Edwards and Obama Lead Dems in Iowa

Via Political Wire, Research 2000 has conducted a new round of polling on likely Iowa caucus-goers for KCCI-TV in Des Moines and the numbers look like this:

December 18-20, MoE +/- 4.0%*

  • John Edwards: 22 percent
  • Barack Obama: 22 percent
  • Tom Vilsack: 12 percent
  • Hillary Clinton: 10 percent

The write up of the poll is rather sparse, even in comparison with how these articles are usually written. As such, it's not possible to tell what the actual margin of error is among those who will participate in the Democratic caucuses (as opposed to both the Democratic and Republican caucuses). Nonetheless, one can assume that the margin of error for the Democratic race would be higher than 4 percent -- perhaps even 5.5 percent or even wider.

That said, when compared to polling in the field back in October conducted by Harstad Strategic Research Inc., these new numbers show that there may have been movement towards Obama and away from Edwards. In that earlier poll, Edwards led with 36 percent, trailed by Clinton at 16 percent, Obama at 13 percent and Vilsack at 9 percent, with others filling up the bottom of the pack. (The KCCI report on this month's poll neglects to detail numbers of candidates with support less than 10 percent, though one would assume that other names were included in the poll.)

Just to add... It's not yet clear whether these shifts are permanent or even real. Comparing two different surveys from two different pollsters with two different methodologies is always a tricky business. But if these numbers are correct, Obama does appear to be coming on strong.



Display:


Re: Edwards and Obama Lead Dems in Iowa (none / 0)

It shows that Obama definitely has strength. Edwards is about where he was but he is now in danger of Obama overtaking him if he can continue the momentum.


BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog
by robliberal on Thu Dec 21, 2006 at 08:06:48 PM EST

That's not what it shows (3.00 / 1)

what it shows is the surge a candidate gets from non-stop, positive press for, what, two months?  C'mon, that support won't hold once his feet get held to the fire.  

The slant to the news has been so obvious, I mean this week's CNN poll didn't even INCLUDE Senator Edwards, how is that possible?  

It will be interesting to see what happens over the next 6 months in Iowa.


BlueNC - Progressive NC Politics
by Robert P on Thu Dec 21, 2006 at 09:21:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's not what it shows (none / 0)

I'm a big Obama fan and supporter and agree with you 100%... right now its all a bounce... Is it sustainable.. sure, but it is also easily losable.  

What it might do though, if the next several come up like that is 1) help fundraising and 2) knock some smaller people out or keep them from entering.  Overall it is good to see for an Obama Fan, but obviously it could all change.... Plus, we have no idea who HRC will pull from when she starts campaigning hard with Bill... she could take from one or both of Edawrds and Obama


by yitbos96bb on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 10:30:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Nevertheless, it is a monster bounce (3.00 / 0)

Obama's initial strength is phenomenal.

Compare his numbers to those of Feingold and Warner, who created similar excitement on the blogs, but almost nothing out in "real life," where the voters live.

That said, Edwards would crush him if the caucuses were held in three weeks because of his campaign experience and organizational depth in the state.

There is a year to go, but the clock is ticking. Of all the candidates, Obama can least afford to be dilatory.

These numbers show he has a chance to be president of the United States; if he wants it, he needs to seize the time.

As always, the issue is cash.


by stevehigh on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 11:07:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nevertheless, it is a monster bounce (3.00 / 1)

My gut is Obama won't have trouble raising money... He will be able to bring in as much as Edwards and close to Hillary.  

I will have to admit, I think you are right about Iowa if it were 3 weeks away... The organization that Edwards has built will be a big boon to him... I don't know if I would say he'd crush Obama, but I do think he would beat him if held in 3 weeks...  although given how often Edwards has been to Iowa since 2004, I would hope he would beat everyone at this stage of the race if the caucus was in 3 weeks, given the head start.

Obama will declare his intentions in January and will have time to build the organization... my guess is he has some of it in place on paper and will move fast once he declares (if he declares).  


by yitbos96bb on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 11:36:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Money is always a problem (none / 0)

To compound it, I don't believe Obama is in a position to self-finance his campaign to any significant degree.

To be sure, if 20% of the Democrats want him to be president, that makes quite a pool from which to gather small contributions. If he can practice Gary Hart frugality, he might just make it to the other side of NH, where the big money resides.

Of course, he is a natural for limousine liberal money, and can probably put together a million or two or three in the Chicago area to get going.

But money is going to be a big issue; it's why seemingly stronger candidates than Obama are already gone.

I still don't believe in the Obama candidacy--it seems like a popcorn fart to me.


by stevehigh on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 01:57:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards and Obama Lead Dems in Iowa (none / 0)

That might be a wee bit premature don't you think?

Wasn't Dean up by 20 points or more with like a month before the caucus?

This thing is wide open and probably will be until about 5 days out.


by adamterando on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 07:55:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards and Obama Lead Dems in Iowa (none / 0)

Dean was never up by 20 in Iowa


by vamonticello on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 08:45:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards and Obama Lead Dems in Iowa (none / 0)

Sorry, I was thinking of New Hampshire (in August '03).

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?I D=729


by adamterando on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 09:49:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards and Obama Lead Dems in Iowa (none / 0)

I'm amused by the Hillary hype (and it's still there.)  She is a terrible orator, and I think that will kill her in the early "retail" primaries.  She's friggin' boring to listen to-- monotonous, unoriginal, and grating.  I can handle one, or even two, out of three, but man, she can't make a speach to save her life.  Thus, I am not surprised by the poll results.  It has nothing to do with her sex.


by nanoboy on Thu Dec 21, 2006 at 08:28:05 PM EST

Re: Edwards and Obama Lead Dems in Iowa (none / 0)

She's still a woman and is likely to get many votes for that reason alone.


by kundalini on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 04:44:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards and Obama Lead Dems in Iowa (3.00 / 1)

More on the methodology:

It seems like Research 2000 surveys likely voters in normal elections for caucuses.  This is pretty unrealistic.  Here's a late poll they did in 2004, for comparison.

http://www.kcci.com/politics/2750996/det ail.html

(The results were Dean 29, Gephardt 25, Kerry 18, Edwards 8.)


Bleeding Heartland - Iowa's Progressive Community-oriented blog
by ItsDrewMiller on Thu Dec 21, 2006 at 08:40:20 PM EST

The sampling is only for 600 and it looks like (none / 0)

republicans who can't vote in the Dem primary were included.

Maybe wishful thinking on the Repubs.part.

http://www.kcci.com/politics/10585392/de tail.html?rss=des&psp=news

I don't put much credit into this poll.


Check out the New Progressive Blog EENRBLOG
by dk2 on Thu Dec 21, 2006 at 09:27:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The sampling is only for 600 and it looks like (none / 0)

Actually, Republicans were asked about the Republican candidates. Those numbers are included in the poll as well (McCain and Giuliani in a virtual tie, with Romney far behind).


Further Reading
by Dave Sund on Thu Dec 21, 2006 at 09:35:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards and Obama Lead Dems in Iowa (3.00 / 1)

The stunner here is Hillary's low number.  I know she had no organization in Iowa until recently, but, my gosh, you'd think name recognition would have her a lot higher than this.


by Adam B on Thu Dec 21, 2006 at 08:43:26 PM EST

Re: Edwards and Obama Lead Dems in Iowa (3.00 / 2)

It is an interesting situation because the Clintons have never really campaigned in the Iowa caucus before. Harkin ran in 1992 and Clinton was unopposed in 1996.


1996 - Bill Clinton* (unopposed)
1992 - Tom Harkin (76%) defeated Paul Tsongas (4%), Bill Clinton* (3%), Bob Kerrey (2%) and Jerry Brown (2%)


BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog
by robliberal on Thu Dec 21, 2006 at 09:10:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards and Obama Lead Dems in Iowa (none / 0)

Does she have an operation in Iowa? I thought it was only recently she even started to discuss setting up an operation there, per WaPo here and here. Is there something more recent on her setting up shop there?


by domma on Thu Dec 21, 2006 at 09:51:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards and Obama Lead Dems in Iowa (none / 0)

It's true that she's just now setting up shop there, from what I've heard.  But that's irrelevant at this point, because if you lived there you wouldn't feel their presence.  This is all name recognition and general sentiment, and she is not people's first choice.  I guess.


by Adam B on Thu Dec 21, 2006 at 09:55:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary's low number no surprise (3.00 / 2)

I don't know any likely caucus-goers who plan to support Hillary. I don't know any active Democratic Party volunteers who plan to support Hillary. I know a lot of people who would support almost anyone but Hillary in the caucuses.

My money is on her not running at all, and if she does run, she should skip Iowa. She would get destroyed in the caucuses--not only is she not the first choice, she is not the second choice of many people either, which means that the supporters of non-viable candidates won't support her on caucus night.

Here's my read on Obama. He's gotten tons of good press, and I do hear Democrats talking about him. These people are more informed than the average American politically and are regular voters.

However, I have yet to hear activist/volunteer types (the people who canvass or become precinct captains) talk about supporting Obama. I'm sure he will attract volunteers if he sets up an organization here, but I think Edwards still has an enormous lead among the most committed, active Democrats. Almost everyone I know who volunteered for his campaign last time around is fired up to work for him again.

The people who like Obama because they read the Time magazine article on him are mostly not going to get heavily involved in the campaign, and I suspect their approval of him is very soft.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Thu Dec 21, 2006 at 11:42:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary's low number no surprise (3.00 / 1)

That is the tough question about Obama whether polls will translate into caucus goers.


BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog
by robliberal on Thu Dec 21, 2006 at 11:48:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary's low number no surprise (none / 0)

He had plenty of grassroots support in the Senatorial primary and general. Students, in particular, were very strong for him and for Dean.


by antiHyde on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 01:13:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary's low number no surprise (none / 0)

Yes. A lot of people here seem to be too dismissive of Obama as "only hype." Believe me, the media did not create the sensation. There's a reason he was the top requested Democrat for campaign events across the nation in 2006. Young people and students in particular are hugely supportive of Obama. And young people are typically those "enthusiastic volunteer" types.


Further Reading
by Dave Sund on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 01:18:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

but students are packed into a few precincts (none / 0)

Kucinich had more than 1 percent support in Iowa, I guarantee you. His problem was that he was only "viable" (at 15 percent of the people who show up on caucus night) in a handful of precints.

Obama is clearly more mainstream than Kucinich, but if he relies too heavily on support among students and youth, he won't get the number of delegates proportionate to his total support among voters.

For the record, I dislike the caucus system and would prefer a primary.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 01:23:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: but students are packed into a few precincts (none / 0)

Amen, on the primary.  It would increase turnout drastically as well as reflecting the variety of support throughout the state for each candidate.  Iowa votes, regularly and reliably among the highest turnout in the nation.  But Iowans don't turn out in great numbers for the caucuses (about 18% of registered Democrats in 2004 and 15% of registered Republicans in 2000).


by David Kowalski on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 08:19:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary's low number no surprise (none / 0)

What's "the reason"?  Why are they supportive of Obama?


by justinh on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 11:23:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary's low number no surprise (none / 0)

I agree with you... but I will say, if Obama can get a solid second in Iowa, I think he has a great shot in the other caucuses and primaries...

I am hoping for HRC to get knocked out early and see a nice friendly battle between Edwards and Obama... Either way, I think  we get a good person...although my support would be for Obama, I would be happy with Edwards.


by yitbos96bb on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 11:40:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary's low number no surprise (none / 0)

How exactly does HRC get knocked out early? She'll have more money than she knows what to do with; the main reason people drop out after Iowa and New Hampshire is that they've run out of cash. The first four primaries/caucus are not her natural territory so her campaign is far more likely to gain momentum in Feb than in Jan.

Not saying she's a certain winner but no way will she concede if she has a poor Jan.


by kundalini on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 04:49:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary's low number no surprise (none / 0)

No, she'd have to -- because of her name recognition and presumed financial strength coming in, if she can't translate that into early wins, she's dead.

Howard Dean understood that, which is why he was basically broke after IA/NH -- if people expect you to win, you have to win.


by Adam B on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 11:38:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary's low number no surprise (none / 0)

You have to pick the battles wisely. Others have been the nominee without winning Iowa and New Hampshire but those who staked it all on those two states have often lost. Lieberman and Clark skipped Iowa in 2004 thinking that Dean would win. When he lost that threw their strategy out the windows.  

If Biden and Dodd decide to skip Iowa and concentrate on New Hampshire and Richardson on Nevada the press may look at Iowa as a regional favorite son contest with Vilsack and Obama.  


BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog
by robliberal on Sat Dec 23, 2006 at 01:30:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary's low number no surprise (3.00 / 1)

Yes, but if you're Hillary, with all the advantages that's expected to confer, you have to show you can compete everywhere.


by Adam B on Sat Dec 23, 2006 at 05:56:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It seem unreliable and misleading at best. (none / 0)

More hype.


Check out the New Progressive Blog EENRBLOG
by dk2 on Thu Dec 21, 2006 at 09:18:06 PM EST

Netroots Dictionary time (3.00 / 1)

"unreliable and misleading" = "the results don't favor my preferred candidate."

The full poll, here,   shows that Iowans are really out of touch with the netroots on Gore and Clark (or vice versa):

DEMOCRATIC SECTION ONLY (400 DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS VOTERS)
QUESTION: If the 2008 Democratic Caucus for President were held today, which of the
following candidates would you vote for? (ROTATED):
ALL MEN WOMEN
John Edwards 22% 21% 23%
Barack Obama 22% 21% 23%
Tom Vilsack 12% 14% 10%
Hillary Clinton 10% 9% 11%
Al Gore 7% 7% 7%
John Kerry 5% 5% 5%
Wesley Clark 4% 6% 2%
Dennis Kucinich 4% 3% 5%
Joe Biden 1% 2% -
Evan Bayh 1% 1% 1%
Bill Richardson 1% 2% -
Undecided (NOT READ) 11% 9% 13%


by Adam B on Thu Dec 21, 2006 at 09:39:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

First to Jonathan: the margin of error (none / 0)

in the primary portion of this poll is 4.9%. see here

~~~~~~~

Then to Adam:

Iowans are really out of touch with the netroots on Gore and Clark (or vice versa)

In the June Iowa poll: Edwards led HRC by 4 (Gore & Obama not included)

In the October Iowa poll: Edwards was at 30% or so, Obama and HRC at around 16% (Gore not included)

In the December poll: Obama and Edwards are tied at 22% and HRC is at 10% and Gore at 7%.

The news is good for Obama the most.

But, it is also clear that the standings are fluid.

Netroots tend to "high information" voters, and hence one would expect that if all the said candidates enter, Iowans will move towards netroots standings, and not vice versa. CT-Sen primary waas a pretty good example of that.

~~~~~~~~

As I have pointed out to you at DKos, Gore is polling rather well for general election matchups:

CNN Poll: Al Gore wins Trifecta, by pat208

Rasmussen Poll matchups


by NuevoLiberal on Thu Dec 21, 2006 at 11:49:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: First to Jonathan: the margin of error (none / 0)

If your theory were true, it would have been proven by . . . Iowa in 2004, where voters instead moved away from Dean and towards Kerry and Edwards.

Netroots polls don't reflect "high information voters", though a sampling of netroots postings might.


by Adam B on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 08:59:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

snark, nice. (none / 0)

netroots are an important factor, not the only factor. they're bigger and more influential now than they were in '04.


by NuevoLiberal on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 09:57:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Netroots are Definitely Not a Good Sample (none / 0)

You're right Adam.

The netroots community is Not an accurate sample of democratic voters as a whole & especially the general electorate.

If that were the case, Howard Dean would be President today. And Hillary Clinton would be in the bottom of every national poll in the last 24 months. And all moderate/ centrist Democratic Governors,Senators & House members would be wiped out of office.

Not only is the netroots a high information voter but the ovewhelming majority of its members are much more to the Left than majority of democratic voters & especially general election voters.

The strengths of the netroots is in fundraising, networking, rapid response, applying pressure on important issues, delivering information, and educating voters.

But the actual voting #'s of the netroots community compared to all Democratic voters is not even 5% of all voters.


by livyoga on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 10:35:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Netroots are Definitely Not a Good Sample (none / 0)

Actually, Dean had large support among the netroots, AND among caucus goers because of media coverage.  The media began to turn on Dean severely in the ten days leading up to the primary, and pumped up Kerry and Edwards.


by justinh on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 11:32:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Ah, yes. (none / 0)

"It's the media's fault".  Beloved canard of the lovers of lost candidates.

Do you have no faith in voters?


by Adam B on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 11:40:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ah, yes. (none / 0)

Well, think about it.  Dean received something like 78% negativ press, Kerry 8%, and Edwards 0% leading into the primary.  Kerry and Edwards didn't do anything different in the final days, and they ended up one and two (with Edward way behind and not budging in the polls until this time).

(My favorite example of the media engineering things was when a Republican heckler shpwed up at a twon hall meeting, harassing Dean until finally Dean had to tell him to sit down and be quiet.  Local ABC news framed it as: "Dean blows up at a supporter" and completely cut out the heckler.")


by justinh on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 12:15:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ah, yes. (none / 0)

Wow.  Very mathematical.  Any actual statistical study to back that up, or did you just invent it?


by Adam B on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 02:44:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ah, yes. (none / 0)

Did I make it up?  This isn't any secret, right?  I believe the numbers were from Columbia SOJ.  It's probably pretty easy to google, but here's an old article, which perhaps references it if you're interested:  Peter Hart, "Target Dean. Re-establishing the establishment." Extra! (March-April 2004: 13-18).

In any case, I'm not sure what you meant earlier about "having faith in the voters."  What's that mean?


by justinh on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 03:02:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ah, yes. (none / 0)

Adam B,

Here's a more direct link.  0% negative for Edwards, 2% negative for Kerry, 58% negative for Dean.  That's "very mathematical," right?

http://www.cmpa.com/pressReleases/Networ ksAnointedKerryEdwards.htm


by justinh on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 03:12:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

thanks for the link (none / 0)

Questionable source, however: "Some watchdog groups such as Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) have challenged CMPA's non-partisan claim based on that 86% of its funding comes from very conservative sources, and its founder is employed by the conservative organizations American Enterprise Institute and Fox News. Private foundation financial reports show that from 1986 to 2002, CMPA relied almost exclusively on funding from conservative foundations such as the Sarah Scaife and John M Olin foundations."


by Adam B on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 04:17:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: thanks for the link (none / 0)

The first article I mention above is itself archived by FAIR.  There are plenty of other sources on this.

(And even if one were to dispute where CMPA gets its funding, that still doesn't challenge the accuracy of the stats.)  


by justinh on Sat Dec 23, 2006 at 05:05:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: thanks for the link (none / 0)

Of course it brings it into doubt, since they don't show the underlying data.


by Adam B on Sat Dec 23, 2006 at 05:55:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: thanks for the link (none / 0)

Take another look at the site (if you're interested.  But this seems to be getting away from the intial point about media influence.)


by justinh on Sat Dec 23, 2006 at 08:38:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Netroots are Definitely Not a Good Sample (none / 0)

The thing I remember reading (and this was nearly 3 years ago so I might be mistaken) was that Dean lost not because of media (I remember many negative media stories on him nationally once he was the front runner, which was much more than 10 days out) but because Kerry had better organization than Dean on the precint level... in other words his group was better at getting the voters to the caucus than Dean's was.  


by yitbos96bb on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 12:49:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Netroots are Definitely Not a Good Sample (none / 0)

The negative media ramped up in the last ten days, particularly local coverage in Iowa, but you're right about the organization of the caucuses; that was definitely another reason.


by justinh on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 02:05:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Way Too Early ! (none / 0)

People here are putting way too much on these polls. We are only in December 2006. That's an eternity in politics.

Let's see the media's fascination with Obama by August/September of 2007.

Look at Dr. Dean in 2004. He went from a virtual unknown in Iowa at this time in Dec. 2003. He then ended up leading in Iowa by early 2004. But he then eventually lost Iowa.

It is very likely that the winner may not even be any of the three that are leading right now in Obama, Hillary, Edwards.

I also think that the fascination by a segment of white Democratic voters with Obama will  fade as he actually enters the race in 2007.

As many distinguished scholars & pollsters have also pointed out, they are in agreement that the positive poll #'s that Obama is getting from White voters right now may NOT Translate into actual votes.

There is historical behavior patterns among certain  white voters when it comes to black candidates. They say something in public but actually vote differently in the Privacy of the booth.


by livyoga on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 12:26:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Way Too Early ! (3.00 / 1)

There is historical behavior patterns among certain  white voters when it comes to black candidates. They say something in public but actually vote differently in the Privacy of the booth.*******

It's called ' The Bradley Effect', and maybe we're in the latter part of it.

Deval Patrick's victory, and Harold Ford's loss are very encouraging that The Bradley Effect is waning.

Harold Ford lost, but it wasn't as bad as the polls had indicated. In fact, he did better than anticipated. White voters, in the South  no less, voted as they had told the posters. That's progress.

So, let's hope they're telling the truth in Iowa too.


by rikyrah on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 12:34:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Way Too Early ! (3.00 / 2)

Well, there's no "privacy of the voting booth" in Iowa. Not in the caucuses.


Further Reading
by Dave Sund on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 12:55:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Way Too Early ! (3.00 / 1)

The Bradley effect is gone. It didn't show up for Ford in Tennessee or Patrick in Massachusetts. The last time it showed up was in the Doug Wilder race in 1989 - 17 years ago. Things have changed (thank god).


by thirdestate on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 07:45:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Way Too Early ! (none / 0)

Of course W and Gore were both frontrunners in 1998-99 and both won Iowa... it can go either way... but yes polls this early are not that big of a deal... until you can get an idea of the trends months down the road.  


by yitbos96bb on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 12:51:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards and Obama Lead Dems in Iowa (none / 0)

Vilsak is weaker than I expected. If he can't do well in Iowa, he might as well pack his bags now.


ARGville: Strong opinions, Advice, Discussion Forum, Humor, and some typos
by VictorNJ on Thu Dec 21, 2006 at 09:26:52 PM EST

Re: Edwards and Obama Lead Dems in Iowa (3.00 / 3)

Voters in Iowa don't want to be irrelevant.  Unless they're convinced that Vilsack has some kind of chance on the national stage, they're not going to blindly support him just because he's the local guy.

It was different in 1992 with Harkin because he was a serious candidate for the nomination.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 01:02:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards and Obama Lead Dems in Iowa (none / 0)

Sounds like Iowa just picked the 2008 Dem ticket! This is a good thing :)


by catchawave on Thu Dec 21, 2006 at 09:31:53 PM EST

Re: Edwards and Obama Lead Dems in Iowa (none / 0)

Here's a new take on Obama:

He truly represents leadership in the next generation
And we are not in the age of the next generation yet

So, he simply takes for granted many ideas we might be arguing about now as progressive

But, he does not feel at home investing himself in the heat of battle with today's lingering holders of old-school views; it feels out of place to him.
Kind of like when you were young and didn't even want to deal with arguing with 50 year olds, didn't feel like a good or natural use of your energy

Because when he truly leads some day, such views will simply be the foundation for the era, the assumptions of an era
To treat them as if they were not already clearly seen as true, is too much of a mind-twist for him
(I can see him in a leadership role today, but not that this would be his real heyday yet)

So instead, he steps back and mostly focuses on damping down the hostility, and just taking it easy with the process, giving it time, and talking in a more off-hand visionary language, talking about that future to come and encouraging those who find their home there to focus on that

He could have a long career in politics ahead of him, after all

In a sense, the netroots today is arguing with the fact of how stuck people are now, and even enjoys that
So, that could be a difference

When the futurists of today, like netroots, meet up with the people of the future, like Obama, in some eventual tomorrow, it should be a happy relationship


by jimpol on Thu Dec 21, 2006 at 09:39:10 PM EST

Re: Edwards and Obama Lead Dems in Iowa (3.00 / 1)

In a strange way, this actually links up 'people of the future' with 'centrists' although they are 2 different birds

Centrists are those who though not young per se, are simply not inclined to fight history
Yet when history opens up, the tides turn and a wave of change emerges, they may go to the front lines and be part of a big leap transformation; they'll actually enjoy it and cite it later on their resume
Many centrists actually look completely comfortable when something progressive has happened, they like the new reality, just not the tumultuous, uncertain, hostile time leading up to it, which often doesn't succeed anyway

Until the point of inevitable movement to change arrives, they won't say that much, and won't invest in the often frustrating process of creating a wave or challenging what is in place or opposing reactionaries in a focused way

Maybe it's just a question of allocation of energy; and where you feel at home as far as process or time in history, rather than always a question of differences in vision or in enjoyment of positive change


by jimpol on Thu Dec 21, 2006 at 09:50:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama (3.00 / 1)

An interesting article:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061221/ts_ alt_afp/usvoteobamarace2008_061221085638

Apparently he draws more interest from whites than blacks. Which is something I suspected, but didn't know until I read this. Whether this will remain true, i don't know. But, I suspect he can not spend the next two years talking in flowery generalities. We are crazy that way- we require actual explainations about what a candidate actually stands for and is going to do.


by bruh21 on Thu Dec 21, 2006 at 10:30:29 PM EST

Re: Obama (none / 0)

Apparently he draws more interest from whites than blacks. Which is something I suspected, but didn't know until I read this. Whether this will remain true, i don't know.**

As an African-American, we are naturally skeptical. Many are like my mother, who is saying, ' he shouldn't run.'. She doesn't want him to run, because she doesn't think the nation is ready for a Black President. Not because she doesn't think he's qualified.

If he jumps into it, and if he makes it past Iowa and New Hampshire, as the folks say, ' It'll be ON!'.

And, for all my mother's skepticism, if he's still on the ballott when it gets to our state, I have no doubt she'll vote for him.

But, I disagree with Professor Walters. Barack Obama has never shied away from being a BLACK man. He has never been the ' I'm Bi-racial' card. He gives the Halle Berry line: He's a Black man with a White mother. His very Chocolate wife will help him too.

The Black support is skeptical. They're waiting for him to get past Iowa and New Hampshire. If he does that, it'll get interesting.


by rikyrah on Thu Dec 21, 2006 at 11:56:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama (none / 0)

I disagree- they are waiting for him to say something substantive. But, thats just my view. I think as voters, and again I am speaking from my experience, we are a lot more about the substance than we are about the speeches because we have heard them all before. As my friend said to me recently- "i don't need to hear another speech from Jesse Jackson or anyone else. I need someone with money to show up in the community, and let's start taking care of the problems."


by bruh21 on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 12:17:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

question about your mother (none / 0)

Does she not want him to run because she's afraid he might get the Dem nomination but lose the general election?

Or is she afraid he might win?

My late grandmother (Jewish) used to say she would never vote for a Jew for president because, "If anything bad happens, they'll blame the Jews."


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 12:56:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: question about your mother (none / 0)

Does she not want him to run because she's afraid he might get the Dem nomination but lose the general election?

Or is she afraid he might win?**

She's afraid he'll get shot.


by rikyrah on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 12:58:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: question about your mother (none / 0)

I support him and I am afraid of that too.  


by yitbos96bb on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 12:55:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama (3.00 / 2)

I read it ealrier today, too.

I wonder what the basis of the article is beyond the anecdotes of the poeple quoted.


Visit DebateScoop
by demondeac on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 12:58:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama (none / 0)

I don't know. I also know that people made that same statement about evangelicals voting in much larger numbers for Democrats this time, or staying home. Whereas a NY TImes articles, which at the time even I discounted, said anecdotally that evangelicals would still support Bush by a heavy margin. We had a net gain of 5 pts, and the vote was still something like 75 percent for Bush. My point? I know considertably more experientally about the AA community simply by growing up in it than I do about white evangelicals. When I hear this anecdotal evidence, it jives with my experiences. It's indeed try that we are far more skeptical than the average voter. As one person put it, that's because we have been on the backend of it (the government and this society). It fits with what I know to read that a lot of blacks are skeptical of Obama (in part because this is natural to me as well when someone is being hyped). My skepticism comes out of being raised in an AA community. THis article confirms what I see and know. For the record, I live in a majority black community- low income in Brooklyn, I grew up down south in a majoritu black community. I went to college at a majority white school. I work in a majority whtie environment- this gives me a certain level of exposure to both. Gut check wise- this fits what I see. There is a certain about of being enamoured among white progressives that I don't see among black progressives, well excedpt the vocal minority that tries to act liek there is. The reason why, as I may speculate in a diary, is because we have been fed a lot of flowery words throughout history- this maybe new to white progressives, but its not to us.


by bruh21 on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 01:05:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards and Obama Lead Dems in Iowa (none / 0)

I am also considering writing up a diary on the subject by the way. Namely for all this "he's a new Democrat" talk, he actually represents to me a kind of issue with race that progressives have. I have to wonder if he were a white candidate would you require more of him than the thin record that he has now?


by bruh21 on Thu Dec 21, 2006 at 10:31:59 PM EST

Re: Edwards and Obama Lead Dems in Iowa (none / 0)

I actually think it's the opposite--if a white candidate had nearly the pure political talent Obama has,  was against the war from the start and had a background in community organizing, the progressive community would be all over him/her. The sad truth is, a lot of our netroots community is either upper class or labor-based. Both groups have had historical antipathy to non-whites. David Sirota's hyperbolic attacks on Obama come to mind.


by Gibreel111 on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 12:16:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards and Obama Lead Dems in Iowa (none / 0)

I disagree. I think the fact he is black is what is making people over look obvious problems with his candidacy. I think a lot of this is quite frankly the polite racism of lowered expectations. The white progressives, as this article above demostrate- support obama- but I got to ask why? what has he said substantively other than giving good speeches. That this is the only thing that people seem to require of him is lowered standards to say the least.


by bruh21 on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 12:19:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards and Obama Lead Dems in Iowa (none / 0)

If and wen you write your diary, please move beyond, "What has he done substantively other than give good speeches?"

The rhetorical questions are getting tiresome.

1) The speeches are not just good, they are his.
2) First black president of Harvard LR, Lawrence Tribe rates as pershaps best student ever (and he has had a number of tremendously accomplished students), community organizer, civil rights lawyer, successful at passing very progressive legislation in IL legislature in spite of being in the minority party 7 of his eight years, etc, etc.

Your kind of comment proves the opposite of what intends in my opinion. You may be right about the reverse progressive effect or whatever, but can we not have some more meat on the bones?


Visit DebateScoop
by demondeac on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 01:35:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards and Obama Lead Dems in Iowa (3.00 / 1)

riiiight- okay if you say so. 1) who gives a shit about the speeches. 2) none of that prepares one to go from the minor leagues to the major. and as for the rest of your shit whatever you don't have to answer the questions. neither does he. the outcome if he doesn't is obvious to me. if not to you. good luck with that. and oh, i have yet to see one of you, his sychophants, not get nasty in a diary. do you ahve any other mode of communicating when challenged  in your thought processes? ie, yesterdayor the day before, I was told disagreement with obamarama is racist. now,  I am not adding meat. I';ll tell you what- when you can say something more than I like him, I really like him then you get to judge how much my question of real substance is important to the conversation of who might be president of the country rather than a 2 year jr senator.


by bruh21 on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 01:43:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards and Obama Lead Dems in Iowa (none / 0)

I gave you a three so that your comment could become public, after somebody had voted a zero, thus hiding it.

My progressive values inform me that all dialogue should remain open, even when I may disagree with an opposing argument.


Vox Mia -- Adding My Voice to the Chorus
by bedobe on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 01:00:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards and Obama Lead Dems in Iowa (none / 0)

ps your list as I think it over is really sad. If thats all you have then your guy is going to be attacked a lot for being light weight. get used to argument from people who aren't as nice as I am being to you.


by bruh21 on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 01:45:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards and Obama Lead Dems in Iowa (none / 0)

1) Sorry for getting testy. Been seeing too much crap like that pitiful 30-some white girl wrote on DKos a while ago and let my bile spill over is my only feeble excuse.

2) You are right, I could go into greater detail on the resume.

3) I really and truly do look forward to a good diary (again, this is totally sincere) that attempts to establish some sort of criteria for evaluation.

4) Speeches, if they are written by the candidate and resonate with an authentic biography and with the political situation, are, in my opinion one (just one) very important measure of a presidential candidate. Eloquence is rare and is a great talent for a leader.

5) Maybe not you, but there really have been an extraordinary number of folks moving goalposts around on what kind of record they demand of Obama.

6) Yes, I defend him. I resent the "sycophant." I am not even 100% sold on him, but I do defend him. I do not attack other candidates.


Visit DebateScoop
by demondeac on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 02:39:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards and Obama Lead Dems in Iowa (none / 0)

What is this with wanting 20 years of experience?  Obama's resume is comparable in length, at least, to about half of the recent Presidents: George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, JFK.  Clinton, George H. W. Bush, Ford, Nixon and LBJ had longer resumes.

As the list shows, the value of a long resume is mixed at best.


by David Kowalski on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 08:38:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama has a good record (3.00 / 1)

Earned Income tax credit and expanded healthcare access in Illinois, meaningful audits of Katrina expenditures (committeed out by Frist but still passed), online publication of government expenditures, early advocate of bird flu action, advocate of ethics reform with teeth - he's shown an ability to pick important, doable projects, and get them through with help from Republicans, even. Which of his potential Senatorial opponents has a better legislative record?  Hillary has remarkable deal-cutting skills but spends them on minutiae, Biden does a lot for credit card companies, and Edwards had an unremarkable record.


by curtadams on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 10:03:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards and Obama Lead Dems in Iowa (none / 0)

Yeah I think that's pretty BS. The same argument could be applied to Edwards (and as Josh Marshall I think put it, Rudy Guilianni as well).

Look at Kerry. He had oodles of experience and was a freakin' war hero! But the republicans were still able to paint him as a namby pamby wussy wind-surfing baby who lied about his record (the irony!) and would get all 300 million Americans killed by 7 hijackers if he were elected.

His experience (and "electability" remember?) didn't mean squat. What matters is how you define yourself or let yourself be defined in the voters minds. Kerry did not define Bush as a liar and blowhard and a tyrant like he should of. And he let the GOP define him on their terms.

So my point is that experience does not matter. What matters is the political abilities of the individual politician. At least as far as being able to get yourself elected that is.

Now my (slight) beef with Obama is not that he's inexperienced, it that he's been playing it a little too safe. If he comes out with a plan for universal health coverage that is not some bullshit plan like the MA plan (basically like car insurance, which is a huge burden on working people), and does some work on labor rights then I will look much more kindly on him. He doesn't even need to come out with a health care plan, but please just TALK about it more. Just TALK about the concentration of corporate power. TALK about some of these issues, like poverty, like the man-made failures that caused Katrina (not the actual storm itself).

I looking for him to take on the big issues. I'm ready for those "unimportant single issues" to be addressed.


by adamterando on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 10:06:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards and Obama Lead Dems in Iowa (3.00 / 2)

uhm- Edwards was there 6 years, he ran for the VP spot, and he did a presidential run. He had an extensive record both before, and after his public office that involved national, local and international issues. He's in other words been tested as to his ability to weather national scrutiny that Obama has not been through yet. This is the crucial element. The way Obama talks as well concerns me because its like every other Democrat who has run. Some of you have decided so long as the person is charismatic enough, the strategy of trying to get along with everyone will work, when I am suggesting a different strategy- leadership and being tough.

I could careless what the GOP thinks is appropriate since the reality is that even if he had none that doesn't stop the press from applying a double standard.

What I am looking for this time in a Democrat is in the experience question, and I suspect most peo are trying to guage this, is whether despite all the "can't we just get along speeches"  can Obama  not only weather the GOP attack machine and the press's willful compliance w/ GOP spin, but dominate the narrative (which to win he will have to do). Kerry failed at dominating the narrative. So did Gore. Whether one thinks Gore was robbed or not- it shouldn't even been close.

When we are talking experience - at least when I am talking about it- what I am worried about is not can you check off whether he has done some progressive things, but whether he can deal with the environment he would have to run in a general election, and can he demonstrate leadership ability. Leadership is in part for the Presidency about being not only charasmatic, but tough. What I mean by the later is all the things about being able to take a hit, and spin that back in favor of yourself. We also this time around need people who talk about leadership. When I listen to Obama's supporters (and maybe Obama won't take the route his supporters expouse) they say things like "well, if he wants to win, he shouldn't take any controversial positions." The number of things they list as "controversial" is mind blowing.

One came up over at ezra klein's site. The issue of healthcare. i am not saying he has to go with the furthest left plan, or even talk about healthcare, but its clear he has to talk about something more than "can't we all just get along." When I talked to a friend recently, and this is where the GOP and moderates do matter, she said that the Democrats who are running seem scared to  death of making decisions for fear of a mistate before 2008. The problem is not that I like or dislike Obama. The issue is that, if this is his strategy, it will fail because people are noticing. This person isn't near as political as I am. She noted of his speeches that they were good, but she thought they lacked anything specific. Ie, the sacrifice factor.

Let me give you an example. I talked to Pastor Dan who runs street prophet about this, and he said that on the issue I am about to raise about Obama, the jury is still out. We talked about the issue of common sacrifice. In fact, oddly, that kind of last night as well, with someone as I chatted with who is neutral on Obama but felt his speeches were good but left him feeling cold as to what it all meant. I mentioned that Obama doesn't really talk about common sacrifice, and the person seemed to think that was pershaps a possibility.

To me, it's incredibily easy for someone to say to Christians in a society of which they are t he majority of both parties that some amorphous secularists need to respect religion. What I think is incredibly hard is to tell those Christians that we must sacrifice for the common good, and that secularism is that sacrifice.

The mark of a truly good to great leadcer is the ability to tell people what they may not want to hear, but still convince them anyway. JFk's ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country inspired people to sacrifice. MLK's "I am a dream" speech inspired all, not just blacks, to want to be part of the American dream, and he was willing to put something on the line to achieve it.

Again, I am not questioning if Obama is or is not a progressive. These are leadership and personality issues when I am talking about experience. i need, and most people need indicators that the guy beyond giving speeches that some feel are wonderful will be able to do the job of President of the US. And yes, we have had not so experienced people before. And , no, it has not always been bad. But, we are at a juncture where that's not a game we should be playing. For Obama's sake, he should be trying to define himself as a leader, if for no other reason that the longer he leaves where he stands undefined, the longer he will allow the GOP to start to do it for him. Kerry waited until the fall of 2004 to define himself, and by that point the GOP through kerry's missteps had already defined him.

At this point, after this explanation, if you still dont understnad, I frankly will give up. I think the questions and issues being raised by me, and others are pretty self evident. When  asked friends about it or acquaintances- most of them are apolitical- they come up with similar issues. When i say - "what do you think of Obama for President?" They have said- about 10 plus thus far- hasn't he only been a senator for 2 years as their first question? it's ten people- not scientific, but gut check level, these same kinds of things I was hearing from the apolitical back in 2004. They re general impressions that if you want to even have shot must be addressed. You can not simply treat everyone who disagrees with you as stupid. As I think its Paul Rosenberg , another poster here has said, there is a kind of tendency amongst Obama supporters to lash out when ever you hear people asking you these questions.

Frankly, if you can't handle some rather low key questions like this, you aren't going to be able to handel the GOP smear machine.


by bruh21 on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 10:49:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards and Obama Lead Dems in Iowa (none / 0)

We're actually in agreement here. The way you define experience is different than the way I hear most people talk about it. Most people I hear talk about it in terms of "he doesn't have enough national security experience". Pretty much the same thing that was said about Bill Clinton in '92. And I think the same argument will be made for Edwards despite his experience that you cite(i.e. one term senator). btw, I'm an Edwards supporter myself, I'm not on the Obama bandwagon, but I do think he has great potential and I could still be persuaded if I see more leadership qualities and "going for the jugular" that you describe.

That's what I'm talking about when I want Obama to stake out some positions that aren't easy. ESPECIALLY shared sacrifice. And I'd like him to call out the entire sham of a political discourse we have right now. Where everyone TALKS about sacrifice when it comes to the budget and all, but somehow the only people I ACTUALLY see sacrificing are poor people and people dying in Iraq. Last I checked, people driving around in their hummers weren't feeling that much of a pinch in ANY way.

I have yet to see Obama point this out. Edwards has somewhat (although not as strongly as I'd like sometimes) which is why I support him. Feingold could have if he wasn't so busy on his one-man crusades for censure et al. (moot point now I guess). And HRC hasn't said much of anything.

So yeah, I'd like some specifics from Obama. And some toughness. And some damn partisanship! Because I do not believe the GOP ideology of laissez-faire capitalism coupled with christian fundamentalism is a valid ideology. So no bipartisanship until we take this ship back leftward for a while.


by adamterando on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 11:53:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards and Obama Lead Dems in Iowa (none / 0)

Ps one other part of the two prong test that I have - the two being a) ability to weather a general election and b) ability to lead when president. On the later, about leadership, I want someone who can not only charasmatically keep the job for him or herself, but as the ability to grow the progressive moment. To do the later, it requires not only the ability to make people feel good, but go into the concepts that I have mentioned like have  a real dialogue about national sacrifice. Sacriface is not where the majority gets to tell the minority do whatever I say. It's things like the equal protection clause. It's things that have been put in our system for a reason to protect us. I want to see in Obama leadership on these issues. Many of you say- if he talks honestly abot these things (or some do) then he won't get elected. My point is that character defines the general election, and leadership defines the presidency. They aren't mutually exclusive, but they do have some differences. ie, in a race you are defining your narrative, and that of yoru oppoent, its define or be defined. whereas with leadership your job is to set a course of action. on both fronts, Obama needs to provide more. its really that simple.


by bruh21 on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 10:55:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards and Obama Lead Dems in Iowa (none / 0)

Agreed: the jury will remain out until we see Obama withstand the heat of a full blown national campaign. He is untested.

Much of the dispute (as minor as it is) here on the tubes comes down to sequencing, in my opinion: yes, his early speeches have been at a high level of generality. But that may be the correct strategy for any politician, not just Obama: introduce yourself, lay out themes, get people wanting to hear more.

Our campaign process is long enough and vicious enough that we'll know whether Obama is "qualified" or "experienced" enough to lead well before November 2008 although we cannot know now.

Finally, on the control the narratve thing. That's actually more up my expertise alley. My judgment is that the narrative will favor him all the way because the media loves to hang onto their narrative for dear life. They toss a little variety in from time to time to keep interest, but they also rely on the central plot line and character sketch that they begin with. Look at how the "straight talker" narrative of McCain endures and how they return over and over again to the Clinton's marriage question and depict Hillary as cold and cautious. Rudy will remain the mayor who led after 9-11, etc. Kerry is still the flip flopper. Obama has been cast in the role of multicultural, transcendent, charismatic, etc. Lucky him.


Visit DebateScoop
by demondeac on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 11:39:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards and Obama Lead Dems in Iowa (3.00 / 1)

are you seriously comparing Obama's record to that of JFK or Carter for that matter? clinton was governor of his state for what 8 years? he was head of the govenors association for a long time as well. he also headed up the dlc (which even i dont like them at least had a national perspective for a long time). i can go on and on. Like I said, it's these kinds of arguments that make me question the seriousness of whether Obama should run.


by bruh21 on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 10:57:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards and Obama Lead Dems in Iowa (none / 0)

I really think the need for an experienced nominee is overhyped. Looking back over the last couple of decades it seems to me the most experienced candidate in the general election lost every time. The shame of it all is that charisma and likeability is probably more important to voters than either the issues or experience.


by conspiracy on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 11:23:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards and Obama Lead Dems in Iowa (none / 0)

I think you confuse the fact that the other candidates lacked charisma, with the question whether they also needed experience. Bush won in 2000 not due to Gore's lack of charisma, but strategy of saying nothing. His debate strategy can be summed up as "ditto." He admits it was a flawed approach to the campaign. I am not saying charisma isn't a key factor (indeed, with HRC I say that she is about as interesting to listen to as paint drying on the wall). What I am saying is that we need to be looking for a total package as much as possible- ie, charisma, experience, ability to lead after they get elected. No one is perfect, but we should at least be using a multiple criteria approach from the start rather than going well none of the things that my candidate is lacking doesn't matter. Experience does matter. it's just not enough. You also got to have a bit of toughness. Kerry lost because he lacked the ability to go for the juglar- a trait I think Obama shares with him. I say this not to put Obama down, but to voice concern. We need someone who has a killer instinct. Whatever i think of Clinton's presidency- the more I think about it I have gone from thinking it was great to thinking eh not bad, not great either- he was a person who went in for the kill in races. Does Obama have that instinct? Right now with the strategy he is talking about running- I question whether he does?


by bruh21 on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 11:34:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards and Obama Lead Dems in Iowa (none / 0)

By the way- I got hoodwinked with Kerry who promised in the spring of 2004 that he would be a fighter and yet he let him self (and yes I say let because leaders wouldn't let that happen) get attacked by the swiftboaters. He just didn't want enough to do whatever it took. Bush did. Some here may not like the qualities involved in a Bush run, but I am not talking about the specifics, I am talking about the do what it takes part. Are you wlling day one to walk out when the first attack happens, and say, my opponent is full of shit (not in those exact words)and add you know what, here's the type of president I am going to be. Are you willing to define the narrative? Are you willing to define your opponent. What concerns me about Obamas answers to some of the questions that he has been asked is that he is so busy trying to "get a long" that I am left to wonder what will he do with a real opponent like say a Giulliani who is viscious. I live here in NYC- he isn't a nice man. How will he fight someone like this?


by bruh21 on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 11:39:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards and Obama Lead Dems in Iowa (none / 0)

"I live here in NYC- he isn't a nice man. How will he fight someone like this?"

Subtle reminders that Rudy's for gay marriage to keep white evangelicals home? I know that's what the Republican opponents will be doing (except not subtly)!


by adamterando on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 11:57:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards and Obama Lead Dems in Iowa (none / 0)

uhm- you don't understand the evangelical mind set. It's called denial. just an observation about how they could still vote for the GOP this year after all that they knew.


by bruh21 on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 12:00:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards and Obama Lead Dems in Iowa (none / 0)

also, I doubt Obama is capable of doing this even subtly- thats the point.


by bruh21 on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 12:01:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards and Obama Lead Dems in Iowa (none / 0)

it was meant sarcastically.


by adamterando on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 12:34:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards and Obama Lead Dems in Iowa (none / 0)

okay not sure how anyone is suppose to know that online in the middle of serious discussion - comedy is timing, not just when you decide you are trying to be funny


by bruh21 on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 12:36:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards and Obama Lead Dems in Iowa (none / 0)

Not sure about everyone else... but his color has nothing to do with it for me.  I like him, I respect him, looking at his actual record it is not as thin as some like yourself seem to feel... although in truth, this is an arbitrary mark... what is thin for a record?  


by yitbos96bb on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 01:38:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards and Obama Lead Dems in Iowa (none / 0)

I actually think it's the opposite--if a white candidate had nearly the pure political talent Obama has,  was against the war from the start and had a background in community organizing, the progressive community would be all over him/her. The sad truth is, a lot of our netroots community is either upper class or labor-based. Both groups have had historical antipathy to non-whites.**

I agree with this, but it's nice to see someone else thinking this out loud.


by rikyrah on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 12:29:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards and Obama Lead Dems in Iowa (3.00 / 2)


The sad truth is, a lot of our netroots community is either upper class or labor-based. Both groups have had historical antipathy to non-whites. David Sirota's hyperbolic attacks on Obama come to mind.

[Emphasis added.]

I find your insinuation about Sirota extremely offensive and irresponsible.  Since you've made such a hyperbolic attack on Sirota, a consistently progressive and incisive political commentator, I hope that you're ready to provide concrete evidence documenting Sirota's "antipathy to non-whites."  

Unlike many other progressives, Sirota has demonstrated integrity and consistency when he's written critically about Sen Obama's positions.  To my reading, Sirota is doing what all grassroots progressives should be doing: holding our would-be progressive champions accountable, honest and their feet close to the fire.  Sirota's examination of Sen Obama's positions is consistent with grassroots progressives organizing primary challengers against those Dems that fail to represent our progressive values -- the two approaches serve as reminders, again, to our would-be progressive champions that progressivism needs more than mere lip service.


Vox Mia -- Adding My Voice to the Chorus
by bedobe on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 02:14:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards and Obama Lead Dems in Iowa (none / 0)

I also find the Sirota-bashing offensive. If Sirota sounds a little bit testy, that's because, as a loyal Lamont fan, he resents Obama's complicity in stabbing Lamont in the back. For that very reason I won't be voting for Obama in the primary. Should he win the general, of course I'll vote for him.


by Baltimore on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 09:53:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards and Obama Lead Dems in Iowa (none / 0)

Oops, I meant should he win the primary.


by Baltimore on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 09:54:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards and Obama Lead Dems in Iowa (none / 0)

I agree.  How is Sirota hyperoblic?  It's not an argument.  (And that Obama was against the war from the beginning isn't significant.  Being against the war posed absolutley no poltiical risk for Obama.  In fact, the only risk would have been if he had been in favor of the war.)


by justinh on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 11:28:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards and Obama Lead Dems in Iowa (3.00 / 5)

No. I want to be all over Obama. I actually want him to be vice president. I could still be for him for president....IF he starts taking a stand on some issues that aren't easy besides things like tort reform (for it). The one stand that I have heard him take is that he's for universal health care. I don't know what form he's for, hopefully not the stupid Mass type system.

The reason I'm for Edwards at this time is because out of all the (serious) candidates, he's got the clearest, strongest, most progressive vision.

I haven't heard that clearly defined yet from Obama besides his broad-brush stroke positive speeches.

In general the anectdotes you provide as evidence don't warrant coming to the conclusion that current progressives/laborites are racist. You should provide some specific examples before I believe there is a double standard.  


by adamterando on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 08:14:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards and Obama Lead Dems in Iowa (none / 0)

I could gloat but, I won't.  Even if the site is for Edwards I do have some compassion.  


by vwcat on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 12:17:04 AM EST

Re: Edwards and Obama Lead Dems in Iowa (3.00 / 1)

I'm sure everyone here, unlike a lot of other places, especially the MSM that creates the CW, knows that Iowa has caucuses and not a primary.  It's a different world of organizing.  

Edwards will have boots on the ground who know how to work caucuses.  He'll have labor, and while I don't know their presence throughout Iowa, that will mean something.  And he'll have activists there who are like us - people pay attention to what potential candidates do, and Edwards worked hard in 2006.  In Iowa and otherwise.  Obama might, who knows, but I'd bet Edwards walks away with Iowa.  The Vilsack supporters, in a caucus setting, will break towards Edwards when the former looks unviable.

I see one of two things happening.  One, Hillary skips Iowa and Edwards gets a somewhat narrow win over Obama (if he runs).  If there's no Obama, Edwards takes this and moves along to Nevada and South Carolina, competing marginally in New Hampshire.  Two, if Hillary gets into Iowa, there will be her vs. everyone else, and the anti-Hillary crowd rallies behind someone who is seen as viable as an alternative - Edwards or Obama.  If Obama's in, I still see those people breaking for Edwards because of the work he'll have done there.  If there's no Obama, Edwards get a big win and moves on to Nevada and South Carolina with even more buzz.  

The bottom-line to the 2008 nomination race is that Iowa, Nevada, South Carolina, and New Hampshire will NOT determine who is the nominee.  There's enough quality candidates who will be in that even if one wins three of these first four, there's lots of delegates left in other states.  Super Tuesday will have even more meaning, and we get a better primary with a better-tested candidate for the general.  

My gut tells me that if Edwards banks the race on the three of the first four, he will still be a long way away from the nomination.  The candidates who do OK in the first four but set themselves up for a longer haul will be better positioned as opposed to the inevitability that crept in in 2004 with Kerry.


Help build a stronger and more progressive Democratic Party from the grassroots on up
by Peter from WI on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 12:35:38 AM EST

I disagree with you (3.00 / 1)

First, on labor in Iowa: manufacturing jobs have left the state, and unions like the AUW are much less powerful than they used to be. Biggest union by far is AFSCME, which was once considered very important in Dem primaries, but they endorsed Dean for president and Mike Blouin in the 2006 gubernatorial primary. Wasn't enough.

You are right about Edwards having boots on the ground (see my comment upthread). I can't see Obama putting together nearly that kind of organization. In a caucus you want support spread evenly around the state, so you can be "viable" in as many precincts as possible. Pockets of very heavy support don't translate into a proportionate number of delegates.

I see Edwards as the favorite now unless there is a major change in dynamic such as Gore entering the race. If Edwards wins Iowa and NH convincingly I can't see him losing NH, and he certainly will win SC. It would be really hard for another candidate to turn around and win a bunch of states on Super Tuesday.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 01:01:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I disagree with you (3.00 / 1)

Thanks for the insight on the state of labor in politics in Iowa.  

Even in the UAW and other mfg unions are on the decline there to the extent of being less politically relevant than other organizations, labor in general is going to put people and money into 2008.  It behooves them big-time to get a nominee like Edwards who is not only sympathetic to, but is instead an ally to labor and labor's issues (as well as labor's meta-issues).  I will bet a steak dinner with anyone here that AFSCME endorses Edwards.  While that might not have helped Dean and the 06 gov candidate, when you get all the unions endorsing Edwards and you get them pumping resources into a primary, I think you could see labor still being decisive for Edwards in Iowa.  

But to respond to your other point:

I don't see Edwards doing much up in NH.  It's outside his geographic range of influence and ease-of-entry into the upper tiers of the race (except for being a national name, and having buzz - which, don't get me wrong, could be worth as much as anything), and if he focuses on winning Iowa, Nevada, and SC, and then puts the resources into Super Tuesday states instead of sticking those resources into a state where Hillary HAS to win if she runs, he has a much better shot to build early buzz that can be sustained, instead of just early buzz.  


Help build a stronger and more progressive Democratic Party from the grassroots on up
by Peter from WI on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 12:26:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I heard focus groups in NH were down on Hillary (none / 0)

Can't remember where I read this rumor--Clinton's people organized focus groups of Dems in NH and were shocked by the degree of negativity toward Clinton. Fair or not, this is reality for her. I have a brother in Arizona who's the same way. He would not under any circumstances vote for Hillary, although he's a straight-ticket Dem. If she's the nominee, he swears he will write in a candidate (he would never vote Republican).


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 01:35:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards and Obama Lead Dems in Iowa (3.00 / 1)

I find it hard to imagine how Hillary can plausibly skip Iowa.  She won't have the excuse of getting into the race late, she's had a massive warchest forever, she has no reasonable excuse for not showing up and competing, other than that she thinks she can't win.  She certainly can't say she was afraid of Vilsack.

People are very suspicious of Hillary's electability.  If she concedes that she doesn't even have a shot at winning the Democratic caucuses in Iowa, with ages and ages to prepare, it's going to seriously damage her prospects.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 01:06:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards and Obama Lead Dems in Iowa (3.00 / 1)

There have been nominees in both parties who did not make major efforts in Iowa


Democrats

   * 2004 - John Kerry (38%) defeated John Edwards (32%), Howard Dean (18%), Richard Gephardt (11%) and Dennis Kucinich (1%)
    * 2000 - Al Gore (63%) defeated Bill Bradley (37%)
    * 1996 - Bill Clinton* (unopposed)
    * 1992 - Tom Harkin (76%) defeated Paul Tsongas (4%), Bill Clinton* (3%), Bob Kerrey (2%) and Jerry Brown (2%)
    * 1988 - Dick Gephardt (31%) defeated Paul Simon (27%), Michael Dukakis (22%) and Bruce Babbitt (6%)
    * 1984 - Walter Mondale (49%) defeated Gary Hart (17%), George McGovern (10%), Alan Cranston (7%), John Glenn (4%), Rueben Askew (3%) and Jesse Jackson (2%)
    * 1980 - Jimmy Carter (59%) defeated Ted Kennedy (31%)
    * 1976 - "Uncommitted" (37%) defeated Jimmy Carter* (28%) Birch Bayh (13%), Fred Harris (10%), Morris Udall (6%), Sargent Shriver (3%) and Henry Jackson (1%)
    * 1972 - Edmund Muskie (36%) defeated George McGovern (23%), Hubert Humphrey (2%), Eugene McCarthy (1%), Shirley Chisholm (1%) and Henry Jackson (1%)

[edit] Republicans

   * 2004- George W. Bush* (unopposed)
    * 2000- George W. Bush* (41%) defeated Steve Forbes (30%), Alan Keyes (14%), Gary Bauer (9%), John McCain (5%) and Orrin Hatch (1%)
    * 1996- Bob Dole (26%) defeated Pat Buchanan (23%), Lamar Alexander (18%), Steve Forbes (10%), Phil Gramm (9%), Alan Keyes (7%), Richard Lugar (4%) and Maurice Taylor (1%)
    * 1992- George H. W. Bush (unopposed)
    * 1988- Bob Dole (37%) defeated Pat Robertson (25%), George H. W. Bush* (19%), Jack Kemp (11%) and Pete DuPont (7%)
    * 1984- Ronald Reagan* (unopposed)
    * 1980- George H. W. Bush (32%) defeated Ronald Reagan* (30%), Howard Baker (15%), John Connally (9%), Phil Crane (7%), John B. Anderson (4%) and Bob Dole (2%)
    * 1976- Gerald Ford defeated Ronald Reagan


BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog
by robliberal on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 01:11:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards and Obama Lead Dems in Iowa (3.00 / 1)

Great point.  I hadn't thought about that.

That said, I stand by saying that if she runs in Iowa, it'll unite the anti-Hillary folks behind Edwards and help build buzz around him not only in Iowa, but elsewhere.  


Help build a stronger and more progressive Democratic Party from the grassroots on up
by Peter from WI on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 12:28:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards and Obama Lead Dems in Iowa (none / 0)

Iowa will depend to a great extent whether Clinton will make a stand there as Dean tried to do. I think it could end up like this.


IOWA
  1. Edwards
  2. Clinton
  3. Obama
  4. Vilsack

With no caucus history Nevada is hard to read at this point but I think it might look like this.


NEVADA
  1. Richardson
  2. Edwards
  3. Clinton
  4. Obama

I think Clinton and Obama might both make their first big stand in New Hampshire. If both did it would lessen the impact of Iowa and Nevada.


NEW HAMPSHIRE
  1. Clinton
  2. Obama
  3. Edwards

I think South Carolina will be a surprise if Obama emerges as a viable candidate for the long run. I think it might look like this.


SOUTH CAROLINA
  1. Clinton
  2. Edwards or Obama

I think it is possible Obama could squeeze out a 2nd over Edwards. After South Carolina the primaries will favor Clinton and Obama and they will likely start a series of primaries where they will finish 1st and 2nd.

Edwards will have the same problem he had in 2004 with Clark in the race starting with New Hampshire. Obama will draw enough votes to keep him from competing with Clinton
which will put him in a tough spot to find a state he can win. In 2004 both Edwards and Clark could not find a state to make a stand and each only won one primary.


BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog
by robliberal on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 01:08:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

no way will Clinton be second in Iowa (3.00 / 1)

No chance. I seriously doubt she could even come in third.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 01:41:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: no way will Clinton be second in Iowa (none / 0)

I think it will depend on whether Obama can continue the momentum and if he can translate all of it into caucus votes in Iowa and if Clinton makes a major effort in Iowa. If the combination of Vilsack and Obama in the race makes it appear to be a regional contest as was the case with Gephardt and Harkin in the past Clinton, Biden, Dodd, Richardson, etc. may not be as active in Iowa.


BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog
by robliberal on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 01:49:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I think Clinton was counting on Vilsack. (3.00 / 1)

I think she was planning on blaming Vilsack for making Iowa non-competitive. It doesn't look like that's going to work.


John Edwards 2008
by MeanBoneII on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 02:56:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards and Obama Lead Dems in Iowa (none / 0)

If Obama is still in the running for the nomination by the time South Carolina rolls around, there will be history making African American turnout and many newly registered voters.

My guess would be Obama, Edwards, Clinton in SC in that case.


Visit DebateScoop
by demondeac on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 01:44:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards and Obama Lead Dems in Iowa (none / 0)

I think Edwards will likely finish 3rd in New Hampshire and Clinton and Obama will come into South Carolina with the momentum. If Clinton has the support of many of major black leaders and organizations and Obama draws enough votes it may be a 3 way race where any of the 3 could potentially win but Clinton might have the edge because of the money and organization factor.


BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog
by robliberal on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 01:54:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama draws more support away from Hillary. (3.00 / 1)

Since June, and Obama's entrance into the Iowa polls, Hillary has really tanked there, strongly indicating an overlap in their potential supporters that does not favor her. Clinton has dropped from 26% to 10%. Edwards' losses to Obama are much smaller, from 30% to 22%.

I think likely finishes for the first four states would be:

IOWA
  1. Edwards
  2. Obama
  3. Vilsack
  4. Clinton

This would put a serious dent in the notion that Hillary can win over middle America's voters. While Nevada is hard to guess, labor appears likely to play an important role.

NEVADA
  1. Edwards
  2. Obama
  3. Richardson
  4. Clinton

Now Clinton would be in serious trouble, obviously. She probably still has the money to compete, but she really needs to get a win after two unimpressive finishes. New Hampshire's coming up and likes to reverse things, so she has a chance, but at this point there's already another option.

NEW HAMPSHIRE
  1. Obama
  2. Edwards
  3. Clinton

Now it's looking like a two-candidate race, unless Clinton can finally get a win in South Carolina. Unfortunately, Edwards is from there and she's splitting the African-American vote with another candidate.

South CAROLINA
  1. Edwards
  2. Obama
  3. Clinton

After four states, this would clearly be a two-candidate race. Without a win, Clinton would go into Super Tuesday with no momentum and essentially be out of the race.


John Edwards 2008
by MeanBoneII on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 05:12:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama draws more support away from Hillary. (none / 0)

NO......


by vamonticello on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 08:47:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama draws more support away from Hillary. (none / 0)

But with her warchest she doesn't need momentum going into Feb. That's the thing about the primary schedule, if you've got cash you can stay in the race.

All she needs to do is to state publically that Jan is going to be a tough month for her and that she'll come good in Feb.


by kundalini on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 05:07:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So her excuse for not being able to compete... (3.00 / 1)

...in early states will be what? I don't think "I've got a big bank account" is going to make up for "I can't convince regular people to vote for me."


John Edwards 2008
by MeanBoneII on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 05:13:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So her excuse for not being able to compete... (none / 0)

Each candidate plays well in some states and less well in others. It's an expectations game. Edwards practically lives in Iowa so of course he is going to perform well there. Each candidate makes their own choices about how best to use their resources.

I can't see the point in burning money on Iowa and New Hampshire when they are not her natural territory.


by kundalini on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 05:24:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So her excuse for not being able to compete... (none / 0)

Iowa is more difficult but I think she will do well in New Hampshire. I think she also has the potential to do well in South Carolina if Obama seriously cuts into the votes of Edwards. Clinton and Obama will likely have enough money to outlast Edwards and any others going into February as they go into the more expensive media markets.


BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog
by robliberal on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 05:57:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

There's a whole year. No reason she can't... (none / 0)

...come and compete, unless she thinks she can't make her case to everyday voters without a huge financial advantage.


John Edwards 2008
by MeanBoneII on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 08:52:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There's a whole year. No reason she can't... (none / 0)

If you are in the Edwards camp you want the race to be decided in Iowa. If you are in the HRC camp you sense that the first four look very difficult and you want to downplay the significance of Jan.

Nothing about "real people". If the schedule for Jan was New York, New Jersey, California, Arkansas then no doubt Edwards and Obama would be attempting to downplay the significance of the first four, knowing that HRC was highly likely to win all of them.

As it is the schedule is a gift to Edwards and the others have to adapt accordingly.


by kundalini on Sat Dec 23, 2006 at 10:04:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The presumptive front-runner... (none / 0)

...who is constantly receiving massive media attention should be able to compete everywhere and not have to cherry-pick contests. Unless, of course, that front-runner status is nothing more than a media creation.


John Edwards 2008
by MeanBoneII on Sat Dec 23, 2006 at 02:36:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The presumptive front-runner... (none / 0)

Is front-runner status always a media creation?


by justinh on Sat Dec 23, 2006 at 02:53:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sometimes there's a lot of fairy dust involved. (none / 0)

Interesting to see what happens when someone gets as much media love as Hillary has received. She's gone from 26% in June's Iowa Poll down to 10% now.


John Edwards 2008
by MeanBoneII on Sat Dec 23, 2006 at 03:14:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

My guess is, she doesn't see much value in (none / 0)

Iowa!

Sad isn't it.


Check out the New Progressive Blog EENRBLOG
by dk2 on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 08:06:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards and Obama Lead Dems in Iowa (none / 0)

My Predictions:


Iowa:
   1.[I don't know who will win!]

Simply too early too tell


Nevada:
   1.[Whoever wins Iowa]  

Thanks to election dates that are too close and our 24 hour media.


New Hampshire
   1.[Whoever comes in second in Nevada]
   2.[First place in Nevada will be second]

This would just be a big F.U. to Nevada for stealing some of their thunder.


South Carolina
   1.[Whoever comes in second in New Hampshire]
   2.[First place in New Hampshire will be second]

Because they hate agreeing with Northern Elite Yankees

From this point whoever wins South Carolina will win the nomination because they'll be seen as being "Southern Friendly", and the Democratic Party has become overly obsessive with the South.

[/snark]


by maddogg on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 11:01:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards and Obama Lead Dems in Iowa (none / 0)

If Edwards or Obama win the primary, I'll probably vote Democrat in 2008.  Can't say for sure, because I have some respect for McCain for sticking it to Bush when it collided with his principles.

If it's Hillary, though... well, that's a pill I'll have trouble swallowing.  She's a nanny-stater.  She wants to treat violent video games "the same way we treat alcohol and tobacco."

I think I'd rather have McCain than a nanny-stater.


"Truth good, truthiness bad."
by CartesianDoubt on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 04:34:20 AM EST

Escalating Iraq OK, vidgame ratings unacceptable (3.00 / 1)

I so do not get your priorities.


by curtadams on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 09:51:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Purely speculation by all. (none / 0)

There is no crystal ball in this, everyone is just plain old guessing!

Good luck to all.

Some still may decide not to run and that may include Hillary!


Check out the New Progressive Blog EENRBLOG
by dk2 on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 09:11:59 AM EST

Re: Edwards and Obama Lead Dems in Iowa (3.00 / 2)

Good news for Obama - shows the buzz might be real.
Good news for Edwards - tied despite Obama buzz and hardly a mention in the media (all Clinton v Obama).
Bad news for Hillary - don't see how she gets past third place at best.
Bad news for Vilsack - why is he even bothering. The stalking horse for Hillary theory might be real.
by conspiracy on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 10:27:16 AM EST

Re: Edwards and Obama Lead Dems in Iowa (none / 0)

Just guessing. I say down with the caucus system. Chummy neighbors around a table debate the merits of candidates? Nope, I don't buy that homespun fantasy. Just as I think we citizens are grown up enough now to be rid of electors, we are grown up enough to go vote in a primary. Go vote or vote by mail. I despise both systems as undemocratic and immature.


by mrobinsong on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 11:53:30 AM EST

Re:America Not Ready for Black President (none / 0)

As much as Barack Obama would be an awesome candidate if he gets the nomination, I honestly believe that White America is Not Ready for a Black President.

I don't even think the democratic party as a whole is ready to nominate a Black person for President. Are progressive/Liberal White democrats ready? Yes, I believe the overwhelming majority of Liberals/Progressive Whites are. No doubt about it.

But unfortunately, Progressive/Liberal are Not the Majority of Dem primary voters at the national level. It is still middle america white voters who will ultimately determine the nominee of the democratic party. It will also be middle america white americans in the general election of will ultimately tip the winner in the general election.

As a nation, we have yet to even break the glass ceiling of electing a woman President. We have yet to even get over religious bias in electing a President. With the exception of the only Catholic President in john Kennedy (with the smallest of margins under questionable vote counting in Chicago), the religious ceiling has been in place throughout history.

And without a doubt, a person's race, (especially blacks ) still gets the most prejudice from society compared to sex or religious bias.

So to expect voters as a whole to somehow see the light & open their narrow views & bias to electing a Black man in 2008 ( even 2012) maybe be close to wishful thinking.

If we want to do the right thing, feel good & try to break barriers & symbols- Yes, the right thing is to support Obama all the way if you think he is the best candidate. And if he gets the Dem nomination, we should all support him 100%.

But please, let's not fool ourselves through positive thinking & hope. It will be very difficult to elect him at this time. There is still significant enough number of Whites in America who are not ready for that.

P.S. The problem with racial Prejudice today is it is such a taboo & private matter, that most people will never admit to it. You would have to be really good friends with someone for that person to candidly admit his or her bias on voting for a Black or Hispanic person for President. Many will even pretend that they have no problem with any race.

Try doing an experiment. I've asked good friends if they think america would vote for a black man for president in 2008. The response I got was very different when I spoke to a white democrat with more liberal views compared to a White Independent, a White Republican, or to a more moderate/conservative democrat. Even asked  couple of white voters who were really not into politics at all but do vote.

With the exception of the Liberal democratic friends, the rest of co-workers & friends privately expressed very strong doubts & reservations that white americans as a whole would vote for a Black man if it was for the Presidency.

This is just like affirmative action programs. It was intended to help racial minorities & women. What ended up happening is the biggest beneficiary of Corporate Affirmative Action were White Women. Every study shows that the biggest beneficiary of affirmative action in hiring & promoting to Sr.Management were White women. Blacks & other minorities were a distant second.

Unfortunately, racial bias is still alive & well in parts of america. There is a significant enough population that will make a difference in any national election.

It will certainly reduce the battleground states if Obama is the nominee.


by livyoga on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 12:12:50 PM EST

One thing that will be interesting... (none / 0)

...to see, assuming Obama runs, is to what degree his caucus results measure up to his polling numbers.


John Edwards 2008
by MeanBoneII on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 01:35:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One thing that will be interesting... (none / 0)

I don't think there would be much of an effect on caucus results, since those are public and open. The supposed effect would be on primaries.

I don't think there will be an effect.


Further Reading
by Dave Sund on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 04:38:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

A couple of potential issues. (none / 0)

Concentrated support is worse than spread-out support in a caucus.

There will be many caucus precincts where there is not a single minority in the entire place.


John Edwards 2008
by MeanBoneII on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 05:07:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

How about a more experienced candidate? (none / 0)

Do Democrats really expect to win with a one term senator, whether it be Obama, or Edwards, or Clinton (1.3 terms)?  We're talking about an election for President of the United States, not Chief Spokesperson.

I don't necessarily like them any better, but Bill Richardson and Wesley Clark are significantly more accomplished individuals.  Mike Gravel's record in the Senate is more accomplished than those of Clinton, Obama, and Edwards -- combined.  (Too bad he is too old to attract many votes.)

If Giuliani or McCain somehow win the Republican nomination, do Democrats really want to run an empty suit against them?


by Lex on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 02:15:52 PM EST

Re: How about a more experienced candidate? (none / 0)

Equivalent argument in 1998.

Do Republicans seriously expect to win with a former alcoholic and drug addict governor from a state where the governor has no power and who dodged the service in Vietnam to fly in the champagne league? Vice President Gore is a significantly more accomplished individual. Do Republicans really want to run an empty cowboy hat against him?


by adamterando on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 03:12:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How about a more experienced candidate? (none / 0)

It worked because Karl Rove cast him as a "war hero".


BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog
by robliberal on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 03:21:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How about a more experienced candidate? (none / 0)

In my opinion Clark, Clinton, and Richardson would have the most high ranking experience in government as it would relate to being president.

Clinton's resume is much longer than one term in the Senate. Hers goes back some 36 years to the 1970's in both government and the private sector. She had significant accomplishments as First Lady of Arkansas and of the United States and was one of the 100 top lawyers in the United States. One of her biggest accomplishments as First Lady was the CHIPS program which provides healthcare coverage to millions of children from families who do not have health insurance in all 50 states.

Edwards was a top lawyer before being in the Senate.

Clark also has 30+ years of experience in the government including a number of high ranking positions.

Richardson has 30+ years of experience in a variety of positions including Congress, Cabinet, Ambassador, and as Governor.

The only candidates who potentially would be vulnerable on the experience issue are Obama and to some extent Edwards. Everyone else in the race have solid resumes going back 30 years or more which would match any potential GOP nominee.


BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog
by robliberal on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 03:20:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How about a more experienced candidate? (3.00 / 0)

From a purely political standpoint, to what extent does experience really matter with the voters?  Afterall, the "more experienced" candidate doesn't always win.  Moreover, where is the threshhold between "experienced" and "inexperienced"?    


by justinh on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 03:31:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How about a more experienced candidate? (none / 0)

In a national security environment voters will not elect a candidate with little or no experience in a general election especially if the GOP and their friends the media run on that issue.


BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog
by robliberal on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 05:53:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Wes Clark Christmas Card (none / 0)

Wes Clark's Christmas card offered no clues on future plans.

http://robwire.com/?q=node/1559


BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog
by robliberal on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 03:30:16 PM EST

Re: Edwards and Obama Lead Dems in Iowa (3.00 / 0)

There is something no one is taking into concideration.  Everyone talks about Hillary's organization and how Edwards has boots and again underestimates Obama.
He has Axlerod working for him who is great in organizing and getting results.
He has the backing of the Daley machine which is full of people available to work for him
Not to mention that he came from the world of chicago politics which is not for the faint hearted.
Iowa is next door.  If he runs he will go visiting the neighbors and they will be welcoming to an almost favorite son.  
He is passionate about health care and was instrumental in getting kids under 18 covered here in Illinois.  Iowa is aware of this.
Don't let his youth and sweet looks lull you into thinking he is a lightweight who can be easily derailed.
Hillary and the right are afraid of him for a reason.
by vwcat on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 10:59:53 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.