUTED LANDS against a NAZI-LIKE people, no matter what US policy of the moment is...
DR: The Palis, disempowered by Israel, cannot be racists, judged by the US Standard, as practiced by the US Government.
but the PALIOS have BEEN empowered BY the USA, EU and Israel, the Palios have received more aid PER CAPTIA than the Marshal plan gave to Europe! Israel, EU & the USA have given countless training, weapons, and logistics to EMPOWER them, Israel has WITHDRAWN and given FULL access BACK to the Palios TO EMPOWER them...
at some point empowerment must come from within... if the Palios have the empowerment to launch 2700 attacks in one year and thousands of rockets INTO israel, they are empowered as well as anyone...
DR Who wins when the Mussulman and Jewish sectarian societies are mutually destroyed?
Your assuming your safe in AZ! If you allow the black rockers to seek genocide of the jews for the who know how manyith time, there will be more than israel and the arabs that surround her that will pay the price...
even today it is reported that 370 cars a NIGHT are burned in france by the black rockers, there are 66,000 girls in england that are having thier clits chopped off, in dallas black rockers kill their own daughters..
no the problem aint litle ole israel and the palios it's islam
if it gets to nuke exchange, trust me, there will be hell to pay in every corner of the west...
Wonderful new Essay (short one) by Bill Whittle.
ReplyDeleteA whole new insight on Iraq, and Gen. Dave Petraeus.
You do not answer any of the questions, but talk about me, wi"o".
ReplyDeleteIt is not about me, not at all.
That two sides of a triad remain unreconcilable, you blame on one side. Finding no responsibility for inreconcilability on your side, even denying the existence of a strategy by the third.
But neither of the two sides on the ground will reconcile, equitably, which you blame on me, for seeing it, mentioning it. Then not blaming the mussulmen for Israeli strategies.
There are security problems in AZ, but not caused by Islam. Perhaps they ride along, permtted access by Federal failures, but there are few crimes of violence, in AZ, caused by mussulmen.
Even where mussulmen may have been involved in US terror attacks, as in Philipino involvement in OK City, it is denied by the Federals, as was Neo-Nazi involvemnent in that attack. While there seems reasonable evidence of both mussulmen and neo-Nazis being involved.
Look beyond me, amigo. Cause I just comment the obvious and wonder why?
You look to blame the pawns, powerless peons, for the actions of Kingmakers.
Me, I'm not even in the game. Do not have a piece on the board. Except as a US citizen, bound by oath to support the Constitution.
The Levant War will come, the US will survive it, the Russians will survive it, the Chinese will survive it.
The Oil rich Arabs will survive it, they'll be in Europe of the US, on vacation.
The masses of Arabs, Persians and Jews will die. The Temple Mount will change hands, afterward.
There could be collateral damage, outside the target area, that will not change the strategies from being carried forward.
I find it interesting to watch, the reactions of those blinded to realities, by faith, even more entertaining.
Who is funding the conflict, what are the Goals of the moneymen?
Obviously, not Peace in our time.
Or they'd not be funding both sides of a conflict.
You advocate for cutting the funding to your sides enemy, but it does not happen. Even when funding cuts would, with little doubt, cause the conflict to subside. The US and EU & Russians all work together to make sure both sides on the ground have capacity, capability and desire
Why is that?
"It is not about me, not at all."
ReplyDeleteIt certainly is.
The mischaracterizations are yours.
The future projections are yours.
The selective attacks are yours.
The provocations are yours.
It certainly is about you.
rat, you ask why to the funding on both sides. Maybe to try to help them just get along? as I wrote to Bobal on the previous thread:
ReplyDelete"bobal,
Having trouble with, and/or criticizing the Israeli position on some issues does not imply a wholesale acceptance of all that is the 'arabic' approach. The Israelis and the Palestinians seem to be caught in a Siamese twin like embrace doing a macabre dance to the death. It would be nice to be able to help them find a way to just get along."
Oh, and you can take your apocalyptic fantasies and prognostications and shove them up your ars.
ReplyDeleteThe mischaracterizations are yours.
ReplyDeleteAnd they are which mischaracterizations?
The future projections are yours.
They are? I responded to wi"o" telling US that war is inevitable, because of the Palistinians not reconciling, that they'll be left with a sliver of land and a Bantustan State
The selective attacks are yours.
What attacks?
The provocations are yours.
What provocations?
You are way out there. amigo.
ReplyDeleteI tend to ask questions, quote Officers of Government and draw conclusions, that are open to discussion.
You cuss, curse and call folks names. Swaying my thinking, each time, rest assured of that.
Both you and wi"o" take that path, maybe it is genetic, or sectarian training, I really do not know, but to see the obvious.
You ask, why do we fund the Mussulmen?
I ask why fund either side?
Neither is worthy of charity, nor in need of it.
Don't play stupid with me. I have very low tolerance for liars.
ReplyDeleteWhen funding leads to conflict
ReplyDeletewe continue to fund conflict ...
while speaking of
"Peace in our time"
I ask why,
who wins in that case, who gains?
Neither you, nor wi"o" supply an answer. Just obsfucation.
What lie?
ReplyDeleteLay it on out there, amigo mio
The lie that Israel deliberately bombed the USS Liberty when it was clearly shown otherwise.
ReplyDeleteThe lie that Pollard got justice when it was clearly shown otherwise.
The lie that Israel is a sectarian racist country when it was clearly shown otherwise.
The lie that Israel is an apartheid state when it was clearly shown otherwise.
The lie that Israel herded Jihadis into a Ghetto when it was clearly shown otherwise.
The lie that the destruction of Israel is not your own personal fantasy but rather the inevitable and irreconcilable future.
The lie that these are not your words and arguments.
The lie that you're not really a swine.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe USS Liberty, I believe an Awardee of the Medal of Honor and his US crew, not lying sectarians of a foreign country.
ReplyDeleteI repeat their reports. Will contiue to,
You repeat the lies of a foreign power, in it's own cause.
Pollard is a traitor to his oath, and his country, he should have been shot.
The Sec of State was quoted, she'd know. Mr Olmert was quoted, he'd know, even better.
Israel maintained the ghetto of the Gaza, with its' partner in Peace, Eygpt.
Locking the Palistians into the Gaza, the definition of aghetto.
A usually poor section of a city inhabited primarily by people of the same race, religion, or social background
The War is foretold by wi"o", and you.
The results of the War, obvious to those knowledgable about tactics and nuclear weapons and the diminutive size of Israel, both geographically and by population or lack of it.
A three bomb target. Israel would be as Mr Olmert said, "finished". He was speaking of it in a sectarian sense, by democratic means, in free andd fair elections amongst all the residents of land Israel controls, though.
I read what Israelis leaders say, take them at their word.
You deny that their words have a basis reality, lying to yourself, amigo mio.
Dick Morris sends these crystal ball bits exclusively just to me and I, being what a guy, share them with you-------------------
ReplyDeleteThe Iowa caucuses mean different things to different candidates. Of course Obama, Clinton and Edwards, for the Democrats, and Huckabee and Romney, for the Republicans, are vying for a win in Iowa. But there are separate sub-primaries going on as well: Obama v Edwards for the position of chief challenger to Clinton, McCain v Giuliani for the right to wear the “moderate” Republican mantle, and Fred Thompson v Oblivion for the right to stay in the race.
So here’s the scorecard to use in keeping track of what each candidate needs to get from Iowa.
Hillary Clinton
If she scores a decisive triumph, the race for the nomination is almost over. A victory here would likely propel her to a win in New Hampshire and the nomination would be hers’. But she doesn’t need to win. Her national base is so strong that she just has to stop anyone else from winning. If no clear winner emerges, but the results show, instead, a three-way tie with Obama and Edwards, or a two-way tie between herself and either of her challengers, she comes out the winner. But if she clearly loses by a good margin or finishes third, she has blown a major opportunity and is in for a long cold winter of primaries. She won’t be knocked out in Iowa no matter what, but she could be knocked down.
Barack Obama
He’s got to win in Iowa. He is so far behind Hillary in the national standings that he needs a decisive victory to give him the momentum to prevail in New Hampshire and to compete in Florida and on Super Tuesday. He also needs to leave the pesky John Edwards far behind so he can consolidate the anti-Hillary vote behind his candidacy.
John Edwards
His immediate need is to finish close to or ahead of Obama so he can show that a vote for him is not wasted. With pro and anti Hillary sentiment so strong, Edwards risks being excluded as an also ran if he doesn’t make it. He also needs Hillary not to win decisively so that the race stays alive. He has a decent shot in New Hampshire if he can stay in the race and make sure there still is one.
Mike Huckabee
Win or die are his choices. The Huck-a-boom will be right in the ancient history books with the Howard Dean surge in September of 2004. But even if Huckabee wins in Iowa, he’ll probably lose in New Hampshire. Then his candidacy will come back to another game-set-match point in Michigan the following week.
Mitt Romney
He doesn’t have to win, place, o r show. He’s got a big checkbook so he can survive any kind of showing and stay in the game. But, a defeat in Iowa might make him vulnerable to McCain in New Hampshire. A loss in the first two states would cost him Michigan and he would limp into super Tuesday with only a checkbook to protect him. Only.
John McCain
He’s got to finish third – or, in other words, beat Rudy. If he does, he has a good shot at winning New Hampshire and getting back into the game. If he doesn’t, Romney will win New Hampshire and McCain will be out of the race. Huckabee has to hope McCain does finish third so Romney doesn’t win Ne w Hampshire and, therefore, doesn’t win Michigan. Got it?
Rudy Giuliani
The Republican front runner is in a parallel situation with Hillary. He won’t be knocked out no matter how badly he does. But finishing below McCain means that he has to split the moderate vote with the charismatic Arizona Senator and could weaken his chances in Florida and on Super Tuesday. Rudy can lose Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan, Nevada, and South Carolina and still survive to compete in the big states that follow. But he lost a golden chance to avoid a fight by winning in Iowa.
And, if Hillary wins big in Iowa, it will help McCain and hurt Romney in New Hampshire. Why? All the independents who would have voted for or against Mrs. Clinton in New Hampshire will pile into the Republican Primary and may boost McCain to victory (if he survives Iowa).
And…by the same token, Rudy needs Hillary to win in the early rounds so he can draw independents into the Republican Primary to vote for him rather than the religious right crowd.
Having fun yet?
elijah linked to the study that reported Israel would not survive a nuclear exchange, even with its' advantages in throw wieght, as it was so diminutive, that it would not be recongnizable, afterwards.
ReplyDeleteI just read it and agreed, that a MAD situation exists.
It's being said the media are giving more time to this exercise in pseudo democracy than the last four election cycles together. No wonder people are sick of this s&&t and I feel lucky not to live in Iowa. Must be good for some of the merchants there though, bars, restaurants, motels getting a big boost right in mid-winter.
ReplyDeleteHezbullah back on Lebanon - Israel border
ReplyDeleteGuess who's back in town?
Israel's Channel One News reported on Sunday that Hizballah has again taken up positions near Israel's northern border.
Hizballah used similar positions to launch the July 2006 cross-border raid that sparked the Second Lebanon War.
The UN resolution that ended the war promised Israel that the Lebanese army and international peacekeeping forces deployed in southern Lebanon would keep Hizballah forces away from the border.
Meanwhile, Hezbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah had a three-hour interview on Hezbullah's al-Manar television last night, and in the last ten minutes - just before midnight - he claimed to have 'body parts' of Israeli soldiers killed in Lebanon, and offered to trade them for terrorists:
He said that Israel seemed less anxious to receive the remains of several fallen soldiers than would seem to follow a deal made several weeks ago, when the body of a drowned Israeli was returned for a wounded Hizbullah fighter and the remains of two others.
The cleric added that within two to three weeks it could be appraised if the negotiations will bear fruit.
Nasrallah added that Hizbullah was preparing for a war against Israel but said another round of fighting is not expected in coming months. Hizbullah was following the IDF's maneuvers in the North and its attempts to recuperate from the war, Nasrallah was quoted as saying.
I certainly hope we're not going to trade live terrorists for 'body parts'! There was no mention of Ehud Goldwasser or Eldad Regev, unless Nasrallah had parts of their bodies in mind.
xxxxxxxxxxxx
Peresonally, I wish Israel would just clean their clock while they have the chance, the west be damned. Asking them to trade body parts for terrorists.
24/7 on three all new networks.
ReplyDeleteAs if Iowa really mattered, in the scheme of things.
“In the Middle East the economic and social soil is still not deep enough to enable political democracy to strike root and flourish. What is needed is not merely constitutional or administrative reforms, not just a change in government machinery and personnel. It is not even the adjustment of an obsolete political structure to bring it in line with a new balance of forces reflecting changing relations between various social classes, as was achieved by the Reform Bills in 19th-century England. What is required is a great economic and social transformation which will strengthen society and make it capable of bearing the weight of the modern State. Such a development is a necessary, if not a sufficient, condition for the establishment of genuine democracy in the region. For, in politics as in religion, a Reformation must be preceded by a Renaissance.
ReplyDelete“What should be done in the meantime? Clearly, while it is futile to lament the absence of democracy in a region still unprepared for it, it is absolutely necessary to set in motion the forces which will transform Middle Eastern society in the desired manner. Great efforts must be made to improve means of communication, multiply schools, and, so far as possible, bring about a cultural and spiritual unity which will bridge the chasms separating the linguistic groups and religious sects. Great efforts must also be made to develop the economy of the different countries in order to raise the general level and to create opportunities which will allow the individual to emancipate himself from the grip of the family, tribe, and village.”
Charles Issawi, “Economic and Social Foundations of Democracy in the Middle East,” International Affairs, 1956.
From Adam Garfinkle
Charles Issawi’s is a remarkable quote, prescient to a stunning degree. Issawi managed to say a great deal in a short space; were that I was as talented.
It seems to me that Issawi makes four basic points, which I will list deliberately out of order for a reason to be made clear, hopefully, below.
First, the Arab Middle East lacks the prerequisites for democracy.
Second, those prerequisites entail not only political-legal adjustments but deep social and cultural ones, not least of them being the strengthening of the state (a very prescient observation for its time).
Fourth, in the meantime great effort should be placed in readying the prerequisites for democracy, including economic growth, wider social communication and better education.
Third is his enigmatic comment that “in politics as in religion, a Reformation must be preceded by a Renaissance.”
As to what has changed, the first point stands: The region is still not ready, and the reason many Westerners don’t see this is that they don’t understand the origins of their own political culture. So I argued in print (“The Impossible Imperative? Conjuring Arab Democracy,” The National Interest, Fall 2002) before President Bush’s February 2003 American Enterprise Institute speech, before the invasion of Iraq, before his November 2003 National Endowment for Democracy speech and before his second inaugural address, because I could feel in my bones what was coming and I wanted to do whatever I could to stop it.
When it comes to the second point, nothing has changed either—but more on this critical matter below.
When it comes to the fourth point, a lot has changed since 1956. As Fatima Mernissi was among the first to insist, there is a new openness in the region, a new kind of conversation (jadaliyya, she called it). There is more communication, there is better if still very inadequate education, and the economies are more modern in many respects if still foundering in others. Much of this change came over several decades in a push-pull sort of way. The weakness of the post-independence Middle Eastern state amid the attentions brought by the Cold War made them prey to outside blandishments and enticements at the same time that weak local elites sought leverage to get or keep themselves in power. The nearly complete penetration of the region by global business, especially over the past 15 years, has helped accelerate the communications revolution and the “creative destruction” that has gone with it.
This very unsettling process has riven most Middle Eastern societies into three parts: salafis who use religion to fight the threat to corporate identity they see; assimilationists who accept the Western secularist route to one degree or another; and those who seek a flexible, living Islamic tradition in order to find a culturally integral route to modernization. I think the third force will win out, even if it takes three or four generations; at least I hope so.
Third, we come head on to the politics/religion, Renaissance/Reformation nexus. It can be argued that the humanism of the Renaissance stimulated significant reform impulses in the Catholic Church in the fifteenth century, and that initial Protestant rebellion in the early sixteenth century, from the far less advanced regions of Germany rather than northern Italy, was in essence a reactionary rejection of that more liberal, humanist direction. The vast changes attending the last gasps of European feudalism soon overtook the reactionary character of early Protestantism and drove it along as it did everything else in its path, but the sketch is interesting. Applied analogically to the modern Middle East, the salafis are the early Protestants shaking up a febrile religious establishment, stimulating them, one may hope, into re-creating a vibrant living tradition in tune with modern times, as Max Weber famously suggested happened to Protestant Europe and, in time, even to Catholic Europe.
And now we come back to the problem of the state. A Reformed religion, to work as Weber saw, has to be contained by the state. But the state system of the modern Middle East is under siege thanks to the onslaught of globalization. Unless a revived centrist traditionalism contributes to the strengthening of the state, all of the communications, education and hoped-for economic reform will be unavailing. How will this go? Well, different experts have taken different views on this question. I don’t know which ones are right. I wish Issawi, and Elie Kedourie and Ernest Gellner, were still alive. They would know.
DES MOINES, Iowa (Reuters) - Democrat Barack Obama surged to a four-point lead over John Edwards in Iowa, with Hillary Clinton fading to third just hours before the first presidential nominating contest, according to a Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby poll released on Thursday.
ReplyDeleteObama and Edwards gained ground overnight in the tracking poll, and Clinton fell four points to third place -- a finish that, if it held, would deal a dramatic setback to the one-time Democratic front-runner.
Obama was at 31 percent among likely Democratic caucus-goers, Edwards at 27 percent and Clinton 24 percent. No other Democrat was in double digits.
In the Republican race, Mike Huckabee expanded his lead to six points, 31 to 25 percent, over former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, the one-time leader in Iowa who has attacked Huckabee for his record as Arkansas governor.
Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson is in third place in the Republican race at 11 percent and Arizona Sen. John McCain slipped two points to 10 percent. Texas Rep. Ron Paul also registered 10 percent.
"There is a clear Clinton fade," pollster John Zogby said. "None of it has been dramatic, but it has been steady."
He said Clinton, a New York senator, was losing ground to Obama, an Illinois senator, among Democrats -- as opposed to independents -- and self-described liberals.
xxxxxxxxxx
This is kind of amazing when you think of it, Iowa being lily white; and you'd think all the women would go for Hillary. Never underestimate Oprah! Not to take anything away from Obama, who must put on a pretty good show, seem likeable etc.
This poor Smuck thinks he knows what the “EB” is!
ReplyDeleteIgnorance not always Blissful.
---
The Exclusive Brethren have already decided.
There is no need for further discussion!.
OBEY YOUR MASTER!
This is not a Joke. If you do not know who the “EB” are you do not understand who runs the USA. Ask George Bush?
— Posted by We Love Ha Ha
Something like 5% of Iowans, or voters, participate, I think
ReplyDeleteThe French, bob. They represent the UN, there in Lebanon.
ReplyDeleteYou think the Isrealis should attack the French? I realize the Israelis attacked the UN outposts during the last invasion, but the UNIFIL soldiers:
The official New China News Agency reported Wednesday that one of the dead was Chinese. The others were from Austria, Canada and Finland, the Associated Press reported, citing U.N. and Lebanese military officials.
But the French, Italians and Spanish they just may fire back, not just hide in their bunker, waiting to die.
AP/Published: October 20, 2007
The visit by Bernard Kouchner of France, Massimo D'Alema of Italy and Miguel Angel Moratinos of Spain comes at a difficult political time for Lebanon. The three ministers are hoping to help mediate among the feuding Lebanese factions because the deep political crisis in Beirut could have serious implications on the U.N. mission in southern Lebanon.
Already, the U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon of 13,530 from some 28 countries have come under attack in southern Lebanon.
...
"UNIFIL is here to carry out its mission," D'Alema told a joint news conference in Beirut late Saturday. "No one can threaten UNIFIL. If some terrorists are thinking that UNIFIL will leave they are wrong. No one should think that the international community would leave Lebanon. We are here until we succeed and help safeguard the country's independence and strengthen democracy."
1/ "I repeat their reports."
ReplyDeleteYou lie. All the reports have exonerated Israel of deliberate wrongdoing.
2/ "Pollard is a traitor to his oath, and his country, he should have been shot."
So is half your country. Selective punishment is not justice. Scapegoating the Joo for excessive brutality is not justice.
3/ "The Sec of State was quoted, she'd know. Mr Olmert was quoted, he'd know, even better."
Mr Olmert and your Sec of State are idiots. Their idiotic statements and actions need to be thrown back at their faces, and not trumped as revelation. The fact that you insist on throwing their shit on my face, says more about you than it does about them.
4/ "Israel maintained the ghetto of the Gaza, with its' partner in Peace, Eygpt."
A simple land comparison between dar-al-Islam and Israel will show your characterization is actually the reverse. The fact that you insist on your characterization, again, says everything about you.
5/ "The War is foretold by wi"o", and you."
War is inevitable, your future projections are not. Your apocalyptic fantasies and prognostications are yours and yours only.
Which bring me to my main point: You're a swine.
How the Iowa Caucus Works
ReplyDeleteSorry, there is an update:
ReplyDelete9 November 2007 Italian Peacekeepers Take Over Security Responsibilities at UNIFIL Headquarters from French Peacekeepers
The Israeli could roll over the Eye-talians, maybe.
Smoke filled rooms still alive and well in Montana.
ReplyDeleteTribune Editorial
Discouraged by America's convoluted way of picking parties's presidential candidates? Turned off by candidates's pandering to voters' resentments and fears?
If so, Montana Republicans have the answer for you: a return to smoke filled rooms where party officials pick the nominee.
On Feb. 5, the Montana GOP will hold a nominating caucus that is closed to all but holders of posts within the party. Attendees will include members of Congress, statewide office holders and precinct captains.
Ron Paul supporter Terry Frisch, for example, recently sought and received a position as a precinct captain. He said there were plenty of openings..."Some of the minor candidates are scrambling here to win in a small state so they can say 'Look, we won somewhere' " says Craig Wilson, a political scientist at Montana State University--Billings.
"I think by far Ron Paul has the most activity...A lot more people who support Ron Paul are interested in filling these vacancies." said Frisch.
Montana has 25 delegates to the national convention, or 1%.
Break out the cigars!!
No, mat, I do not lie about the Liberty, there was cover-up, in DC to cover your sectarian piss-ant country's ass.
ReplyDeleteLinked here is the:
Diplomatic Note From Secretary of State Rusk to the Israeli Ambassador, National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Central Files 1967-69, POL 27 ARAB-ISR., Exhibit 20
"Washington, June 10, 1967.
The Secretary of State presents his compliments to His Excellency the Ambassador of Israel and has the honor to refer to the Ambassadors Note of June 10, 1967 concerning the attack by Israeli aircraft and torpedo boats on the United States naval vessel U.S.S. Liberty, which was carried out at 1605 and 1625 hours local time. Respectively, on June 8, 1967 while the U.S.S. Liberty was engaged in peaceful activities in international waters.
At the time of the attack, the U.S.S Liberty was flying the American flag and its identification was clearly indicated in large white letters and numerals on its hull. It was broad daylight and the weather conditions were excellent. Experience demonstrates that both the flag and the identification number of the vessel were readily visible from the air. At 1450 hours local time on June 8, 1967, two Israeli aircraft circled the U.S.S. Liberty three times, with the evident purpose of identifying the vessel. Accordingly there is every reason to believe that the U.S.S Liberty was identified, or at least her nationality determined, by Israeli aircraft approximately one hour before the attack. In these circumstances, the later military attack by Israeli aircraft on the U.S.S. Liberty is quite literally incomprehensible. As a minimum, the attack must be condemned as an act of military recklessness reflecting wanton disregard for human life.
Or as Dean Rusk later said:
"But I was never satisfied with the Israeli explanation. Their sustained attack to disable and sink Liberty precluded an assault by accident or soem trigger-happy local commander. Through diplomatic channels we refused to accept their explanations. I didn't believe them then, and I don't believe them to this day. The attack was outrageous."
Rusk, As I Saw It, W.W.Norton, 1990. p 388
And then there was
I do not know to this day at what level the attack on the Liberty was authorized and I think it is unlikely that the full truth will ever come out. Having been for so long a staunch supporter of Israel, I was particularly troubled by this incident; I could not bring myself to believe that such an action could have been authorized by Levi Eshkol. Yet somewhere inside the Israeli government, somewhere along the chain of command, something had gone terribly wrong--and then had been covered up. I hever felt the Israelis made adequate restitution or explanation for their actions . . ."
Clark M. Clifford, then-Presidential Advisor and Chairman of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, Counsel to the President
And then.
"I found it hard to believe that it was, in fact, an honest mistake on the part of the Israeli air force units. I still find it impossible to believe that it was. I suspect that in the heat of battle they figured that the presence of this American ship was inimical to their interests, and that somebody without authorization attacked it."
Paul C. Warnke, then-General Legal Counsel of the Department of Defense
Then again
"Israeli authorities subsequently apologized for the incident, but few in Washington could believe that the ship had not been identified as an American naval vessel. Later, an interim intelligence memorandum concluded the attack was a mistake and not made in malice against the U.S. . . .
I had no role in the board of inquiry that followed, or the board's finding that there could be no doubt that the Israelis knew exactly what they were doing in attacking the Liberty. I have yet to understand why it was felt necessary to attack this ship or who ordered the attack."
Richard Helms, then-Director of Central Intelligence (CIA Director), A Look Over My Shoulder
This lying Israeli, stated the flag was not flying, when it was visable in the gunsight footage
"A ship had been sighted opposite El Arish. Following standing orders to attack any unidentified vessel near the shore (after appropriate attempts had been made to ascertain its identity), our air force and navy zeroed in on the vessel and damaged it. But they still could not tell whose ship it was.... Four of our planes flew over it at a low altitude in an attempt to identify the ship, but they were unable to make out any markings and therefore concluded it must be Egyptian...."
-- Yitzhak Rabin, IDF Chief of Staff and former Prime Minister
Lying Israeli sons of bitches
At the time of the attack, the U.S.S Liberty was flying the American flag and its identification was clearly indicated in large white letters and numerals on its hull. It was broad daylight and the weather conditions were excellent.
The rest of your dribble,
is just dribble
Israeli lies
Unbelievable, like the video tapes supplied to US courts, the tape and testimony rejected as unbelievable by US citizens.
With cause.
Online Image Management
ReplyDeleteIsrael's Channel One News reported on Sunday that Hizballah has again taken up positions near Israel's northern border.
ReplyDeleteThe UN 'peacekeepers' whoever they are, don't seem to be doing their job. Maybe they are in urbane Beirut, drinking a little whiskey and getting frisky with some of the local girls.
Not the Liberty again! This is caucus day!
ReplyDelete"....did not buy the Israeli ‘mistake' explanations either. Nobody believes that explanation." When informed by author Bamford of gruesome war crime (killing of large numbers of POWs) at nearby El Arish, Morrison saw the connection. "That would be enough," he said. "They wouldn't want us in on that. You've got the motive. What a hell of a thing to do."
ReplyDeleteMajor General John Morrison, US Air Force, Deputy Chief NSA Operations during the attack and later Chief of NSA Operations as reported in Body of Secrets by James Bamford, p233.
That's us Doug, the exclusive bretheren and bretherenas!
ReplyDelete"The Israelis told us 24 hours before that ...if we didn't move it, they would sink it.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, the ship was not moved, and by the time the message arrived the ship was taking on water."
John Stenbit, Assistant Secretary of Defense for C3Im in an address to the AFEI/NDAI Conference for Net Centric Operations, Wednesday, April 16, 2003
". . . the commander of the Sixth Fleet was informed by the Washington Intelligence Apparatus that it had evidence that the Liberty was going to be attacked and to provide protection for it. That message was never really acted upon, and the ship was dead in the water when it was hit. So the end result was no accident."
-- Raymond Tate, Deputy Assistant SecNav and Deputy Director, NSA, Worldwide C3I and Telecommunications (1980, pp. 25-47)
We're already gone over that. You believe what you want to believe. Israel got assurances that there were no American vessels in the area, which was considered to be a war zone. Anything not identified as Israeli was identified by Israel as hostile. It's regrettable a US spy ship got caught in the crossfire, but the fault lies with those that insisted that the cloaked spy ship remain there.
ReplyDeleteBlaming the victim, mat.
ReplyDeleteYou do with Palistinians
and now the US Navy
Everyone else is always wrong, but the Israelis. Crock of shit, that's what that is.
Want to acquit a terrorist in a US court, bring an Israeli to testify against him.
In any case, Israel will not survive a nuclear exchange.
Or free and fair elections.
Mr Olmert tells the truth about that, Israel has to maintain the Two State message or "...it's finished"
Instead of following his lead, striving to save your country, you advocate policies that ensure its' destruction.
Make Love, not War.
Or strike before the enemy has the capacity to strike back, but that window has closed. Slammed shut by the Saudi funded Pakistanis.
48 to 100 warheads, when all they need to deliver is 3.
Tread softly or it's assured mutual destruction. I've lived under threat, all my life. duece tells the tale, how close we've come...
Look to the realities and advocate a course a-way from the shoals, but you refuse to see the sea change. The turned tide.
Living in the past, where peace through superior fire power could take the day.
But that superiority has been lost, the threat became empty. Especially if the enemy does not give shit in a bucket about the people in its' country.
The mussulmen don't, Iran using human mine detectors. Do not give a damn about their folk, you guys are between a rock and a hard place.
Not put there by me.
But by the British Crown.
dr: The Israeli could roll over the Eye-talians, maybe.
ReplyDeletemaybe the solution is disproportionate response as I advocate for which you think is illegal and shoul not be employeed..
as for the "paki" nukes...
did you forget india?
the USS Liberty?
ReplyDeleteof course it was a cover up...
the USA illegally entered a warzone for which they were SPYING on Israel, and transmitting an electronic battle map of Israel positions to the british, who then were funneling the intel the egyptians...
who then were given a green light to punish" israel (but not too much)
Do I blame Israeli? nope, an illegal takeover of an American Ship by the NSA put AMericans in harms way..
By all international rights israel COULD have blow it out of the water, instead she took off it's electronics eavesdropping & comm abilites and made it irrelevant.
America (and sometimes it's secret private government) screw up.
but the fault lies with those that insisted that the cloaked spy ship remain there.
ReplyDeleteyep, the NSA
The solution will never be a one state solution.
ReplyDeletethe pretend that all play at the '2 state" solution will be milked for several more decades.
And just like in iraq, the arab world will USE gaza as a "suicide by cop" concept...
thousands of retarded jihadists are heading to gaza to fight the jews... they will die
just as thousands of retarded jihadists went to iraq and died...
this is the WAY the arab world get's rid of those it cannot control...
within 10 years the average age of a palestinians will migrate from 19.7 years old to almost 30, thus the fighting will end by it's own demographic trends...
combine that with the daily culling that israel is providing, the population of palestine is (as conditions for actual survival worsens) will decline, the exodus of educated palestinians escaping the clutches of the PA and Hamas is still growing..
A waste land, controlled by egypt is forming, not a ghetto as those who dont understand the actual concept infer, but a black rocker's paradise, just like southern lebanon, somolia, sudan and parts of france and germany...
to which i will say...
rot......
Iowa expeditures
ReplyDeleteRomney $10 million - $250 per vote
Huckabee $2 milliom - $50 per vote
Perspective votes, at this point.
Now $50 bucks per Participant, I've spent that to sell $10 dollar seats, for Horse Shows.
Making up the difference with sponsor money, but $250 per ...
They project 80,000 total votes, on FOX News. A whole lot of smoke, not much fire.
I'd vote in Iowa, if they'd direct deposit the check in my account.
ReplyDeleteHere's roughly how the Democratic caucuses work: Participants have to physically stand with those who support the same candidate. But if that candidate draws less than 15 percent of the people in attendance, the group is dissolved, and those people have to make a second choice, and then go stand with that candidate's group. (A woman from Webster City, Janet Adams, told me not long ago that it's actually quite exciting: "The whole process is all about neighbors, you know. People say things like, 'why don't you come over to our side?'") All of which means that the official Democratic winner tonight may well attain that status because he or she has second-choice strength ...
ReplyDelete... if Barack Obama wins decisively tonight on the Democratic side (by a margin that obliterates the aforementioned nuances), it can't be dismissed as just a flaky Iowa outcome. It would mean that large numbers of white people were willing to stand in front of their white neighbors and declare themselves for an African-American candidate. That would be significant in itself, and all the caveats about the Iowa process would be forgotten.
That was from a fellow named Dick Polman.
ReplyDeleteDon't Forget Wyoming
ReplyDeleteI am a registered democrat, If Obama wins, I will vote GOP, it's not because he's a black man, it's because he a moron about terrorism, he has stated that the arab world needs more aid because "poverty" causes terror...
ReplyDeleteI will say nothing more
From Washington and Lincoln to this!
ReplyDelete...brought to us by the corrupt Fraud that is GWB.