Politics – ABC News projects that Illinois Sen. Barack Obama will be the winner of the Iowa Democratic caucuses. At this point ABC News does not have enough information yet to project who will come in second or third.
I just got back from the caucus. At my location more than 50% were for Obama. It was my first time--interesting experience to be sure.
Projections estimated that 220,588 Democrats showed up on a cold midwinter's night, shattering the previous mark of 124,000.
Turnout was also up on the Republican side, where projections showed about 114,000 people taking part. The last previous contested Republican caucuses in 2000 drew 87,666 participants.
These are the correct figures, not the ones quoted in this abc news account.
This is GREAT for the political process in general and BRILLIANT for the Democrats, especially for Obama, of course. People only show up if there's a buzz and if they're excited by something and this is the evidence.
The other excellent indication for the Democrats - and specifically for Obama - is that it was the theme of CHANGE that excited people; there was that single word on the posters - not even a sound bite long but potent as heck..
'In the Democratic race, "change" played a huge factor รข;; 51 percent said the most important attribute for them in a candidate is one who can bring needed change'.
This will be the biggest bogey for the Republicans, none of whom offers anything but the same-old, apart from no-hoper Ron Paul.
CHANGE means a change from GWB, Republicans, old politics, divisiveness - doesn't everyone KNOW that deep in their heart??
When did the left and the black caucus attack him? I think this is rush and making something small into a big deal so he could keep it on the air. I heard them do something like this a while back. There were a minor few remarks made between hillary and Obama and they played it for a week about who is attacking who and trying to make it seem like a fight. They know as long as they can hype a fight that will help keep the news of real screwups by their own people off the air. Either that or rush took too much oxycontin again.
Obama's accomplishment is impressive. A very junior senator, black, virtually unknown outside of Illinois--yet he defeated the best-financed Democratic candidate in memory, a candidate who was presented as "the inevitable choice" of her party.
Impressive, yes... for someone completely unqualified to be president.
"A very junior senator" --- not exactly a description of the leader of the free world.
"a very junior senator"
That description worked rather well for Harry Truman, didn't it? In terms of accomplishment, it also worked for Kennedy.
Your response sounds like sour grapes.
"A very junior senator" --- not exactly a description of the leader of the free world.
"The governor of Texas" --- not exactly a description of the leader of the free world
How about a Governor of Arkansas?
Same difference.
Sorry - my mind was blank for a second..
Bill Clinton WAS different. With his weaknesses and self-destructiveness it was perhaps TOO easy to see the human being inside.
I can't think of one single significant player in the whole Bush cabal that I would class as fully human - though certainly not devoid of faults.
Mostly of all I feel sorry for poor Laura..
Clinton at least has a brain... Rhodes Scholar...
He's also quite the cigar aficionado. I bet he made an A in the 'natural' humidor class.
Do you deride your Republican politicians with similar penchants for cheating on their spouses? If so that's great.
we just never see you guys take them to task - only Clinton. Smells of hypocrisy to me.
Yes we do,,,, Newt is gone,,,, so is the guy that was gonna take his place,,,,, the guy last year that was after pages,,, gone,,, Craig should have been but he pulled a Dem and refused to go.
Fine, but you (editorially speaking) only rail about Clinton. He's been out of office for 7 years. Why can't you let it go? Beating that dead horse only makes you look foolish.
BTW, what's up with that ******monger in LA? Have you run him out of office yet?
Let me explain how that works. When you on your side talk smack about the sitting president, we in response have to compare apples to apples and Clinton was your last sitting president, no matter how long ago it was.
I do find it amusing that we always here the ole why are you talking about Clinton it was soooooooo long ago in one breath the a few posts later you are discussing McCarthy. JE Hoover, Truman, Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush I. But that's ok we should always discuss the past in politics, that's how we try and not repeat the same mistakes over and over again. The only catch is, you have to talk about the past of both parties for it to work, not just the Republican's past as it's done on this site.
Slate, you are dodging the issue again. And quite weekly I might add.
I don't talk about Ford, Nixon, Reagan, Elder Bush the way I do about your hero. In fact I don't talk about them much at all. But I'm only speaking for myself. I do believe you put Harry Truman in the wrong company by the way.
I would gladdy see any one of them as President rather then the corrupt, incompetent crook in office now. You still haven't explained the right wing fascination with Clinton. In case you are still unaware of it people with your mental block are a decided minority. Clinton, for many, represents the good old days.
I explained it well,,,,,, thanks,,,,, you just choose to not listen,,,,,, soooooooo are you saying that your side doesn't talk about the right's past? Hmmmmm maybe you missed the 5-6 threads doing so in the last two weeks?
Can you HONESTLY say that you won't bring up Bush after next January and into the future when we talk about a sitting Dem pressident??
BTW, talking about being fasinated with Billy,,, the Dems are willing to allow his wife the position of President just cuz she shares Billies bed and not her qualifications,,,,,
Slate, I didn't miss your "explanation". You don't have one that makes sense. The sooner I forget about Bush the better. We (the nation and the world) will be discussing his horrid legacy for years to come - because we will still be negatively affected by his administration's actions.
Also, my "side" doesn't put thoughts in my head or words in my mouth. You may be surprised to know that on 9-11 I sent an email to the White House offering my support for the President and prayed he would find and punish our enemies. He lost me when he attacked Iraq.
Your argument, that you talk about Clinton because Democrats talk about Bush, is probably the most childish thing I've heard yet. It sounds like a 7 year old being called on the carpet whose explanation is "Biiiilly did it tooo".
Not a member? Sign-up today!
pyuuuke
ind06
TalSiach
totalmania
Hantam
ShadowX
cosmogenium
Ratskii
xnovo
studentambassador
flyonthewallzz
Rigel
Cristian710
NoWayMan
harveyditak
Sock_Puppet
HowardGeddinge
zaph22
Reynolds156
Ciera Marie
RodrigoWhitaker
maninthemiddle
PoldieWhite
KonomiKamida
dirtyfratboy
Teech
Eagle Eye
prevajanje
Nerdflood
namecritic
jeromeleash
rachieko
Dlaster
engineer
not2needy
idyll
magoo2
NelsonR
Londi
spkguy
dexlovex2
bS3arch
Wolfie2007
ringlen837
Itachirumon
schristoforides
Fedquip
dstargel
RussianThreats
hyartep
229)
Mine too.
probably mine too. But for me, I just got a gut feeling but Hillary scared me.Too socialistic I think.
sorry, meant to give a positive vote.
What would be interesting is that if he did become the Democratic nominee, how Republicans will react to him.
The oil companies are gonna spend BILLIONS, not millions, BILLIONS to smear, slander, and discredit this man with all the money, power, and evil they can muster. And thanks to the Bushtapo, they've got the bucks to do it! The Repuke slime balls will do their part, also. You will hear and see things that will make you sick, and Americans will sit in front of the tube drinking, burping, farting, scraching....and believing every thing the media feeds them. When they get torn away from Cops or American Idol.
It's gonna be the ugliest campaign in American history.
"It's gonna be the ugliest campaign in American history."
That's the scariest thing I've heard yet. I like Obama. Right now he's got my vote. I think he's great and this country electing a black President will open lots of eyes the world over. America will look like it is growing up as a nation.
I don't know about ugliest. I don't know how the republicans got away with some of the things they have done. Who actually falls for their crap. I mean when a draft dodger challenges the patriotism of a vietnam vet who was tortured but stayed with his troops to support them when he was offered a chance to leave? Or worse who can listen to someone who skipped the war with a "bad knee" attack the patriotism of a triple amputee vet who was no knees left to be bad? I think they are going to play both sides of the race card. For their southern base they are going to play on the fact that his dad was black and his mom was white. They love agitating with the black man/white woman deal. Funny they never play it with the white man/black woman. At the same time they will point out that is only half black and attck him for not being black enough whenever anyone refers to him as black.
If hillary wins the dem nod then it will be the ugliest campaign in american history because the right simply hate hate hates her and all the dark forces will unite in money and power to defeat her, whatever it takes.
if obama wins it won't be that ugly but there's still the fear of some racist power brokers and oil execs getting together in a dark room with the bush's and cheney's and rove's of the world and deciding to have obama assassinated.
he's the person the old guard righties and haters are really afraid of because he represents real change. he represents a new america, an america that wants nothing to do with the likes of the bush family.
How about an Obama/Hillary ticket! Now, that will certainly unleash hell!
Big oil, big pharm, HMOs, racist cons, religious right.....the scum of the scum will rise to the occasion. Those are five of the darkest forces I can think of.
hillary might be a good vice president. the left's answer to dick cheney.
What would be interesting is that if he did become the Democratic nominee, how Republicans will react to him.
We'll most likely vote against him, not because of his color but for his views,,,,,, if he loses will you call us all racists because we voted against him?
Some will. Others will just call you a Republican.
I wasn't referring to the actual votes for or against him but the temper of the campaigns against him. I have no clue how that will go but I just thought it would be interesting to find out. The post I was referencing sort of called Democrats racist in their campaign against Obama. I was just wondering how a Republican campaign against Obama would go. I can't call anybody a racist just for their vote as numerous factors go into that decision...including party loyalty regardless of the opponent.
If we criticize George Bush, will you call us unpatriotic?
I'm basing my "madame Mao" attitude on what I know. Example-Leaders of both parties calling her health care proposal a "disaster."
I want the race to thin out more before I make a final judgement on Obamas "socialism."
But I agree with everything you say about "hillary and co."
I think this country is just getting tired of the saying anything to win mentality, but so far, at least I get the gut feeling that what Obama says he believes in.
Well, Obama and Hillary have basically the same policy positions. Obama, to many represents an end to partisan bickering, and an attempt to rise above the mundane politics of partisanship. We'll see how that plays out, Apparently, it's a powerful message, since many people are tired of the endless fighting, and would like the see the government get things done. They sent that message in 06, and it wasn't heeded. So, Obama is the 08 message, change the way you do business in DC.
Personally, I don't believe conservative Republicans will heed that message. They certainly didn't in 06. I think they will dig in their heels and fight an even meaner fight than before. Obama will need a landslide, a mandate to be effective. If the independents and moderates and swing voters support him he may get that mandate.
I agree with the "partisan bickering" issue, but sadly in my many years of voting I don't remember an election where this wasn't an issue and many ran on "change" in Washington
That's true, there have been many "change" candidates, and not much changing in DC. I remember Bill Clinton going to DC as a new President thinking he could charm, cajole, and bargain with Congress the way he did with the Arkansas legislature. He sure got a rude awakening.
I'm all for a woman president just not her! We've had 4 years of a Bush followed by 8 years of a Clinton followed by 8 years of another damn Bush. I want this Dynasty to end, we need a new blood line!
I am still worried that this is the republicans doing. I think they are voting for the guy they think they can bet...
I will wait and see, but he received votes across the board young old DEMS AND GOP votes.
Again i am wondering if this is not just a big con job on the American people by the right.
GOP votes? How is that possible?
Well republicans who decided they like him voted for him, they can do that you know.
Used to be called "crossfiling". Register in a primary for the other party and vote for who you think can be beaten.
In the general election, all candidates are on the ballot, so you can vote for whom you really want.
Don't worry, Obama is not a trick. They want hillary. For fun listen to some republicon radio. Even though Obama won the primary the first thing the host I heard was to start bashing hillary. Hannity calls his show the "defeat hillary express". Its like they stole another page out of Orwell's 1984 with the 2 minute hate. They already have so much hate invested in beating hillary that if she didn't become the candidate they would all feel like they got dumped on valentines day.
They probably did get dumped on Valentine's Day. Why do you think they are such bitter, mean spirited ass holes?