This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on January 4, 2008 11:46 AM. The previous post in this blog was Do you see what they see?. The next post in this blog is Dead Coloradans, prepare to vote. Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Friday, January 4, 2008

The day after Des Moines

It's a pretty amazing moment. An African-American guy with a Muslim name just won the Iowa caucuses. Think about it.

I worry about his chances in November if he makes it that far. But hey, if the Republicans are going to run Huckabee, my worry level goes waaaaaay down.

In any event, it's gratifying to see a large cloud placed over the Clintons' dreams of resumed control over the White House, which they exploited for their personal financial gain. If Hillary isn't the next President, she'll be out of politics in two years. She could care less about... what's that state she's supposed to be representing in the Senate?

The saddest note is that barring a miracle, it ain't gonna be Johnny Edwards. The guy speaks the truth to power -- about economic inequality, about the military-industrial complex, about Iraq. But if he couldn't make that fly in Iowa, where he's basically been living for a long time, it's hard to see him doing so on a shoestring budget in the other key states. Nope, it's either B.O. or Hillary -- a big win for corporate America, and it's still only New Year's week.

Comments (39)

I got a press pass and covered the Obama speech here - and filmed it in high def in case it was historic. It was okay but I was much more impressed with Obama's victory speech in Iowa last night. That came out like the sentences were carved in marble somewhere. He has grown mighty on the trail. As far as the racial thing, individuals who are judged by the content of their character can succeed with any group in America, and that was the dream all along, wasn't it? For example, I'm sure plenty of racists were won over by Michael Jordan - how could they not be? But forget the racial comparisons. When it comes to star power in this political race, Obama is Elvis. And Huckabee just seems like some square from 1958 who's about to get rocked.

I'm a little worried that this Elvis had some of the same bad habits that the old one did. And Hill isn't going to go down without scratching his eyes out.

Edwards has been running a tremendous campaign. I hope he continues his upward trajectory. Either way, here's hoping the President ends up being a person that the people have elected.


I'd say any of the 3 wins, but Hillary or Edwards squeek out a close race (unless it is Huckabee or Guiliani, then any Dem with a pulse wins a landslide)

But check out the youth vote that Obama turned out! Every 4 years the Dems talk about getting the youth turnout up and it never materializes. Obama got a huge increase in the under 30 voters to turnout, for a Caucus, in January, in Iowa!

If he can maintain that he wins the general election in a landslide, and all those under 30 voters will help elect a lot of down ticket Dems. Say what you want about hillary or Edwards but I don't see either of them getting the youth turnout. Edwards should have had a similar appeal, but somehow he never really took that mantle and ran with it. His only real support now is the traditional union base, since he is low on money I think NH and SC wins by Obama pretty much finish him, and the bulk of his support should go Obama's way.

I'm a little worried that this Elvis had some of the same bad habits that the old one did.

If Hillary freaking Clinton can't make that one stick (and she tried again today), how in the hell will the Republicans?

I love you, Jack, but you're living in 1968.

It would be a pity to think we can have a brain-damaged drunk in the WH but not a healthy, qualified person with a history of youthful indiscretion.

Why are you counting Edwards out? Just curious.

Edwards has been campaigning in Iowa pretty much since 2004 and he barely managed 2nd, he is way short on funds, Obama should win in NH and SC, if Edwards doesn't finish a strong 2nd in them he is done.

He is in a tough spot, Obama has taken over the mantle as the outsider to take out the Hillary machine. Edwards now has to pivot and convince the Hillary supporters that he is the best establishment choice, pretty tough since it counters his entire message to date. Plus it probably sends a lot if his current supporters to Obama.

I sure missed this speech by Edwards in your blog. But I did find it on his web page and maybe it's just a face to hide the loss, but it is indeed a great speech with optimism. I hope New Hampshire turns around for him. Just maybe Obama will pick up the main jest of this conversation on Corporate greed and what they are doing to lower and middle class citizens.

That should have been gist not jest...no joking matter.

Business Week is making a round house-like projection that Mayor Bloomberg enters the race after early February, stealing votes from the Dems in November. Crusty old McCain picks up the pieces and wins the White House. Of course, I can't tell if McCain isn't an old style democrat, and maybe he would also be a type of win for the Dems. But at least we'd get to see the wicked witch of New York melt away (for at least awhile).

P.S I'm glad Edwards' chances are hurt. Only an ambulance chasing lawyer could like this guy.


You give away your biases if you think the very conservative McCain is any form of Democrat.

Who Bloomberg would pull voters from depends on who the candidates are, if Huckabee is the GOP nominee a bunch of non southern, fiscally conservative, socially moderate republicans will flock to a Bloomberg option.

You 'Obama-ites' are wish-casting. If you think that he would blow out any Republican contender simply because he is charismatic, you are ignoring both his detrimental trates and history. I know you are all still engroped in the Obama love-fest....but wait and see how he's polling after he's six months into the General Election campaign - provided he gets that far. Sooner or later he will have to start speaking in specifics rather than grand vision.

I turned 40 last year. And it just occured to me that I have never yet had the chance to fill out a ballot for President that didn't have either "Bush" or "Clinton" on it.

I'm ready for something different.

This is just the start of a marathon - and I think things will take some serious turns over the next few weeks. The Republican primaries will likely be more interesting that the Democratic ones, but that could all change quickly in New Hampshire and South Carolina. I just hate hearing predictions that are counting people out because of Iowa. It gives a lot of credence to reformulating the whole primary system. Wouldn't it be nice to start in states like New York and California, which represent such a huge chunk of the the national economy?

Chris you got it right - "Jack, you are living in 1968" and Bob - "only an ambulance chasing lawyer could like this guy." How true! Can't you see through the Edwards rhetoric? He's a demagogue. Its so tired and hollow and disingenuous. The class warfare lingo is disgusting, but I guess, so nostalgic! "Corporate greed", etc. etc. I'll take anyone but Edwards and that includes Huckabee.

detrimental trates and history

And sooner or later you Coulter-ites will have to have to start talking in specifics rather than code. The B. Hussein Obama / Islamic Manchurian candidate / coke addict stuff is not going to derail him.

I'll say it again, the Clinton machine has done its best to bring him down and has yet to succeed. In fact, the harder they attack, the worse they look and the stronger he becomes. If the Clintons can't damage him, who can?

Yeah, anytime you point out the appalling direction of income distribution in this country or how corporations have been buying elections, it's "class warfare."

Who has the tired rhetoric?

wouldn't it be nice if there were more choices than "Republican" or "Democrat", "conservative" and "liberal"?

the system is (partly) broken. *that* is the problem.

If the Clintons can't damage him, who can?

I don't know about damaging him, but defeating him in the general election should be fairly easy. Don't confuse sibling rivalry with war.

I don't think we "Coulter-ites" will have much trouble.

...not to call anyone names, of course.

The challenge for Obama - or any other Democrat for that matter - is how to win states that Bush won twice. The margin for any Democrat is thin - there are very few states actually in play regardless of who gets the nomination. Any reasonable Republican choice - and Huckabee may even be one - has one foot in the White House. No Democrat candidate for President has received even as much as 50 percent of the vote since 1976.

Mr. Snethen,

For the record, I despise Coulter equally as much as I do similar hacks like Michael Moore.

My point was that this is the first 25 meters of a Marathon and some of you are already anointing him the winner....or at least professing your love and allegiance to someone no one really knows much about at all as a politician - much less a President.

His victory speech that "came out like the sentences were carved in marble" (sorry Bill) may go down in history as Obama's "Mission Accomplished" moment.

The challenge for Obama - or any other Democrat for that matter - is how to win states that Bush won twice.

no, the challenge is to win more electoral votes. it doesn't matter if the states voted for Bush or not.

The margin for any Democrat is thin - there are very few states actually in play regardless of who gets the nomination.

can you offer some proof of that? because the consensus is, in fact, that many states are "in play."

Any reasonable Republican choice - and Huckabee may even be one - has one foot in the White House.

i'm not seeing a bit of logic or information that supports that. got any?

No Democrat candidate for President has received even as much as 50 percent of the vote since 1976.

percentage of popular vote doesn't have much to do with getting elected. for example, a half-million more Americans voted for Gore in 2000--but got Bush.

We actually do know a specific about Obama: He opposed the Iraq War at a time when the Clinton/Kerry types were playing it safe.
And as for annointing him the winner, your tactic of arguing against something that wasn't said, is as tired and lame in 2008 as it was last year.
But I should be kind to you. The Crawford Messiah and Daddy Cheney will be leaving us soon and your world must be shattered.
I was impressed by Laura Ingram's take on Iowa. At least she has the brains to know when she should be worried.

I was impressed by Laura Ingram's take on Iowa. At least she has the brains to know when she should be worried.

Better stick to your sophisticated name calling, Bill - it's Laura Ingraham.



Spelling complaints: the last refuge of the intellectually bankrupt. As Andrew Johnson said, it's a poor mind that can only think of one way to spell a word.

OK, may have said. It could have happened.

Bill - good to hear from you. (you need to open 'freelancer' back up so we don't waste Jack's space ;-) )

Anyway, as for Obama and the "a specific" we know about him....well, you just qualified every member of the Baath Party and Code Pink to be President. Good to know where you standards are.

Now come on Bill.....we need more FREELANCER!!! (at least until the strike ends?)

I worry about his chances in November if he makes it that far. But hey, if the Republicans are going to run Huckabee, my worry level goes waaaaaay down.

I think you're right to worry about Obama's chances if he makes it to the general. I saw his victory speech, and while he is certainly a gifted orator, I found it anything but inspiring. But then I'm not exactly pining for a Democratic victory in November, and if I had to choose a D for the office I'd probably take Hillary over any of the others.

But what I'm really puzzled about is this overwhelming commentary among the "progressive" community (and sympathizers) today that Huckabee would lose to "any Dem with a pulse" (or "a ham sandwich", as I've seen elsewhere).

I watched Huckabee's victory speech last night, too. Of the two, I was far more impressed with his. Not because I think he's necessarily a better candidate (dude's got some seriously whacked policy ideas) but because he comes across as so much more genuine than Obama. And with much of the electorate, across much of the country, genuine actually plays regardless of policy specifics. I think the Democrats are in for a major shock if they continue to expect Huckabee to be a cakewalk.

Of course, Huckabee is still a long shot to make the nomination anyway. But I think at this point, absent Bloomberg entering the race, he's probably got the broadest general appeal of all the Republicans. He could actually be pretty tough to beat in November.

It's certainly not true that "any reasonable Republican choice has one foot in the White House"... but neither is that true for any reasonable Democratic choice.

Thanks for the kind words, but just what I've done on this post breaks 3 of my New Year's Resolutions.

I see it as kabuki with interchangeable undifferentiated actors -- none of them is different. And the ones who might be -- Gravel, Kucinich, Paul -- are barred entry by the theatre owners. (btw, there's an item about Ron Paul supporters dumping FUXNews stock and crashing the stock price, in retaliation for blacklisting the candidate from appearing.)

The scripted dance from Iowa to the conventions is so completely going-thru-the-motions substantiating nothing, and the impression I take is that none of them believe distinction matters, (or all of them believe it doesn't, whichever way you want to word it), either, whether because it's all pre-determined (rigged), or because coming to the surface are plans for (rigged) events that 'rationalize' cancelling Election Day.

That last point has some presaging signs in evidence. Mainly, Nine-Eleven Op was a (rigged) sweeping plan point in between installing Dubya (which is why that outcome had to be 'brute forced' in 2000) and instituting democracy overthrow for dictatorial authority, (Patriot Act, Exec. Orders, castration of Congress, and ancillary, 2002 and continuing). Invading Iraq to seize oil was also (like Nine-Eleven Op) in the prepared plan set in motion before 2000, but timing for such military invasion would pend instituting dictatorial control. All prescripted. (The 'public' profile of the script is the subversive PNAC's "Defense Review" white paper, directing implementing GHWB's notorious 'New World Order.' etc. etc. All the data points there are to integrate can't be contained in a Comment.)

And the pre-script continues to run, toward nullifying Dubya's departure -- hell, no, he ain't goin'. Reverse engineering (previous) from that eventuality, means voiding Election Day, somehow. By Orders actually in effect today, he can exercise the power to directly declare Election Day void, and that's that, no legal action can be brought against that declaration. But I anticipate some (rigged) event kabuki'ed up as provocating 'cause' for declaring democracy's charter void. By the Nine-Eleven Op demostration, a mass-murder event is not off the table, not out of the question.

(Of course, as long as a self-blinded one refuses to attend the premise of Nine-Eleven as pre-set staged domestic-traumatizing shock, then any pattern it is part in, can never be seen in one's view.)

So that's one impression of Iowa -- kabuki ka-nothing -- which no other voice has spoken: Election Day ain't happenin'. In that perspective, there is seen an understanding of why the entire GOP panel of ragtag fringe no-accounts, (why isn't Cheney running? McConnell? Jeb? Schwartzenegger? -- the mainstays?), is because the wackos on rightist display are the ones who didn't get the memo. (Read: rigged.)

If Hillary isn't the next President, she'll be out of politics in two years.

Not to mention out of her marriage. (But then again an argument could be made that the Clinton marriage has been broken up for years.)

why isn't Cheney running? McConnell? Jeb? Schwartzenegger?

I'll hazard some guesses: Cheney isn't in it because his work here is finished. Also, he is much more effective at pulling the strings when he is able to lurk in the shadows. Plus I think he'll be dead before the end of the next president's first term. (Or is that wishful thinking??)

Jeb's out for now because George the Dumber has ruined the family name. Jeb may attempt a comeback in the future. After all, Americans have a short memory and attention span and he's owed one for covering up the trail to the '911 hijackers' (or at least those whose faces and names appeared after the attacks) who trained to fly at Rudi Deckers' flight school in Florida.

Schwarzenegger (sp?) will have to wait for a constitutional amendment before running for president.

My interest is not any particular names, and it is slightly unconvincing that if I was to list seriously, certain specific names, that one-by-one there'd be different 'logical' excuses until the whole list's absence is an innocent coincidental occurrence.

What about the (other) recognized-name "mainstays" of the GOP persuasion? Well, like Bloomberg -- so noticeable in his absence that rumors of his appearance breed in the vacuum. Or, any 'others'? A large truth is I don't even know their names, scattered all throughout the bureaucracy, from Congress to kangaroo Justice. Yet massmind media promotes them publicly as characters of 'right' principles, frontmen and figureheads ... ignoring that the principle (ideology) they front for is fascism. Why aren't they standing for inspection, and election, if they know so darn much about how government should be run?

A second thought came to me after posting my earlier comment: About Rudy G. In his presence is maintained the emphatic exploitation and burning-hate agitation of the Nine-Eleven Op meme sound-biting. The thought was that Rudy G. is additional evidence reinforcing my squinting view that sees the continuous shaped profile of a 10-year (or longer) "sweeping plan," in which the 2000 phony election, Nine-Eleven Op, autocratic sabotage of America's constitutional law, and war-crime invasions for oil -- to name four points, there are more -- and suggesting more (a fifth point, Nine-Eleven redux) to come ... in the future ... this year, before Election Day. Rudy stimulates the 'shock effect' of Nine-Eleven on the massmind, and that keeps everyone zombied in the (fairytale) narrative, ('fighting there, so we're not fighting here, because 'they' are boogiemen coming to GET you and beat you up ... and pillage your village').

Late add. Go figure:

Bill O'Reilly Roughs Up Obama Aide, Forced Back by Secret Service at New Hampshire Event, ASSOCIATED PRESS, January 5, 2008

NASHUA, N.H. (AP) -- ... hard to miss. O'Reilly is about 6-feet-5-inches tall. Nicholson is 6-feet-8-inches tall.

''I told him, 'Sir, I would appreciate it if you wouldn't shove me anymore.' He called me 'low class.' He was pretty upset,'' Nicholson said.

Secret Service agents assigned to protect Obama ordered O'Reilly back behind the barricade.

O'Reilly says he has videotape of the whole thing, and will air it on Monday night....But I'm guessing that Tenskey has Channel 48 on parental block.

Short version: O'Reilly does admit shoving the dude who was trying to block the Factor's camera, and called him "an S.O.B.", BUT ADAMANTLY DENIES any Secret Service involvement. In fact, O'Reilly says he got an on camera exchange with Obamarama just a few minutes later.

I BOYCOTT Cable TV and recommend that others BOYCOTT Cable TV, both satellite and wired deliveries. I ended my addiction, (I used to produce video and my productions have been broadcast nationwide on PBS and ABC -- truly, familiarity does breed contempt), and I encourage everyone who recognizes being addicted, to get clean.

Here's what I watch 'about and on' massmind TV media: Media Matters (dot ORG), and for example, showing how the massmind media the day after Des Moines portrayed events with false and contorted information:

Friday, January 4, 2008
Fox News graphic: "Rudov: Clinton's 'nagging voice' is reason she lost male vote"
Russert called Huckabee's foreign policy message "anti-George W. Bush" despite Huckabee's claim to the contrary
LA Times' Malcolm misrepresented sourcing for Novak column on Clinton campaign
MSNBC's Hall aired negative McCain ad, ignored his day-old assertion that "negative campaigns don't work"
Another Giuliani interview, another failure to disclose Hannity's reported appearance at Giuliani fundraiser
Morris claimed Huckabee's "refusal to indulge in negative advertising ... show[ed] his strength under fire" -- after deriding his actions on anti-Romney ad as "stupid"
NPR's Jaffe falsely claimed "Iowa never played a role in [Giuliani's] strategy"
O'Reilly falsely claimed "Obama has dodged every tough interview"
CNN's Bennett: "Barack Hussein Obama ... has taught the black community you don't have to act like Jesse Jackson ... like Al Sharpton"
Print media uncritically quoted McCain claim that "negative campaigns don't work," ignored his own negative ads

O'Reilly says he has videotape of the whole thing, and will air it on Monday night...BUT ADAMANTLY DENIES any Secret Service involvement.

Sure, and O'Reilly is an incredibly reliable source.

But wow, the photos say different!


Stop watching cable? You gotta be kidding. Network news sucks.

As far as the cattle future's queen is concerned, the more people see her the more they begin to see the scheming pile of spit she is. Cackle, Cackle, Cackle.

Clicky Web Analytics