Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

January 3, 2008
By: Kevin Drum

ON THE COUCH AGAIN....It's funny how sometimes you have to wait and see how you actually react to something to know how you're going to react to something. I've been sort of fitfully supporting Hillary Clinton for the past few months, but I have to say that I don't feel any disappointment tonight over her loss. Just the opposite, in fact. My arguments against Obama have mostly been fairly abstract ones, but emotionally I'm as susceptible to the famous Obama charm as anyone. And the idea of a young, charismatic, black guy as our next president is pretty damn inspiring. Just sayin'.

Kevin Drum 11:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (165)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Alright, whatever Kevin. Joined the next president a little late, but you don't get away that easy. But whatever, glad you're on board.

Posted by: Boorring on January 3, 2008 at 11:33 PM | PERMALINK

Yes...and what impact may this have on the rioters in Keyna?

Posted by: Monzie on January 3, 2008 at 11:34 PM | PERMALINK

Obama is just alright with me,
Obama is just alright, oh yeah,
Obama is just alright with me,
Obama is just alright....

I don't care what people say .. . .

Posted by: sally on January 3, 2008 at 11:35 PM | PERMALINK

Couldn't have said it better myself, Mr. Drum.

Posted by: mkultra on January 3, 2008 at 11:36 PM | PERMALINK

If only he weren't a young, chariasmatic, naive (see Krugman) black man, I'd be happy about it too.

Posted by: Hieronymus Braintree on January 3, 2008 at 11:39 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, not a supporter of Obama, but I congratulate him for his victory. With his recent attacks on universal health care mandates, unions, and trial lawyers, I think he's already doing a good job of running to the middle in order to win the general election. I still disagree with his dovish foreign policy, but a merger of his domestic policies and Hillary's hawkish foreign policies would be a great match up.

Posted by: Al on January 3, 2008 at 11:42 PM | PERMALINK

Well, the Obama bandwagon could use a Drum ;)

Posted by: Me2d on January 3, 2008 at 11:45 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, are you sure it's not the bandwagon effect you're feeeling? It's nicer to be with a winner - is this perhaps why you were with Clinton before (she was hands-down favorite before) and are now switching to Obama after his Iowa win?

Posted by: PeterB on January 3, 2008 at 11:48 PM | PERMALINK

I've been leaning back and forth between Edwards and Clinton, and I found myself really happy that Obama won.

I still really like Edwards, and would be fine if he got the nomination. But Obama mojo is infectious.

Posted by: Royko on January 3, 2008 at 11:50 PM | PERMALINK

I love Al. He's so clever, dropping in how Obama's hatred of all that is good and holy in the world makes him happy for the success of his campaign. And how, though he wishes Obama was as much a Arab-hating militarist as Hillary, he still is heartened by the results. It's so good that you're commenting to help America pick the best next president, Al!

Posted by: Zephyrus on January 3, 2008 at 11:51 PM | PERMALINK

Welcome aboard the Obama train, Kevin. Glad to have you.

Posted by: lux on January 3, 2008 at 11:55 PM | PERMALINK

I must say, as a right-leaning independent, that was one great speech. He knows how to strike a common emotional cord and was a least partially responsible for an impressive turnout. So does the Hillster go strongly negative now or after New Hampshire?

Posted by: BK on January 3, 2008 at 11:55 PM | PERMALINK

Two good things about Obama:

1. None of his electoral votes would come from the old south. His administration would owe the Christianists nothing.

2. Electing Obama would be a very loud signal to the rest of the world that the U.S. is turning its back on the Dubya years. We might even earn some respect back, eventually.

Posted by: jimBOB on January 3, 2008 at 11:56 PM | PERMALINK

Pat Robertson and Bob Gephardt won Iowa one year. How'd that work out for them?

Posted by: Dave Johnson on January 3, 2008 at 11:58 PM | PERMALINK

If Obama can infect Drum, the world is no problem.

This Obama guy is special. I've been saying it for years. Its the kind of person you only get once a generation, and I don't blame people for being skeptical because there are so many frauds out there. But at some point the reality just hits you upside the head. I'm cynical as hell in general but watching Obama give his speech I would have jumped out of my chair and marched through the streets if thats what he asked for.

Posted by: nathan on January 3, 2008 at 11:59 PM | PERMALINK

obama is an authentic leader.

think about where he has come from and what he has accomplished. not through money, lineage or family... he is the real thing.... fucking awsome!

Posted by: larry on January 4, 2008 at 12:03 AM | PERMALINK

1) Edwards and Obama best on "least likely to kill foreigners in unprovoked wars".

2) Hillary and Edwards best on health care.

3) Obama most likely to lose to a non-insane Republican, if one exists.

4) Hillary second most likely to lose.

5) Edwards has a hokey accent (c'mon, I'm from the south, the drawl is an exaggeration).

6) Hillary would be great, since she's a woman (ceteris paribus).

7) Obama would be great, as a (half) black guy, ceteris paribus.

8) Hillary allying herself with the "liberal" hawks is almost unforgivable. She's be my pick without having done that. The AEI, NYT, TNR, Washington Post, Brookings, etc., have picked her as the best candidate to continue their war against Arabs. I have to guess whether her sucking up to these neo-cons is just for favorable treatment in the press or for donations, or if she literally IS a hawk. And since killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people makes potential healthcare reform seem petty, she loses my vote.

Posted by: luci on January 4, 2008 at 12:04 AM | PERMALINK

Whoever the next president is, he or she had better have a damn good Cabinet and executive team. There's a whole lot of mess to clean up.

So there's the concern - if Obama wins the nomination, and the Presidency, who is the Team? I would expect that within the first six months of any new administration, China or Russia will pull a stunt to create an international incident (remember the spy plane collision with the Chinese fighter in early 2001) to test the readiness of a new American leader. This was always the most compelling point about Hillary, that she would bring in the old Clinton stable and "be ready on day one". This is not to imply that I favored Clinton, I didn't.

These little tics that Obama displays, like repeating the Republican talking points ("Social Security crisis") bothers me, because it indicates a lack of critical thinking. It's going to be very important for the next president to evaluate policy options carefully and set priorities with a realistic frame of mind vis-a-vis what he or she can achieve legislatively, especially given the Republicans track record.

Obama's "greenness" is my biggest worry.

Posted by: Greg in FL on January 4, 2008 at 12:05 AM | PERMALINK

Obama's team, especially on foreign policy, is a good mix of experience (some old Clinton hands) and provocative "new" thinkers (like Samantha Power). I think he's the best Dem behind Biden on foreign policy (and don't think Biden wouldn't be a possible SecState in an Obama administration).

Posted by: Mike P on January 4, 2008 at 12:15 AM | PERMALINK

I will vote for and support the Democratic nominee.

But, I don't feel comfortable about Obama for at least a few reasons. First -- Donnie McClurkin in SC (I am an open lesbian). Second -- please don't forget he beat Alan Keyes in the senate race (Alan Keyes!). Third -- the calculated "non-votes" when he had the opportunity to take stands on important issues. Fourth -- as pointed out above he's on record with some right-wing talking points ("Social Security Crisis")(uh... Medicare?). Sure, he's charming. Sure, he gives a good speech. Sure, he's "positioning himself". I haven't seen a leader yet. And, I haven't seen a leader who will fight back against the no-holds-barred Republican slime machine that we know is coming. I hope I'm wrong.

Posted by: Kak on January 4, 2008 at 12:17 AM | PERMALINK

Perhaps a lot of potential supporters didn't quite believe it was possible, and the amazing turnout tonight tells you it is. Welcome aboard.

Posted by: Colin on January 4, 2008 at 12:18 AM | PERMALINK

"And the idea of a young, charismatic, black guy as our next president is pretty damn inspiring."

Half a hurray for Barack (not a Muslim) H. (really not a Muslim) Obama (very much a Christian).

Sorry Kevin, the "liberal" blogosphere protests too much that Barry ain't a Muslim.

On substantive issues, Edwards is the man.

Posted by: RS on January 4, 2008 at 12:28 AM | PERMALINK

As Howard Dean might have put it--I do wish he'd represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.

Posted by: Orange on January 4, 2008 at 12:36 AM | PERMALINK

FWIW, I still have all the same issues with Obama that I've had all along. But all I can say is that on a gut level I felt pretty happy to see him win. I don't know why. Maybe it's just the bandwagon, or maybe I just got sucked in by his speech. Who knows?

This has happened to me before. I've had other occasions where I'll construct intellectual arguments for one thing or another, but when the time comes to make a decision I suddenly change my mind. I don't know if this is one of those cases, but it might be.

Posted by: Kevin Drum on January 4, 2008 at 12:40 AM | PERMALINK

Maybe it's because he's a Democrat, he won tonight and ultimately any of the Democratic candidates would be better than what we've had the past eight years?

Posted by: Quinn on January 4, 2008 at 12:46 AM | PERMALINK

I've been waiting 7 long years for someone to give the speech Obama gave tonight. Anybody could have done it, but he nailed it. Thank Zeus he did. He may not get there, and he may disappoint us if he does, but at least he laid it out there for us to hear.

Posted by: hollywood on January 4, 2008 at 12:50 AM | PERMALINK

I am with you in a lot of ways, Kevin. I have been on the fence (I like all the Dems pretty much), but the feeling I have tonight is unexpected relief and joy. Real joy, the kind we Dems don't get to experience often. I'll give it a few days to see if it's real, but it feels awfully good.

Posted by: qarll on January 4, 2008 at 12:51 AM | PERMALINK

"any of the Democratic candidates would be better than what we've had the past eight years?"

He ain't John Kerry. And his wife looks fabulous. What's not to like?

Posted by: enozinho on January 4, 2008 at 12:52 AM | PERMALINK

Obama graduated Harvard Law as president of the Law Review. He went on to be a civil rights lawyer and teach constitutional law at University of Chicago. After Bush it would be nice to have a president who knows the constitution well enough to teach it at University of Chicago. He beat a big Democratic field including machine candidates and much better financed outsiders in the 2004 primary. He won 64% of the vote in DuPage County, which the local Republican machine likes to brag is the most Republican county in the country when Kerry only pulled 47%. My own Republican congresswomen Judy Biggert alluded to me that she herself voted for him. Kirk Dillard my Republican state senator, former DuPage County Repub chairman and McCain supporter actually appeared in a campaign ad for Obama.

Obama is the real deal and has been his whole life. He wasn't a sunny optimist 4 years ago who morphed into a fire breathing populist today. He doesn't say one thing to a group of supporters on an Iowa campus and another to a group in a New York boardroom. What you see is what you get. You want the huge mandate it'll take to get real change? Obama is your candidate.

Posted by: markg8 on January 4, 2008 at 12:52 AM | PERMALINK

Geez, Huckabee and Obama.

Those Iowa caucus voters really can pick 'em, can't they?

Posted by: frankly0 on January 4, 2008 at 12:54 AM | PERMALINK

Though they had plenty of opportunities, both sides picked candidates that did not vote for the Iraq war.

Posted by: Boronx on January 4, 2008 at 12:56 AM | PERMALINK

Quinn: Maybe it's because he's a Democrat

He is? Then how come his positions are Republican-Lite? Edwards actually sounds like a Democrat, but at least the chosen Republican-Lite isn't the one that's a mindless hawk and related to a former president.

ultimately any of the Democratic candidates would be better than what we've had the past eight years

As would Mickey Mouse. Please, raise the bar.

Posted by: alex on January 4, 2008 at 12:58 AM | PERMALINK

both sides picked candidates that did not vote for the Iraq war.

Yeah, because they both did not HAVE a vote for or against the war, right?

Really, both sides chose the most naive, inexperienced candidates available.

Truly a proud moment for democracy.

Posted by: frankly0 on January 4, 2008 at 12:59 AM | PERMALINK

Hey I blogged about my experience caucusing tonight in Iowa over at WTWC. It's a pretty human look at the caucus process.

Posted by: Henry Wallace on January 4, 2008 at 1:01 AM | PERMALINK

I have to say that I was surprised by the results in my precinct tonight. Over 200 people showed up, and half joined the Obama group. My wife and several other Republicans joined us. I respect Paul Krugman's opinions of the relative merits of the Edwards and Obama health plans, but I'm not sure the minor policy details make much of a difference when it comes time to check your gut and make a final decision. I've had a chance to see Obama in Iowa City and Cedar Rapids, and you just feel fired up leaving the pep rally. He may not be a left-leaning fighter, but you do get the impression he can bring people together to achieve change. He seems like a leader who can bring out the best in America, and it's been a long time since we've seen our country at its best.

Posted by: Elliott in IA on January 4, 2008 at 1:04 AM | PERMALINK

I'm glad you decided not to miss the opportunity after all.

Posted by: mr insensitive on January 4, 2008 at 1:10 AM | PERMALINK

As I've expressed elsewhere... Hope is good. Change is good.

But what are we hoping for? What kind of change are we talking about? I can't think of a single thing Obama's proposed that's bolder than what Edwards or Clinton have, and in many cases, he's been more cautious.

Unless he means that Barack Obama himself represents hope and change, I don't see what's underneath all that soaring rhetoric.

Posted by: Orange on January 4, 2008 at 1:14 AM | PERMALINK

Orange, you're right that Obama's positions may not be as progressive as Clinton's or Edwards', but that's in the details. I've got his 60-page "Blueprint for Change" booklet, and it has all the standard Democratic platform stuff - healthcare reform, trade reform, energy independence, greenhouse gas reduction, etc. His goals to get the troops out of Iraq are not as ambitious as Richardson's (16 months vs. immediate). I'm just saying that getting someone in there who can advance the Democratic agenda is the main thing, and I don't want to spend the next 11 months hearing about Edwards' expensive haircuts. I think Obama has an electability factor that can't be ignored.

Posted by: Elliott in IA on January 4, 2008 at 1:29 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin, instead of voting for a young black man, you can vote for a youngish black woman and real change.

Cynthia McKinney may well get the Green nomination. And, since I'm likely to vote Green....

Posted by: SocraticGadfly on January 4, 2008 at 1:30 AM | PERMALINK

Obama, like Clinton and Edwards, has no plan to get all the troops out on a definite timetable. His plan, like theirs, has caveats.

Posted by: SocraticGadfly on January 4, 2008 at 1:34 AM | PERMALINK

When people call Obama inexperienced, are they comparing him to Biden or Richardson or Dodd? Fair enough then, but Edwards and Clinton don't seem to have much on him. What are their enormous acheivements aside from casting a vote for war which they now regret (my mistake, Hillary doesn't).

Or is it meant that Obama is politically inexperienced? Again, compared to Biden or Richardson that is fair criticism, but Obama has competed in and won far more political contests than either Clinton or Edwards, including this one last night. He has been doing it for a longer period as well.

He has won Iowa, and if he loses New Hampshire it will probably be by only a hair. The man knows how to turn out voters, he's even better at it than the person married to Bill Clinton. He can probably win nationally, against the God Guy or the Money Guy or one of the Perpetual Warfare Guys. Any of them seperately or all combined together into the ugliest Voltron imaginable. Go Barack!

Posted by: sweaty guy on January 4, 2008 at 1:40 AM | PERMALINK

Elliott in IA: I see what you mean. I guess I worry that while Obama is a mainstream Democrat in many ways, once in office, he'll shy away from confrontation to get things passed. We all know there will have to be big fights to get anything done no matter who the next president is.

If Obama runs on a platform of cooperation with Republicans, and runs against universal health care in the primaries, calls labor unions "special interests", and doesn't make a case for standard liberal policies while campaigning, he won't have the political mandate to get these things done even after he wins. Bush pulled a bait-and-switch, but I don't think that's Obama's plan.

Posted by: Orange on January 4, 2008 at 1:40 AM | PERMALINK

On substantive issues, Edwards is the man.
Posted by: RS on January 4, 2008 at 12:28 AM | PERMALINK

By sentiments exactly.

I stopped listening to radio and tv many, many months ago -- choosing instead to obtain news through print and online media. Obama's charisma has lessened in that span. My opinion of Clinton has remained about the same (very cautious, wary), and my opinion of Edwards has improved measurably. I am not advocating refraining from actually seeing someone speak or listening to them – observing mannerisms communicates much. But it has been an interesting (and somehow more dispassionate) experience.

If Edwards is truly on his way out – I think it is a shame. And I have been absolutely disgusted by the media roping off the race to just two contenders. Irresponsible.

Posted by: E Henry Thripshaw on January 4, 2008 at 1:40 AM | PERMALINK

Obama's never done anything nearly as obnoxious as the manner in which George W. Bush made his fortune (abusive eminent domain and taxpayer subsidies), or how John Edwards made a good chunk of his (making false claims to juries regarding the cause of cerebral palsy), so he wouldn't enter the White House with the distorted view of the world which often accompanies such methods of fortune attainment. That really is a positive attribute.

On the other hand, he has no record of achievement to speak of as an executive overseeing a massive bureaucracy. Of course, the only guy who does is Romney, who has proven to be a transparently phony politician. They are all phony politicians, of course, but to be so transparent is to be really inept. So much for ol' Mitt.

Out of this crowd, why not Obama? The swooning that ostensible adults engage in over a politician is a little embarassing, however, especially when it is due to his skin color.

Posted by: Will Allen on January 4, 2008 at 1:41 AM | PERMALINK

Serving for decades in the U.S. Senate provides about as much meaningful experience for being a good President of the United States as being a food critic for decades would provide useful experience for running a chain of several thousand restaurants. Les Aspin was a wonderful Congressman, specializing in military affairs, for decades. He sucked as Secretary of Defense. If you are going to elect a Senator to the Presidency, you may as well elect one who has been there one term as one who has been there for four terms.

Posted by: Will Allen on January 4, 2008 at 1:50 AM | PERMALINK

obama makes me long for the continuation of the bush/cheney regime.

he is an even worse murderous asshole.

just you watch


Posted by: albertchampion on January 4, 2008 at 1:50 AM | PERMALINK

>>obama makes me long for the continuation of the bush/cheney regime.

Yeah, I heard he is secretly a Muslim and lived in a "Madrassa," too. And, you know, he's black. And many Americans just aren't ready to have a negro in the White House. So, I can see why you called him a "muderous asshole," Hillary.

This is why Hillary will lose. Even Kevin is jumping ship at the drop of a hat....

Posted by: Orson on January 4, 2008 at 2:04 AM | PERMALINK

Ah good to see the old Will Allen back and pretending that he hated the way George W. Bush made all his money. Of course, that didn't stop Will from voting for Bush - twice. Over far more competent candidates who didn't make their money from corrupt land deals. But that's what we get told is "independence." Knowing that your candidate has no experience nor any hope of competence and still voting for him the first time, then when the inexperience and incompetence have led to the deaths of thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of non-Americans - voting for him again.

Hey Will "I'm a proud Bush voter and will stand by my vote for the worst possible candidate in two elections running" Allen, why do you think your ability to pick the least competent person available gives you any special insight into a competent field like the ones the Democrats have?

Posted by: noel on January 4, 2008 at 2:13 AM | PERMALINK

I've been anticipating an Obama win for awhile, now I'm hoping for dumping my conservative rep. and major dem gains in congress. That Iowa turn out with all those new and young voters is fantastic. Hope your conversion sticks and others bloggers soon see the light as well. The 2008 election has landslide potential.

Posted by: noexpert on January 4, 2008 at 2:26 AM | PERMALINK

and I don't want to spend the next 11 months hearing about Edwards' expensive haircuts.

And really, I am sick and tired of people enabling the right wing slime machine by basing their decisions on the fact that they don't want to hear right wing and the media whine about a particular candidate. You may have valid reasons to support Obama, but this is not a valid reason not to support Edwards. And if you don't think that the slime machine is going to come up with a sleazy line of attack against Obama that is going to make you sick for the next 11 months, you've got another think coming.

Posted by: AnotherBruce on January 4, 2008 at 2:28 AM | PERMALINK

Not really convinced yet -- although I'm glad to see him win big if for no other reason than to dispel all the crap about race being a negative.

I knew he was good at speechifying for years. What I'd like to see is a good issue based town hall performance or a debate performance where it's obvious he can think on his toes. Maybe someone can send me a youtube link.

I have no idea how effective he'll be as a president. Wasn't particularly impressed with his senate career. I remember a few times he got played by Lieberman/McCain and the rest felt like a presidential campaign.

I think he very well might have the best chance (among the dems) of being elected in November. But this opinion is based more on the shallowness of the electoral process (and media) than anything else.

For the record I'm a Gore/Dean supporter who was against Hillary entering the race. Hillary has grown on me and the universal negative treatment she gets has me asking those questions I used to dismiss out of hand about our attitude toward female politicians. It's out of my hands and I'll vote for any Dem in November.

Posted by: B on January 4, 2008 at 2:54 AM | PERMALINK

I don't want to sound overly prescient, but I saw this coming the first time I saw Obama, before the convention speech in 04. I immediately recognized a man who would be president one day.

I just didn't realize how soon. I figured Kerry for 8 years, then Obama, by then a seasoned senator, would take over.

Now I want to go watch that speech everyone's talking about.

Posted by: KathyF on January 4, 2008 at 2:54 AM | PERMALINK

If nominated, Obama will almost surely win the presidency. But my feeling is that he will not get much accomplished. And that's too bad since this country desperately needs universal healthcare.

I sure hope that my pessimism is misplaced.

Posted by: ppk on January 4, 2008 at 3:29 AM | PERMALINK

I'm not ready to jump on the Obama bandwagon. But if he's ultimately the nominee, I will wholeheartedly support the collective choice of my fellow Democrats, and will be ready to fight like hell for him. Nuf ced.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on January 4, 2008 at 3:37 AM | PERMALINK

Donald, you are reading my mind again. All I can do is concur. Nuf ced.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on January 4, 2008 at 4:59 AM | PERMALINK

I have felt cynical and jaded about the Democratic frontrunners from the beginning of this sorry election cycle. None of the frontrunners seems to me to be credible. . Barack Obama has a lot of charm, a good line of patter, and little else that I can see. Madam Clinton is arrogant, seems to have taken the Karl Rove model of campaigning for her own, and is owned by the corporatocracy to boot – it’s their interests she has at heart, not the American people’s. John Edwards looked promising for awhile, but made a couple of blunders that made me really question his judgment. I think Sen. Dodd would have made a good president, but the media has been so bent on cramming Hillary and Obama down our throats that he has gotten almost no coverage.

Barack Obama does seem to have a remarkable organization behind him. I think, however, when the Republican nasty campaigning and dirty tricks go into full swing, he will not be prepared for the accusations of drug use, drug dealing, slurs on his religious background, etc., that have already started swirling – thanks primarily to the Clinton campaign. As John Kerry failed to respond adequately to Swift Boating four years ago, Obama will be forced into a defensive position and mowed down by the same kind of ugliness.

I'm thinking that if Bloomberg/Hagel decide to run, I may vote for them.

Posted by: Helena Montana on January 4, 2008 at 5:05 AM | PERMALINK

Gawd, Kevin, now you're doing it too. Oh, Barack is So charismatic. Let's make him president! I expected better from you. Most of the stuff that I read about the man talks about his charisma, his eloquence. And it's true. He's inspiring when you listen to him.

But what about his record? I did read the piece about him in the WM, and it is one of the few pieces to critically examine his record. Most of the stuff written about him might have been written by cheerleaders. Blech. How about more substance in the media(general media) and fewer fluff pieces????

Posted by: Susan on January 4, 2008 at 6:12 AM | PERMALINK

Helena Montana: "I'm thinking that if Bloomberg/Hagel decide to run, I may vote for them."

And I'm thinking that maybe you should travel to Norman, OK this weekend, where NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg is meeting with Univ. of Oklahoma Pres. David Boren, Sen. Chuck Hagel and other so-called moderate politicians, and tell them in person that perhaps you'll give them your endorsement of such a ticket, and maybe you might tell others of your decision -- that is, if you decide to do it.

I bet they'll be so inspired by your lukewarm gesture that maybe they'll immediately announce that they're perhaps considering the formation of a new political party that might hold promise for people like yourself, who just can't bring yourselves to vote for any of the other candidates because of your persistent and nonsensical trafficking in public misinformation about those candidates to the point that you publicly delude yourselves into complete political paralysis.

After all, you and your fellow members of the National Caucus of Political Invertebrates probably deserve each other. Maybe.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on January 4, 2008 at 6:22 AM | PERMALINK

It's all over folks. It's gonna be an Obama snowball. From now till November, ups and downs included.

Posted by: Fel on January 4, 2008 at 6:29 AM | PERMALINK

General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker better start burning the midnight oil, because that show is coming to an end.

Posted by: bob h on January 4, 2008 at 6:47 AM | PERMALINK

I agree with Fel. I don't like it, but it's Obama all the way now.

Posted by: pol on January 4, 2008 at 7:01 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin - you've drank the Kool aid too? First of all, how is it the guy is black? His mother is white - she doesn't count? More likely a 'black' Obama appeals to liberals need to feel good about what wonderful people they are even though my hard drinking foul mouthed Irish grandmother is more black than this guy. More importantly though - McCain comes out the winner of Iowa because of Romney's fall and if you think Obama's thin resume and left wing anti-war rhetoric is going to trump McCain's resume and foreign policy heft come election time then you are definitely fooling yourself. Most important of all though - the most frightening person in America today is Oprah and if you kool aid drinking simpletons somehow carry Obama to the White House and thus empower that witch to an even greater degree - my god, the evil that will be unleashed will sicken the heart and mind to an extent that maybe not even a president Huckabee could achieve.

Posted by: goosenut on January 4, 2008 at 7:36 AM | PERMALINK

Huckabee and Obama. The country is in deep trouble.

Posted by: Chrissy on January 4, 2008 at 7:45 AM | PERMALINK

I've been sort of fitfully supporting Hillary Clinton for the past few months, but I have to say that I don't feel any disappointment tonight over her loss.

Thank God that disgraceful right-wing shill has finally been kicked to the curb. The era of Clinton government is over, and not a moment too soon.

Posted by: moron on January 4, 2008 at 7:58 AM | PERMALINK

When you break down Obama's voter numbers, like Wolf did on CNN - that you had to notice that only 18% of adults voted for Obama. Sorry Kevin, that makes Obama a flash in the pan. He was the kid's candidate. Obama generated the young vote - but that is not enough. He failed to appeal to adults. And the reason why - he talks coporate first policies - just like Bush, corporates first - American people nowhere at all, and that wasn't lost on adult voters, who want real change. These are the voters that make and break elections and the only ones that count.

That's why Edwards is set the take the lead. Because Edwards is the real deal and Obama isn't really offering health care, is edge over to corporations what to raid American's social security. Obama is a sell out and isn't the non-corporate candidate and that is what has all the adults worried. Kids are easily mis-lead but adult voters want real actions, real change and Obama isn't offer real change.

On Huckabee, Josh Marshall was very much wrong about this comment:

On Iowa Josh says: Huckabee was in many ways on his very best terrain. Perhaps the peculiarities of caucusing helped Obama. But his victory strikes me as much more portable outside the state than Huckabee's.

--Josh Marshall

You can't listen to Broder and Brooks - they don't speak for conservative voters anymore and haven't for a long time - indeed the conservative pundits have NEVER been more out of touch with conservative voters than they are now. Conservative voters KNEW that Bush was horribly dishonest and all the bad talk about Clinton won't help Repug pundits sale Bushism because it is now officially a dead religion. As it turns out, conservative votes wanted the real deal - an honest conservative - not a criminal one, so conservative voters went back to their roots, the only thing left tp do in complete corrupt party - a badly needed return to ethics. Remember than in 2004 - the values voters were what supposedly gave Bush his win. The fact that Bush is nothing but an out-right criminal wasn't lost on mainsteam conservative voters. Broder and Brooks don't represent conservative voters, they represent Bushism and all things Bush. Tonight Iowa showed that Bushism is a dead religion practiced by Bushism pundits who pine for the glory days of Bushism and can't get over it.

That is why Huckabee's talked about putting hate away - Huckabee is talking about Rovism and Bush hate, because Bushism is all about hating liberals or anyone that disagreed with him. Bush was not a uniter, he was a divider, and Bush talked GOD but he certainly never applied any true Christian values to anything he ever did or said. So Broder, Brooks, Klein and NRO, The Weekly Standard can go right on hating most of Americans in true Bushism style, and certainly they will continue to do Murdock's will, however, conservative voters have moved on. Repub pundits better learn to like Huckabee alot because he is not going away.

Neo-conservatives are now meaningless radicals once again. Broder, Brooks and NRO are meanlingless pundits, who talking to themselves, because the conservative voter aren't reading them.

And

Posted by: me-again on January 4, 2008 at 8:02 AM | PERMALINK

He is? Then how come his positions are Republican-Lite? Edwards actually sounds like a Democrat, but at least the chosen Republican-Lite isn't the one that's a mindless hawk and related to a former president.

Just because some people think that there is a shortfall in Social Security doesn't mean they want to sign up for the Bush privatization plan. Neither do they believe it's right to mandate that people purchase health insurance, which is a baffling position to me since it plays right into the hands of Republicans who would easily shoot it down while also making it appear that Dems are out to stick it to low to low-middle income families. Yes, it's possible to still be a Democrat and have those positions.

As would Mickey Mouse. Please, raise the bar.

The bar has been raised considerably, IMO.


Posted by: Quinn on January 4, 2008 at 8:08 AM | PERMALINK

Great to see all the rats jumping off the Hillary ship this am! Welcome aboard.

Posted by: Ed on January 4, 2008 at 8:37 AM | PERMALINK

Bleagh! My LAST choice for a Democratic nominee. I feel like all those Republicans crossed over to the Dem caucuses and threw the votes to Obama, some with cynical calculations, and some with more idealistic motivations. Maybe he'll start running to the left now, or governing (god forbid) to the left. But I think he has found that appealing to Republicans is how he can win open Democratic primaries, so I would expect more of the same from him going forward.

On the bright side, the massive (OK, let's make that historically large) turnout for the Democrats in the most Republican of all states makes me think the R's will get slaughtered in November. If it was the other way around the R's would be smelling blood and acting accordingly. Unfortunately the Democrat instincts seem to be the opposite. Come on Harry, Barack, Nancy and company! Act like vertebrates and not worms!

Posted by: jussumbody on January 4, 2008 at 8:54 AM | PERMALINK

My gosh, there seems to be a collective case of the "vapors" around here. I would suggest you all freshen your panty shields, take a deep breath, and get some perspective. The Iowa caucuses are not totally insignificant, but it's a long way from there to the White House. Why don't you wait a few weeks before you get out the annointing oil.

Posted by: BillyBob on January 4, 2008 at 8:57 AM | PERMALINK

Me-again said "He was the kid's candidate. Obama generated the young vote - but that is not enough.

Apparently, it may be. Iowa's median age is marginally above the national average. If all he needed was the kids to win as big as he did there, he really just needs to keep up the good work in the primaries. And to hang on to those women voters as well.

Posted by: Obama's corporate masters, mwah. on January 4, 2008 at 9:07 AM | PERMALINK

1. Has it occured to anyone here that the lip service Obama pays to right wing frames is the liberal version of "compassionate conservatism"? In other words - it disarms the opposition and gets hims elected.

2. If Bloomberg runs it will be because Big Money doesn't have a standard bearer in the race. Don't expect progressive policies from a Patrician financial services billionare. Big Money is scared - Huckabee terrifies them. They are being kicked out of the republican coalition and they don't have a home now.

Posted by: Adam on January 4, 2008 at 9:08 AM | PERMALINK

I wish we could stop mentioning that he is "black."

Posted by: illume on January 4, 2008 at 9:11 AM | PERMALINK

I'm 53, a political junkie, and a life-long Democrat. I'm plenty cynical. But I've never seen anything like Obama. He strikes me as a once in two generations candidate.

Posted by: Matt on January 4, 2008 at 9:13 AM | PERMALINK

I would suggest you all freshen your panty shields...

Posted by: BillyBob

Much better slogan than "Stand for Change."

The new battle cry should be "Freshen Your Panty Shields."

Posted by: Econobuzz on January 4, 2008 at 9:15 AM | PERMALINK

@jussumbody

All those republican voters? WTF? You mean the 3% of voters in the democratic primary who were republicans?

Look at the exit polls: Obama won in every category meaningful to Democrats. He carried all the groups whose approval legitimizes a democratic candidate.

Posted by: Adam on January 4, 2008 at 9:16 AM | PERMALINK

Obama's approval among independents was especially helpful. I'll have to check the data on previous Democratic Caucuses to see how other winners compared in this category.

Posted by: Rick on January 4, 2008 at 9:19 AM | PERMALINK

... if you kool aid drinking simpletons somehow carry Obama to the White House and thus empower that witch to an even greater degree - my god, the evil that will be unleashed will sicken the heart and mind to an extent that maybe not even a president Huckabee could achieve.

Posted by: goosenut

Two more great bumper stickers:

"Kool Aid Drinkers Unite."

"Empower that Witch, Sicken the Heart, Unleash the Evil."

Posted by: Econobuzz on January 4, 2008 at 9:25 AM | PERMALINK

1. Has it occured to anyone here that the lip service Obama pays to right wing frames is the liberal version of "compassionate conservatism"? In other words - it disarms the opposition and gets hims elected.

Posted by: Adam on January 4, 2008 at 9:08 AM

LMFAO. Dream on!

Posted by: jussumbody on January 4, 2008 at 9:29 AM | PERMALINK

jussumbody:

Iowa is far from "the most Republican of all states". It was blue in 2000, red in 2004 by the narrowest of margins. Please get your facts straight.

Posted by: Noah on January 4, 2008 at 9:31 AM | PERMALINK

The message on the web and in newsprint today about Obama: charm, charm, charisma, charm, wasn't that a great speech, inspiring, charm, intelligent, charm.

The unanswered question: specifically how is Obama going to achieve all of this purported great change and bipartisanship? Where are the specifics? Where's the beef?

Haven't seen any of it yet. Still waiting.

Posted by: Kim on January 4, 2008 at 9:45 AM | PERMALINK

To me, it's the same old, same old. The experienced, knowledgeable, intelligent, articulate woman is thrown over for the younger, inexperienced, unknown man. Yes, we absolutely should break the color, ethnic barrier, but it's very depressing that we are not yet breaking the gender barrier. This country will not overcome the real status quo until it elects a strong woman in a position of true power. Until we do, women will remain slaves at many levels, subtle and overt.
(And the woman-behind-the-man argument just doesn't count.)

It makes me very sad.

Posted by: mmba on January 4, 2008 at 9:47 AM | PERMALINK
… but emotionally I'm as susceptible to the famous Obama charm as anyone.
I don’t know how susceptible I am but I am pleased if Obama can use charm, like Bill Clinton did, to advance progressive causes.

I now anticipate New Hampshire with heightened interest. That will be an election as opposed to a caucus, which I have a distaste for. Still, my suspicions of caucuses are fueled by the instinct that they normally work against a guy like Obama.

How important the Obama victory is, I can say, but a win is a win. I think it will carry over. The carry over effect could largely die if he were to be soundly defeated in New Hampshire a few day later, but the win in Iowa certainly makes such a defeat less likely.

On the Republican side, I differ with many. Quite a few analysts continue to say that Huckabee cannot win the nomination. I don’t think that’s true. That’s not to say he is worthy. But Republicans are crazy. Many evangelicals do not like Huckabee (call him a liberal), but they will vote for him rather than Rudy, Mitt, or McCain. Many other Republicans will join in if they perceive him as having the best chance of defeating the Democratic nominee.
On the other hand, I do personally know a number of evangelical Ron Paul supporters. He is costing Huckabee some votes.

So New Hampshire will be very interesting for both major parties.

Posted by: little ole jim on January 4, 2008 at 9:53 AM | PERMALINK

This morning's CNN poll:

Which Iowa caucus winner would be more likely to get your vote for president?

Mike Huckabee 39% 20804
Barack Obama 61% 33106

Posted by: Buford on January 4, 2008 at 10:02 AM | PERMALINK

This may sound frivolous but I'm from Chicago and after living most of my life with presidents who sound like the guy who shot Kevin's great, great grandfather in the knee at Shiloh I'm more than ready for a president who doesn't talk like he's got a mouth full of corn pone.

Edwards' accent is much more pronounced these days than it was in 2004. Makes him sound like a shitkicker who never got out of the mill rather than the U of NC law school grad he is. I don't know if he thought it'd make him sound more "authentic" to rural Iowans or what. Regardless I don't think it'll fly in the South where Democrats are tired of being treated like hicks.

After decades of presidents who either sound like Jeff Davis or who try to politically divide us as badly as we were in 1860 I prefer Obama who sounds more like me. I've had enough of presidents who come from the old Confederacy geographically or in spirit to last me for awhile.

Posted by: markg8 on January 4, 2008 at 10:06 AM | PERMALINK

The MSM -- eagerly helping to "catapult the propaganda":

Pseudo-Reporting
by Robert C. Koehler

Many U.S. media outlets were quick to give us a primer on Islamic terrorism in the wake of Benazir Bhutto's assassination last week, even though actual evidence points the finger far more at our ally in the war on terror, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, than it does at the Taliban or al-Qaida.

Indeed, McClatchy Newspapers recently reported that Bhutto, at the time of her murder, was in possession of evidence that Pakistan's military intelligence agency was planning to rig the upcoming election (then scheduled for Jan. 8 ) in Musharraf's favor, supplying, as if it were needed, an obvious motive for getting rid of her.

While there was some good, or at least restrained, reporting by U.S. media as the tragedy unfolded, the main sources of news for most Americans maintain what I can only call a cocked trigger of jingoism, which often goes off before the screams subside and the blood and debris are hosed into the gutter.

"Weird, isn't it, how swiftly the narrative is laid down for us," Robert Fisk observed in the U.K's Independent. Yeah, I'd say so. I'd add: insulting, infuriating, dangerous - this media readiness to act as the propaganda arm of the party in power, to simplify evil as the sole domain of the enemy du jour, to "unite" the country in self-righteousness and hatred of that enemy. ...
__________

So remember, kids: "Al Qaeda ate my homework." (Works almost every time!)
.

Posted by: Poilu on January 4, 2008 at 10:08 AM | PERMALINK

Obama is INSPIRATIONAL. Clinton ISN'T. If anything she is the opposite of inspirational, whatever that words is. That should pretty much decide it for all of us.

Do you want someone with magnificent oratorical skills added to all of his other inspiring attributes, to represent us Democrats in 2008?

Obama's victory speech was spectacular. He has that charisma that will suck votes from the KKK.

I've vacillated myself, and I must confess have thought at times that a black man cannot win (even though Obama is really as black as he is white). I see the results from Iowa, I listen to his oratory, and I am no longer a doubter. Obama can win, win big.

We NEED to have Obama as the Democratic nominee for President. Clinton may be capable of winning, but it will be a SMALL and NASTY victory, with little major realignment nationally.

An Obama win on the other hand will be HUGE, transformational, and will create a new American majority.

I am elated.

Posted by: Manfred on January 4, 2008 at 10:15 AM | PERMALINK

mmba that fact that Hillary has been considered a major candidate let alone the front runner for so long has opened doors for women whether she succeeds or not. Same for future minority candidates and Obama. When a woman does become president if it's not Hillary she will be standing on Mrs. Clinton's shoulders.

Posted by: markg8 on January 4, 2008 at 10:15 AM | PERMALINK

Kim, Obama plans to have "rap sessions" which will immedidately convince the Republicans to see his brilliant point of view. He will also "rap" to the "folks" and unite everyone because after all he has a "fresh face" and God knows how important it is to have a fresh face and rap to the folks about hope and change.

Posted by: Chrissy on January 4, 2008 at 10:21 AM | PERMALINK

Charisma that will suck votes from the KKK

Best battle cry yet!

Posted by: Econobuzz on January 4, 2008 at 10:27 AM | PERMALINK

Big Money is scared - Huckabee terrifies them. They are being kicked out of the republican coalition and they don't have a home now.

Not quite. Big Money is about to be welcomed to the Democratic Party with open arms. Hillary Clinton made her peace with Big Money long ago, and Obama's "unity" message is meant for Wall Street as much as anybody.

Eventually, the rural evangelicals will control the GOP and upscale urbanites will control the Democrats. The ones being left out in the cold are the traditional progressives.

Posted by: dr sardonicus on January 4, 2008 at 10:27 AM | PERMALINK

A useful perspective on the Iowa result.

Political history a warning for early-season winners

Posted by: frankly0 on January 4, 2008 at 10:28 AM | PERMALINK

Regarding the presumed "finality" of these early primary "wins":

Let It Start Now
The New York Times | Editorial

The candidates have spent a year and tens of millions of dollars in Iowa, and Thursday night the first actual voters offered their first assessments. Some candidates and their strategists were hoping the caucuses and the New Hampshire primary next week would settle the race, weeding out the contenders for the two major parties' presidential nominations. Watching the campaign in cold, snowy and mostly empty Iowa, we were hoping for something else - that this year's Iowa-New Hampshire rush to judgment will be the last. ...

We don't question the enthusiasm or the commitment of the people of Iowa and New Hampshire. But Iowa, where a huge turnout amounts to less than 10 percent of the population, is about 92 percent white, more rural and older than the rest of the nation. New Hampshire has a non-Hispanic white population of about 95 percent. Iowa's Democrats are more liberal and more protectionist than the nation's Democrats. Its Republicans are more conservative, and religiously driven, than the nation's Republicans. And yet, The Boston Globe reported that Mr. Romney spent $7 million on ads in Iowa. That's nearly $4 per registered voter.

We do believe that the time has long passed for both parties to not only break the Iowa-New Hampshire habit but also end the damaging race to be third, with states pushing their primaries closer and closer to New Year's Day. ...
.

Posted by: Poilu on January 4, 2008 at 10:30 AM | PERMALINK

Obama reminds me more of RFK than JFK; let's hope he doesn't end up the same way.

Posted by: Speed on January 4, 2008 at 10:33 AM | PERMALINK

I am very proud of the Iowans who voted for Obama.

Posted by: Brojo on January 4, 2008 at 10:35 AM | PERMALINK

Markg8, I totally agree. Edwards' accent is the number one reason I can't stand him. (Number one of a long list, admittedly.)

I'm a Southerner, and I know there are much more pleasant sounding southern accents. Fred Thompson, for instance, sounds melodious.

And you're right about Southerners not wanting to be branded hicks. That's exactly why I got rid of my accent when I moved north.

Posted by: KathyF on January 4, 2008 at 10:37 AM | PERMALINK

I decided Hillary wasn't really on the side of the people when she complained against raising the income cap for FICA contributions, "One trillion dollar tax increase" or whatever. That's *inexcusable* Repiglican scam talk, and Barack smacked her down accordingly. That matters more than "experience", and being First Lady isn't the same as real governing experience anyway.

Posted by: Neil B. on January 4, 2008 at 10:38 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin, is it possible that your lightened mood is because this dog and pony show is finally on the road and moving? It seems that for so long we have been subjected to vacuous debates and dumbshit cable TeeVee pundits pulling their opinions out of their asses that, to finally see real people involved in making choices is a relief. Let's not forget this is also the first official act in the process of replacing George W Bush and Richard B Cheney as top dogs. I can't think of anything more mood lightening than that. (Okay, impeachment would send me into euphoria.)

I am still not on the Obama bandwagon. Many who have posted above this comment have already stated many of the reasons why.

Having said that, I am a proud Dem and will vote Dem in the general. Clinton, Obama or Edwards will get my support when the time to vote comes.

Posted by: jcricket on January 4, 2008 at 10:39 AM | PERMALINK

KathyF: I don't want to sound overly prescient, but I saw this coming the first time I saw Obama, before the convention speech in 04. I immediately recognized a man who would be president one day.

LOL. I met him seven or eight years ago at a DL21C event and thought, "That guy's damn smooth." Didn't get a presidential vibe, but did think we'd be seeing more of him.

Kevin Drum: But all I can say is that on a gut level I felt pretty happy to see him win. I don't know why. Maybe it's just the bandwagon, or maybe I just got sucked in by his speech. Who knows?

It was a damn good speech, very well delivered. But beyond that, maybe you're feeling good about what is a historic first and a major departure from the past. Nothing wrong with that. Obama isn't my first choice--I differ with him on many policy positions, he is not the courageous reformer I think we need, he annoys me with his pandering, and if my candidate's still in on Feb. 5 that person will get my vote--but last night a 94% white state went for the biracial guy for president of the United States.

That is a remarkable turning point for everyone who cares about race relations and racism in this country, and it should be appreciated in and of itself regardless of how each of us is hoping the primaries will shake out. Will Allen can sniff in his usual pointless way about "ostensible adults swooning over his skin color," but the simple fact is that we've never had a serious black candidate for president, and we've assuredly not advanced to the point of color blindness in the U.S. Whether or not one's an Obama fan, this moment is worthy of marking.

Posted by: shortstop on January 4, 2008 at 10:41 AM | PERMALINK

Where are the specifics? Where's the beef

Regardless of which of the Big Three Democrats wins the nomination and election, progressives, liberals and leftists will be disappointed with their performance by 2012. The only real accomplishment that has any possibility of being achieved is Americans will have elected an African American or a female to the presidency. Although that is too little for me personally, it would be a remarkable accomplishment nevertheless.

Posted by: Brojo on January 4, 2008 at 10:45 AM | PERMALINK

Brojo's pretty well summed it up.

Posted by: shortstop on January 4, 2008 at 10:47 AM | PERMALINK

The fact that none of you support a repeal of the 22nd Amendment in this national time of crisis demonstrates your hatred of America.

Posted by: Red State Mike on January 4, 2008 at 10:53 AM | PERMALINK

The fact that none of you support a repeal of the 22nd Amendment in this national time of crisis demonstrates your hatred of America.
Posted by: Red State Mike

So Bill Clinton could jump into the race and win? Be careful of what you wish for, dunce.

Posted by: DJ on January 4, 2008 at 10:59 AM | PERMALINK

Huckabee and Obama. The GOP is in deep trouble.

Fixed it for you.

Posted by: ckelly on January 4, 2008 at 11:02 AM | PERMALINK

"I don't want to spend the next 11 months hearing about Edwards' expensive haircuts."

Posted by: Elliott in IA on January 4, 2008

-----

[Try that crap again, and you will not be welcome to post here any longer. --Mod]

Posted by: MarkH on January 4, 2008 at 11:04 AM | PERMALINK

Actually, Noel, I was writing as early as 1999 that Bush would be a terrible President domestically, due to the manner in which he made his money, and I voted in a primary for the first time in my life, for a candidate I largely oppose, McCain, specifically because I didn't want to see a guy who made his pile via subsidy and eminent domain get nominated. I said so at the time.

I do have some regret for not having voted for Gore, and absent Gore putting out a 200 page outline of his admiration of central planning, I may have, as sick of anybody connected with the Clinton Administration as I was. Oh well. I still wouldn't vote for John Kerrey if you put a gun to my head.

Anyhow, I know you feel a need to attack me personally whenever I post here, which is typical of the mindset of the kool-aid sippers who visit this forum in such large numbers. If my lukewarm support of Obama is so bothersome to you that you are compelled to respond to it, so be it.

Posted by: Will Allen on January 4, 2008 at 11:07 AM | PERMALINK

I would suggest you all freshen your panty shields...
Posted by: BillyBob

Much better slogan than "Stand for Change."

The new battle cry should be "Freshen Your Panty Shields."
Posted by: Econobuzz on January 4, 2008 at 9:15 AM | PERMALINK

ROFLOL!

Posted by: Vaughan on January 4, 2008 at 11:08 AM | PERMALINK

Well, MarkH, why not make your own historic moment by correctly reading and describing a poll for once? As has been pointed out repeatedly, Obama won in nearly every Democratic subcategory, despite your misinformation to the contrary.

Between your posts, Chrissy's strangers-to-fact diatribes and RS' hilariously ironic "Barack's a big old secret Muslim--Edwards is the man for substantive issues" post upthread, it's getting increasingly difficult to believe that most of the biggest Edwards fans around here aren't plants trying to scare off support for JE. Y'all sure aren't doing him any good with this shit.

Posted by: shortstop on January 4, 2008 at 11:16 AM | PERMALINK

Edwards: FDR criticized Hoover for failing to balance the budget. FDR isn't a true Democrat! He's a conservative, not a liberal!

*knock at door*

Harold Ford: Hi, we're here from the DLC. How is our old boy doing?

Edwards *whispers*: Not now, I'm trying to convince them I'm the biggest baddest liberal of them all.

Ford: Yeah, whatever. Here's your check. And thanks for your war vote, by the way.

Edwards: Ummm... must stall... have too much blood on hands... lost debate to Cheney... Oh! I know! Mandates are the same thing as universal healthcare. That's what has been driving liberals to work towards universal healthcare for generations, mandates! That's the cornerstone of not just liberal healthcare, but of all of liberalism. Yay mandates! I know mandates are why I, the very bestest liberal ever, became a liberal Democrat who has never done anything to enable conservatives. Now watch this drive!

Posted by: John Edwards on January 4, 2008 at 11:16 AM | PERMALINK

MarkH,

Your comments stink, really. I guess I should leave it at that but I can't, so I'll try to persuade you. Obama offers a path to change devoid of the anger that Edwards represents. This change may be much more achievable when delivered in a package of inclusion. Think about it.

If you think the average American wants more anger, and will vote for it, given a choice, you are the one smoking something. As I said previously, Obama offers a way to build a transformational majority, a path to build a solid majority from within which the changes you desire can actually be derived. That is unless you want to keep grinding your teeth and be angry and pissed off and listen to Rush Limbaugh gloating for the next 8 years.

I can't help but add that the racist undertones of your comment (especailly the Osama bit), are a real disappointment to all Democrats, who see you as proof that the racists aren't always on the other side of the aisle. You need to examine your bigotry carefully, you might be surprised at what you find.


Posted by: Manfred on January 4, 2008 at 11:24 AM | PERMALINK

He gives a good speech, but after that the suit is entirely empty.
Posted by: MarkH on January 4, 2008 at 11:04 AM | PERMALINK

The man has organized an incredible campaign at a national scale (500,000 donors--compare to Edwards), created a consistent popular campaign message, inspired more voters than ever to vote Democratic in Iowa, and gave one of the best political speeches most of us have heard in years, and your argument is that Obama is an empty suit. Not very convincing.

Posted by: Beth on January 4, 2008 at 11:26 AM | PERMALINK

I watched Hillary's speech last night and the more I watched the more I disliked her.

I want to like her. I especially don't want to dislike her because of any misogynistic traits in my personality.

But she has zero charm; I don't get the sense that she likes people. And that's ugly.

Posted by: Nick on January 4, 2008 at 11:31 AM | PERMALINK

Barack "Osama" Obama? Gimme a frickin break. He gives a good speech, but after that the suit is entirely empty.

Sore loser much?

I, for one, saw this meltdown coming. Thanks for not disappointing me, Mark.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on January 4, 2008 at 11:32 AM | PERMALINK

All of the "Obama wouldn't be here if he wasn't black / a man" comments are rather silly. Name me a single person in either party today who can give a speech as good as Obama. Youth and charisma is the reason JFK beat Nixon (remember JFK's remark that television won him the presidency). It was Clinton's biggest asset. The moment I decided to back Obama was when I saw a video of him in 2002 discussing how we was against the Iraq War in part because he didn't see how we could keep the Sunnis, the Shi'ites and the Kurds from killing each other. Have Clinton and Edwards given any indication that they knew what a Sunni and a Shi'ite were when they voted for the Iraq war resolution? When people backing a candidate who was so easily duped on the biggest issue of the decade (after all, a smart liberal like Barbara Boxer said voting against it was the proudest vote of her career) say the guy that got it right for the right reasons is naive and has nothing to offer, I just have to laugh.

Posted by: Reality Man on January 4, 2008 at 11:38 AM | PERMALINK

Ok, just listened to Obama's speech. The first half was fun. The second half sounded too much like "church".

Not saying that sounding like "church" is a political mistake. Would like to go beyond that though. There's a big fight ahead.

Posted by: little ole jim on January 4, 2008 at 11:41 AM | PERMALINK

This is a no-brainer as far as I'm concerned.
As a young kid who stuffed envelopes for Bobby Kennedy, this is the first time in forty years...think about that, 40 freakin' years!...that someone has come along that actually inspires people.

100,000 more Democratic caucus-goers than last time. And they said that young people could never be inspired to participate.

Sir Hillary couldn't win the women's vote, she got trounced by the Independents that crossed over, her support by newspapers and unions meant nothing, as usual. A full forty per cent of Dems wouldn't vote for her under any conditions, and that's before you get to the Indies and the GOP.

Dems can't win the presidency on their own. They need crossovers for a majority. Obama will bring them, no one else will.

Edwards is not the calculating, vindictive, earth-scorching politician Sir Hillary is, but trying to win on a populist message after getting $400 haircuts, building a new 28,000 sq. ft. McMansion (that you aren't even home to live in), and earning a half mill representing a hedge fund that targets low income citizens, ain't ever gonna fly.

It's akin to having Biden run on a anti-plagerism platform. Like I said, this one's a no brainer.

P.S. Two words for those that prattle on about "experience". Cheney and Rumsfeld. And keep in mind Obama has the exact same experience Abe Lincoln had when he was elected. It seemed to work out for our greatest President, as it will for Obama.

Posted by: filmex on January 4, 2008 at 11:43 AM | PERMALINK

little ole jim from flashes of blue country: Not saying that sounding like "church" is a political mistake. Would like to go beyond that though. There's a big fight ahead.

Yes, absolutely.

And if Huckabee gets the GOP nomination, what I really am not in the mood to see is Obama and Huck trying to outpreacherize each other.

Posted by: shortstop on January 4, 2008 at 11:47 AM | PERMALINK

[Try that crap again, and you will not be welcome to post here any longer. --Mod]

Posted by: MarkH on January 4, 2008 at 11:04 AM

What the hell was that deletion about, exactly?

I've seen things said on this site a hundred times worse without being deleted. Or was there something I just flat out missed in first reading it?

Was it simply that he said "Barack 'Osama' Obama"? How do you know that that wasn't intended as a commentary on how he will smeared by Republicans in the general election? To me, it just wasn't clear what was intended, given the entirety of his post, where he raised that very issue, as I recollect (and of course I'm now reduced to my recollections).

[I am confident in my ability to interpret intent. It is my job to read every comment on every thread, and in that capacity I get a pretty good read on the people who comment here.]

Posted by: frankly0 on January 4, 2008 at 11:47 AM | PERMALINK

Anyhow, I know you feel a need to attack me personally whenever I post here, which is typical of the mindset of the kool-aid sippers who visit this forum in such large numbers. If my lukewarm support of Obama is so bothersome to you that you are compelled to respond to it, so be it.

Gee, martyr yourself much?

The sad fact of the matter is that friggin' Will Allen just became MORE irrelevant to the progress of this country from a Republican-made nightmare shit sandwich served on Iraqi pita bread to at least a little hope and whatever else you want to throw in there.

The Will Allens just don't matter anymore. They're sinking into a funk and they're lashing out with grandiose statements about things that are going to churn along without them.

Is conservatism dead for a generation? It sure looks like it is headed that way, what with Richard Viguerie's vicious assault on Mike Huckabee.

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 4, 2008 at 11:49 AM | PERMALINK

filmex: Sir Hillary

What's this crap?

Posted by: what now? on January 4, 2008 at 11:49 AM | PERMALINK

What the hell was that deletion about, exactly?

Some people just don't know how to play nice and debate the issues. I mean, really!

What else you got, MarkH? What else do you have to say? I think you meant to be relevant and engaged. Too bad you ended up on the business end of a moderator-supplied shotgun blast.

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 4, 2008 at 11:50 AM | PERMALINK

Pale Rider,

Excuse me, but I am not MarkH.

I'm just noting my own reaction to his comment having been deleted. I just don't get the basis, compared to other things I've seen that have survived.

Posted by: frankly0 on January 4, 2008 at 11:52 AM | PERMALINK

Excuse me, but I am not MarkH.

Sorry, I was answering you both separately, knowing you said nothing offensive, with one comment directed mostly at MarkH.

I'm just noting my own reaction to his comment having been deleted. I just don't get the basis, compared to other things I've seen that have survived.

Ask the moderator. Whatever intern from WM is running the show will likely answer as to what the criteria was.

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 4, 2008 at 11:54 AM | PERMALINK

Nick, I suspect Senator Clinton is like nearly all politicians with large ambition; she professes to love humanity while holding individual human beings largely in contempt. Senator Clinton just isn't very good at disguising it. Romney suffers from the same weakness.

A politician who has a deep-seated respect for individual human beings, while being suspect of human nature in general, is far more preferable, but alas, far more rare.

Posted by: Will Allen on January 4, 2008 at 11:55 AM | PERMALINK

RS writes, idiotically:

Sorry Kevin, the "liberal" blogosphere protests too much that Barry ain't a Muslim.

First, if you have any evidence that Obama (who by the way did not name himself - I'm not sure you're aware of that) is a Muslim, please present it. Otherwise, STFU.

Second, if that's the best you got to say against him, then Obama's a sure thing.

Posted by: chuck on January 4, 2008 at 11:56 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin,
I agree with Franklyo, Donald from Hawaii and Blue Girl - you are switching your wagon too soon. Based on the demographics of who voted for who, it looks like the Iowa results for Obama are based on "temporary democrats (i.e. students) and independents and even republicans.
This does not represent the core base of the democratic party - and are exactly the people who are unaware of exactly what the magnitude of the mess is that will have to be cleaned up. And don't forget, winning Iowa doesn't always mean winning the nomination.

INKBLOT FOR PRESIDENT '08

Posted by: optical weenie on January 4, 2008 at 11:57 AM | PERMALINK

No one is saying anything about this but my guess is now that Chris Dodd did so poorly in race, there won't be any reason to stand in the way Bush's FISA Bill.

Welcome to wiretapping made legal.

This why there is no reason have a Democractic majority because Dems do exactly the same as a Republic majority would do, give Bush everything he wants. Dems don't care what their voters think. So if Huckabee starts talking putting the US Constitution back the way it was - Dems can say good bye to independent voters, and some liberals too.

Obama is going to be to busy pretending to be tough on terrorism to care what the US Constutition says. That is a fatal mistake with Democratic Party.

Posted by: me-again on January 4, 2008 at 11:57 AM | PERMALINK

I was going to suggest 'Turn The Page' as a good slogan, but that might already belong to GOP congressional degenerates.

What better way to close the door on the conservative revolution, which succeeded only with the help of racial bigots, than by electing a black man? How great it will be to have a president we aren't ashamed of, no matter which Democrat it is.

Posted by: Michael7843853 G-O/F in 08 on January 4, 2008 at 11:57 AM | PERMALINK

Pale Rider, here's a clue; none of us here are very relevant. Get over yourself.

Posted by: Will Allen on January 4, 2008 at 11:58 AM | PERMALINK


MarkH: Please tell me why the other candidates are not empty suits?

HRC-Aside from being the first lady, what has she done for the progressive cause?

Edwards-This is really interesting. Up until he started running for president, please go an check his short political career and point to his strong progressive record.

Obama-Same as the other two, no real strong track record when it comes to progressive issues.

This is why I find it very interesting that all these Johnny-come-lately Edwards supporters can claim he is the second coming of RFK.

Basically, all we have to go on with all 3 candidates is what they are saying now, not what they've done in the past. It may be true that some platforms/policies are better than others, but they are just that, platforms.

What I know for sure is this, as far as politics is concerned, Edwards has the shortest political resume of the lot. I also think that Obama's civil rights activism and some of his other records in Chicago should count towards his progressivism resume.

All in all, I believe some things will change whoever becomes the next president just cos it's not GWB. Aside from that, regardless of the person, some things will stay the same except if we can get real democrats taking control in congress. This is why at the very least having the first black man as president may be worthwhile if for nothing else.

Same ol' same ol' new black president vs. same ol' same ol' white president, i'll take the black one for now.

Posted by: GOD on January 4, 2008 at 12:00 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah, it's wonderful having a young charismatic black guy with right-wing arguments about social security and U of Chicago arguments about how cool it will be having universal medical coverage that is not universal. Senator Obama looks like a right-wing shill to me, youthful charisma nothwithstanding.

Utterly cynical jive turkey.

Posted by: Lee on January 4, 2008 at 12:06 PM | PERMALINK

I'll get the guy "with right-wing arguments about social security and U of Chicago arguments about how cool it will be having universal medical coverage that is not universal. Senator Obama looks like a right-wing shill to me" over the DLC-er who got duped on the war any day.

Posted by: Reality Man on January 4, 2008 at 12:15 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, I want to see Obama win the president for entirely cynical reasons--I think it's in my best interest that he win the presidency.

In practical terms I don't think the policy differences between the major candidates will amount to much worth bickering about.

The legislative process run by a Democratic Congress will turn out pretty similar policies regardless of whether Hillary, Obama or Edwards is doing the signing.

Iraq is going to be an albatross around the next president's neck, no matter who it is.

Similarly the deficit which Boy George has accumulated.

On the other hand, the symbolism of having a black man as president, given our sad history, is immensely valuable both home and abroad. I'd prefer a black lesbian Moslem, but I'll accept Obama as a reasonable step forward at this time.


Posted by: Nick on January 4, 2008 at 12:20 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin Drum: "This has happened to me before. I've had other occasions where I'll construct intellectual arguments for one thing or another, but when the time comes to make a decision I suddenly change my mind."

Nice to know that you are human! Perhaps Obama has found a narrative that will work in this cycle. One has to be pretty cerebral not to be influenced by a good story.

There are smarter people than me posting here, but I've come to the conclusion that its the narrative that sells. One thing that has bothered me about progressives/liberals is our wonkishness. It doesn't sell outside a fairly narrow demographic. We can complain about "low-information voters" all we want, but most people will never pay that much attention to politics.

I want to know if Obama can take punch and punch back. I gotta believe that he's going to get hit by the GOP in the general election. If things go south in New Hampshire for Clinton, perhaps she'll provide an opportunity for Obama to show us what he's made of.

Posted by: AK Liberal on January 4, 2008 at 12:24 PM | PERMALINK

Wow, at times like this it's nice to read the thoughts of people on the wrong side of history. Fascinating.

/Go Obama

Posted by: Boorring on January 4, 2008 at 12:25 PM | PERMALINK

If Kevin Drum is any general indication, Hillary is toast. Obama wins Tuesday and cruises to the nomination.

Huckabee will not be the Republican nominee- that nominee will be the winner next Tuesday- either Romney or McCain.

What happens in November? If the nominees are Romney and Obama, I think Obama will win a close election. If the Republicans nominate McCain, he will win easily.

Democrats should have nominated Edwards. He is the strongest general election candidate in their field.

Posted by: Yancey Ward on January 4, 2008 at 12:40 PM | PERMALINK

A politician who has a deep-seated respect for individual human beings, while being suspect of human nature in general

Laughing my ass off...based on his record of posts, you just know that minus the "politician" part, this is how Will Allen heroically and delusionally views himself.

Posted by: shortstop on January 4, 2008 at 1:04 PM | PERMALINK

G/O: I was going to suggest 'Turn The Page' as a good slogan, but that might already belong to GOP congressional degenerates.

Snap! A good snark at the expense of Mark Foley is always appropriate and always enjoyed.

Lee: Utterly cynical jive turkey.

Don't tell us...you picked that up watching Good Times in the 1970s, right?

Posted by: shortstop on January 4, 2008 at 1:09 PM | PERMALINK


"I don't want to spend the next 11 months hearing about Edwards' expensive haircuts."

Posted by: Elliott in IA on January 4, 2008

-----

[Try that crap again, and you will not be welcome to post here any longer. --Mod]

Let me gently suggest that Elliott was complaining left-handedly about the way pundits talk about Edwards, not about Edwards.

Posted by: Neil B. on January 4, 2008 at 1:17 PM | PERMALINK

*

Posted by: mhr on January 4, 2008 at 1:17 PM | PERMALINK

I think that if HRC can't pull off a win or tie in NH, she's out of the race. If Edwards can't pull off a win or tie in South Carolina I think he's out as well. I think an Obama/Edwards ticket would be unstoppable. No Kerry blandness or Gore woodenness here. This would be an oratorical dynamic duo. This Dem ticket would greatly highlight all of the personal negatives of ALL the R candidates: McCain/Thompson will look exceptionally geriatric, Guilliani/Romney will look like the boss that everyone loves to hate.

The Bloomberg wildcard is there ready to go into action to prevent Huckabee (IF he's nominated), from stealing the GOP party away from Big Money; Huckabee would need to lose big enough to put the evangelistas back in their place. Although HRC and Obama have been blamed for being corporatist, the Dem party can't be trusted by Big Money in the long run.

Posted by: Doc at the Radar Station on January 4, 2008 at 1:17 PM | PERMALINK

"Your comments stink, really."

Sorry you feel that way. I wonder why I haven't heard much of this attitude before now?

"I guess I should leave it at that but I can't, so I'll try to persuade you."

Great! I've been wanting to debate real issues with all the supporters, but apparently Obama people didn't feel like discussing anything.


"Obama offers a path to change devoid of the anger that Edwards represents. This change may be much more achievable when delivered in a package of inclusion. Think about it."

I like the idea in general. But, if you've been paying any attention the last several decades you'd have noticed the Repubs aren't much interested in 'inclusion' or 'bipartisanship'. Obama's argument falls flat once you scratch the veneer even the slightest.

"If you think the average American wants more anger, and will vote for it, given a choice, you are the one smoking something."

I don't smoke and never have. I do agree 'anger' doesn't sell so well. I figured after 7 years of George W. Bush people might feel a little anger. If they don't, then I'm sorry for America. If we can't feel anger after Dubya, then we're pretty hopeless.

"As I said previously, Obama offers a way to build a transformational majority, a path to build a solid majority from within which the changes you desire can actually be derived. That is unless you want to keep grinding your teeth and be angry and pissed off and listen to Rush Limbaugh gloating for the next 8 years."

I agree with this point. I just happen to think we'll lose 10-15 states the day the general election begins. I don't think Obama can be as 'transformational' as you would like.

"I can't help but add that the racist undertones of your comment (especailly the Osama bit), are a real disappointment to all Democrats, who see you as proof that the racists aren't always on the other side of the aisle. You need to examine your bigotry carefully, you might be surprised at what you find.
Posted by: Manfred on January 4, 2008"

I'm not racist in the slightest. If (once again) you'd been paying attention for the last 9 months you would have heard me make the same argument, that the Repubs will destroy him with comments like that. Your fantasy about 'inclusion' and 'bipartisanship' aren't going to get the Democratic party anywhere.

Thanks for writing a thoughtful post. It's the very first one in 9 months that I've read from an Obama supporter!

Posted by: MarkH on January 4, 2008 at 1:48 PM | PERMALINK

"Between your posts, Chrissy's strangers-to-fact diatribes and RS' hilariously ironic "Barack's a big old secret Muslim--Edwards is the man for substantive issues" post upthread, it's getting increasingly difficult to believe that most of the biggest Edwards fans around here aren't plants trying to scare off support for JE. Y'all sure aren't doing him any good with this shit."

Posted by: shortstop on January 4, 2008

-----

Maybe what we've been doing is trying to knock some sense into y'all and trying to make you wisen up to hardball politics. As I noted above, I have not had an actual discussion in the past 9 months with even one Obama supporter. You/they seem to be unavailable for discussion and reasoned debate.

Posted by: MarkH on January 4, 2008 at 1:51 PM | PERMALINK

"He gives a good speech, but after that the suit is entirely empty." -- MarkH

"The man has organized an incredible campaign at a national scale (500,000 donors--compare to Edwards),"

Would he be known to anyone if John Kerry hadn't picked him for the 2004 Convention speech? I don't think so. He's a prince who's been handed something and he's done a good job building it. Edwards was shrugged off in 2004 when Ohio was in contention. Kerry treated him like dirt. The media hardly mention his name. Where's the open Democracy we so much love? This isn't exactly a level playing field (and I don't mean in terms of money).

" created a consistent popular campaign message,"

He's repeated riffs from Clinton and Edwards whenever it suited him. He isn't a creative person and he isn't a leader.

" inspired more voters than ever to vote Democratic in Iowa,"

There was a larger than usual turnout for all the candidates. Even Hillary, who finished 3rd, got more than twice as many votes as Huckabee. You can't say Obama did all that.


" and gave one of the best political speeches most of us have heard in years, and your argument is that Obama is an empty suit. Not very convincing."

Posted by: Beth on January 4, 2008

I've said for many months that he gives a great speech. So did Ronald Reagan. So what.

I might mention once again that in your post Beth that you give no reason we should believe he's going to be a great president or a real uniter to get things done. It's all image, speech giving and sloganeering.

Posted by: MarkH on January 4, 2008 at 1:58 PM | PERMALINK

"Sore loser much?

I, for one, saw this meltdown coming. Thanks for not disappointing me, Mark."

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on January 4, 2008

I care about what happens to my country. Is that already a crime?

Posted by: MarkH on January 4, 2008 at 2:00 PM | PERMALINK

filmex: "Sir Hillary"...What's this crap?

You know, like Sir Edmond Hillary, who gets led (carried) to the top of Mount Everest by sherpas, and then gets knighted for being such an accomplished and experienced mountain climber.

THAT kind of crap.

But, just watch Sir Hillary's fangs come out now.

We already got a glimpse of the savage retribution and vindictiveness the Clintons are famous for (the Busheviks have nothing on that clan) after Geffen called them out as liars, and the campaign goons started defiling Obama's kindergarten dreams and tried to tag him as the Pusher Man.

(Did they mention today they weren't going to talk about cocaine anymore? No, no more talk about cocaine. They promise not to talk about cocaine. Yep, they're finished talking about cocaine. No more cocaine. Talking about closet Muslims and cocaine has no place in a campaign, just ask the Clintonistas. Oh yeah, no need to, they'll tell you themselves.)

And that's when they thought they were winning. You're about to see the real Sir Hillary and the Clintonista subterranean goons, and that 1984 MacIntosh spoof won't begin to cover the ferocity.

Posted by: filmex on January 4, 2008 at 2:05 PM | PERMALINK

"Dems can't win the presidency on their own. They need crossovers for a majority. Obama will bring them, no one else will."

If that's true even after Dubya and with the ridiculous Repub candidates this year, then the Dem party is a joke. I don't believe that. I think we can take a working majority and the presidency and Obama isn't going to succeed. That infuriates me. We need a lot done.

"Edwards is not the calculating, vindictive, earth-scorching politician Sir Hillary is, but trying to win on a populist message after getting $400 haircuts, building a new 28,000 sq. ft. McMansion (that you aren't even home to live in), and earning a half mill representing a hedge fund that targets low income citizens, ain't ever gonna fly."

Should he live in a hovel and let his hair grow? C'mon, let's get real. None of the candidates we're considering are poor or would go without a nice haircut.

"... "experience". ... And keep in mind Obama has the exact same experience Abe Lincoln had when he was elected. It seemed to work out for our greatest President, as it will for Obama."

Posted by: filmex on January 4, 2008

I've heard that nonsense a lot the last day or so. What the heck is this about Obama and Lincoln. There's no comparison. How about comparing Obama to Bush or somebody else? That worked out well, huh?

Posted by: MarkH on January 4, 2008 at 2:08 PM | PERMALINK

...
Posted by: GOD on January 4, 2008

Rather conceited view of yourself, isn't it?

Posted by: MarkH on January 4, 2008 at 2:12 PM | PERMALINK

I care about what happens to my country. Is that already a crime?

That's just too east to call BULLSHIT with.

If you cared about this country, you wouldn't be such a dick about it.

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 4, 2008 at 2:30 PM | PERMALINK

"I care about what happens to my country. Is that already a crime?" -- MarkH

"That's just too east to call BULLSHIT with."

'east'? Do you mean 'easy'?

"If you cared about this country, you wouldn't be such a dick about it."

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 4, 2008

'dick about it'? About what, the country?

Can you clarify what you're saying?

Posted by: MarkH on January 4, 2008 at 3:00 PM | PERMALINK

MarkH is like the guy who knocked over the TV everyone was watching and now everything is busted and he thinks its funny, so he sits there, blinking his eyes and laughing at himself, but everyone wants to throttle him but they don't because, I mean, really, what's the point?

To wit:

[Try that crap again, and you will not be welcome to post here any longer. --Mod]
Posted by: MarkH on January 4, 2008 at 11:04 AM | PERMALINK

Make a jackass out of yourself much?

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 4, 2008 at 3:14 PM | PERMALINK

Love to see the netroots commenters here hand-wriging themselves back into irrelevance. Frankly, I never understood their support for Clinton anyway (who still can explain all her pro-Bush votes in the Senate). Obama has a far better leftie record in Illinois and his short US Senate career, despite a health-care proposal which doesn't force people to buy insurance if that don't want to.

But I never understood the "revenge first" mode of many of the netroots anyway, so there you go.

Posted by: Fred on January 4, 2008 at 3:32 PM | PERMALINK

You guys have finally come to your senses. I'm a Republican who's been watching my party implode for more than a decade and I've been waiting for you guys to nominate someone I can vote for without holding my nose. PLEASE DON'T SCREW THIS ONE UP...

Posted by: BL on January 4, 2008 at 3:40 PM | PERMALINK

"Maybe what we've been doing is trying to knock some sense into y'all and trying to make you wisen up to hardball politics."

ROFL.... Because nobody on this site has any knowledge of hardball politics. Don't you just love the combination of ignorance and arrogance? Worthy of a Norman Rogers or theAmericanist.

"As I noted above, I have not had an actual discussion in the past 9 months with even one Obama supporter. You/they seem to be unavailable for discussion and reasoned debate."

Dear heart, considering the crap you have posted here that you apparently regard as "reasoned debate," I'd look in the mirror before I go pointing any fingers.

Posted by: PaulB on January 4, 2008 at 3:41 PM | PERMALINK

I still see a lot of fear coming from Democrats about Barack Obama. Don't give in to the politics of fear. Senator Obama is not a Republican-Lite, he is not an empty suit, and he has all the right experience and judgment to lead our great nation into a new era.

I could feel it last night, as the crowd chanted "U-S-A! U-S-A!" and I've been feeling it for some time now. No more Fear. Imagine a politician getting elected not because he or she scared people into voting for him or her, but because that voter was inspired to make that choice. Looking forward to the people of New Hampshire showing that they will not let Fear rule their lives, either.

Posted by: Jim on January 4, 2008 at 3:47 PM | PERMALINK

MarkH, you live in your own world.

Huckabee does a better job selling the populist message than Edwards does. Edwards campaigned NON-STOP in Iowa for the past four years, ever since he lost there in 2004, and what does he have to show for it?

Edwards doesn't have to have to be a hermit, but you don't engage in conspicuous personal consumption while presenting yourself as Robin Hood while making the case for Two Americas. You come off as synthetic as Mitt Romney.

He would have been better off working with Jimmy Carter and Habitat For Humanity the past four years, rather than architecting Marie Antoinette Habitat For Edwards.

He represents the mill workers, and virtually no one else, and he will be gone in 90 days. Bank on it. And then he will be supporting Obama, the one guy who can draw independents and moderate Republicans. And you'll be left petulantly p*ssing in the wind.

Edwards can't win, although the GOP would love to have a crack at him and spiel their trial lawyer BS. That and painting him as a John Kerry patrician. And Hilary can't motivate her own party, only the rightwingers.

Sorry you can't grasp the idea that Obama and Lincoln both came out of Illinois with the same local Congressional experience. It's a fact. But don't let that stand in the way of your fever dreams.

This election is about change. Neither Edwards nor Sir Hillary can offer it.

President Obama. Get used to it.

Posted by: filmex on January 4, 2008 at 3:57 PM | PERMALINK

"Pat Robertson and Bob Gephardt won Iowa one year. How'd that work out for them?. Posted by: Dave Johnson on January 3, 2008 at 11:58 PM | PERMALINK"

First, it's Richard Gephardt, not Bob. Winning Iowa in '88 didn't help him much, no, but he doesn't have Obama's charisma or inspiring momentum.

Second, Robertson DID NOT win Iowa. He finished second to Dole in Iowa in '88. I'm an Iowan, so I know.

Posted by: ExIowa on January 4, 2008 at 4:28 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, Dick Gephardt. My error.

"President Obama. Get used to it."
Posted by: filmex on January 4, 2008

Couldn't have been said better by some Repub wingnuts. Remember, "Shut up and sit down"?

So, how is "President" Dole doing these days? Did winning Iowa help him a lot?

All I'm hearing from Obama supporters today is HATE and arrogance. I guess you really can't dare to discuss or analyze Obama the way all the other candidates have been studied. It would hurt your feelings too much. Too bad. Democracy calls for an educated electorate. I guess we really can't handle that yet.

As someone recently said, "If he's this angry when he's ahead, then what would he be like from behind?" Obama seems like the classic passive aggressive. Uninterested in discussing anything, but happy to shove it in your face when he just made a touchdown. Childish if you ask me.


Posted by: MarkH on January 4, 2008 at 4:38 PM | PERMALINK

MarkH: All I'm hearing from Obama supporters today is HATE and arrogance.

Now, that's not really fair. Many of us are supporting Edwards or Clinton, and we think you're an asshole, too.

Posted by: shortstop on January 4, 2008 at 4:43 PM | PERMALINK

All Obama's got to do for the next month is replay that speech and he'll have it on lock. I mean, WOW! I haven't felt that proud of this country and my countrymen in a long time. Way to go Iowa! You made us all look good.

Posted by: waka waka on January 4, 2008 at 4:43 PM | PERMALINK

All I'm hearing from Obama supporters today is HATE and arrogance.

Using the terrorist slur with Obama's name communicated hate and arrogance.

Posted by: Brojo on January 4, 2008 at 4:53 PM | PERMALINK

MarkH: Banned from DKos for being a dick? Banned from Red State for being a weenie? Banned from Fire Dog Lake because he doesn't like muffins with cranberry jam?

You decide...

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 4, 2008 at 5:36 PM | PERMALINK

Another thing Obama's got that Hillary and Edwards don't - consistency in his fundamental beliefs.

Here's the link to an article from the Chicago Reader from 1995, when Obama first announced his intention to run for the Illinois State Senate (notice that's over a decade ago, for the one's who insist he's an empty suit manufactured in 2004).

http://www.chicagoreader.com/features/stories/archive/barackobama/

Read it and you'll see how the victory in Iowa and its manner came about, a deep seated populism and the roots of the rhetoric that's sweeping the nation now.

Full disclosure, he was my professor in law school. Top tier intellect, as sincere and engaging as they come, and even many of the hard core conservatives who rule the roost at Chicago respected and in many cases admired him.

Posted by: writersclog on January 4, 2008 at 6:07 PM | PERMALINK

There are numerous reasons to support Senator Obama but consistency isn't one of them. His views and rhetoric have changed a good deal on the Iraq War, universal healthcare and several other issues.

Posted by: Lefty O'Doole on January 5, 2008 at 5:33 AM | PERMALINK

Filmex,

Your arguments have heft and weight, but then you spoil it with misogynistic foaming at the mouth asides about Hillary Clinton. There's medication for that.

Posted by: Sharon on January 6, 2008 at 3:09 AM | PERMALINK

Badly need your help. The most important thing in communication is to hear what isn't being said. Help me! It has to find sites on the: Mitsubishi split air conditioning. I found only this - split level air conditioning. A extra cylinder, simply meanwhile traced a half-way attempt, is a floor that can avoid on apart the sector, typically the divisions, or a conditioning of both, split air conditioning. Split air conditioning, wolf of fort wayne, indiana with engines attracting of a engine that was set on administration of an single alert. With love :-(, Doyt from Senegal.

Posted by: Doyt on March 22, 2010 at 4:50 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly