Congratulations to Barrack Obama, his staff, and his supporters for winning the Iowa Caucuses.
Now here are some harsh facts they have to deal with;
*The caucusing among Democrats only, was Obama 32%, Hillary 31%. A close race and an indication that 68% of Democrats in Iowa voted against the caucus winner. (This could be very telling.)
*20% of Obama's support came from Independents and Republicans who probably caucused for him because he would-be easy to beat in November. The question is; Would they support him in a general election?
*3 out of the last 4 Presidents all lost The Iowa Caucuses. (interesting statistic, huh?)
*Big "winners" in the Iowa Caucuses previously were;
1972-Edmund Muskie, wasn't nominated
1976-Gerald Ford, an incumbant President who got less than 50% of the popular vote in the general election and lost to Jimmey Carter
1980-George H.W. Bush, wasn't nominated
1984-Walter Mondale, won exactly one (1) state in general election, lost worst landslide of all time to Ronald Reagan.
1988-Dick Gephart, wasn't nominated
1988-Bob Dole, wasn't nominated
1992-Tom Harkin, wasn't nominated
1992-George H.W. Bush, incumbant President, lost general election to Bill Clinton
1996-Bob Dole, took 39% of the popular vote and lost general election to Bill Clinton.
So as you can see, Iowa frequently does not reflect the "pulse" of America.
In fact, the Iowa Caucuses usually go the opposite way of the rest of the primaries, and the general election.
One other thing needs to be said here. MSNBC's television coverage last night was the most prejudicial, and biased news coverage I have ever seen in my 40 years of watching Presidential elections.
According to Chris Mathews, Obama has the nomination all sewn up. He didn't do any homework as to what historically happens with candidates AFTER Iowa.
He spent most of the evening sniping at The Clintons, proclaiming that Hillary can't "comeback" from this, and saying that Obama is going to win NH, and South Carolina too.
Howard Fineman did the same thing. I don't know if I ever saw a candidate who was hyped by the media, like this, ever before in my life.
If I could research the facts I've stated above about where Obama's support comes from, and what has happened through the years to those who won in Iowa, you know full well the staff at MSNBC can too.
But they avoided saying it like the plague.
I think this is a blantant case of irresponsible, yellow journalism at it's finest.
The only one on MSNBC's panel who made any sense was Rachel Maddow, and of the interviewees, Chuck Todd (of all people) made sense too.
Both intimated that this isn't as devestating a blow to Hillary's campaign as Mathews was making it out to be, and certainly not an indication that Obama would or will win the nomination.
I also noticed that MSNBC reported first ballot percentages on The Republican side that shows Huckabee winning. But, they waited until well into the second ballot so they could report that Obama was ahead. Why the early reporting on ones side, but not the other.
Bear in mind that "underdogs" make good stories when they win. I'm wondering if that had something to do with it.
Andrea Mitchell was particularly obnoxious as well. She went to the extent of saying that the ralley put on by Hillary's supporters was "staged." She said nobody was in the hall thirty minutes before, when clearly that was a lie.
Mitchell herself was there and on the air thirty minutes before. There was music playing and Hillary's supporters were indeed there. How can MSNBC or NBC News expect to be taken seriously when they pull something like this?
Clearly MSNBC has an agenda with Obama, and this concerns me greatly. It's one thing to look at this in terms of an African American winning a caucus for the first time. That in and of itself has historical significance.
It's altogether entirely different to bend and twist news coverage of an event so that it becomes a made for television political advertisement, and psuedo endorsement of one candidate.
The concern I have is that the media could hype one candidate to help him or her win, just as much as it could hype another weak candidate to help the opposition win.
That's what MSNBC did last night.
We'll see what happens in the primaries that lay ahead. Primaries where one single vote is cast and there is no negotiating that goes on for a second ballot.
I've voiced my concerns here several times. They are that Independents, and/or Republicans who aren't likely to vote in the general election for a Democratic candidate, are trying to influence the nominating process of The Democratic Party. The question then becomes; will they be there to support that candidate in October? The polling data suggests not.
Republicans are always a step ahead when it comes to dirty tricks. The Democratic Party needs to be careful in this regard.
The good news is that Bill Clinton's campaign didn't take off until after New Hampshire and South Carolina in 1992. Hillary may well parrallel that scenario. My guess is that she'll be in the lead by super Tuesday.
But, the nomination itself will probably go down to the wire, right to the last few primaries.
Nobody would have thought that initially.
But after the made for television event I saw last night, I believe the media's influence will keep it close until then.
In the end it's about qualifications, and electability. Obama lied again last night about hiw healthcare plan in Illinois. That really bothers me because he did not pass legislation that provided anyone with healthcare. The Illinois Healthcare Justice act of 2004 did nothing more than create study groups, and task forces who didn't even submitt their reports until last summer. (Three years after Obama left office to run for the U.S. Senate)
Hillary is still the best, most capable, and most highly qualified Democratic candidate, with the best shot at beating the Republicans in November.
Social conservatives, and hard core Southern Republicans will energize to defeat Obama all throughout the South, and the Southwest.
I just hope the voters in New Hampshire have a level head on their shoulders and don't fall into the trap that's being laid for them by the mainstream media and by conservatives who want the weakest Democrat to get the nomination.
Change is good. But you have to be able to win the general election in order to change anything.
Hillary can, and will win.
But we have to get her nominated first. Let's not allow a state (Iowa) that usually picks the loser to influence who we should run in November.

I've tried to stay neutral in this race; I'd be OK with any of the main candidates. I was a little disappointed that Chris Dodd did so poorly. I thought he deserved better after he showed the courage in the Senate to block the amnesty bill for telecommunications companies doing illegal wiretapping. I was also disappointed that neither Obama nor Clinton helped him by returning to the Senate to vote, although both did say they were against the bill.

I also liked much of what Biden was proposing, especially public financing of election campaigns.

Having said that, I have to admit that my first unguarded reaction on hearing that Obama had won in Iowa was: ALL RIGHT!!! I think he has great potential as a leader; I hope he lives up to it. And if he gets the Dem nomination, I hope he's also got the toughness to stand up to the Publican Swiftboat crowd and their big-money backers. If Obama does win the nomination, they'll be slinging mud at him even more furiously than they did against Kerry.

Obama's victory proves that he can bring people from different views together.  His votes were from both sides of the aisle and independents.

His campaign shows us how he will lead the country. It proves that he is effective as a leader.  
If he will run the administration like he has run this campaign we will all win.

I look forward to being inspired by him as our president.  His wit and wisdom is a real gift.  He is the embodiment of the diversity in America.  His election will be an extremly well received event for the entire world and will in itself start healing the world, after all he will be a world leader, not just our president.

I am waiting to see who Biden and Dodd support - I am sure it is not Hillary.  I suspect it will be Obama.  I'm sorry to see them drop out so early, unless it is to give him support.  I would love to see them in his administration.

Huckabee has no background in foreign affairs. His background alienates people of other beleifs.  He's a likable guy, buy many thought Bush was too.  No republican could beat Obama.  

 I am encouraged by John Edwards showing. I have to believe that the American people will eventually embrace Edwards' strong position on "FAIR" trade, and support him as the candidate that will lead the United States back to it's traditional position of strength.
 For crying out loud folks, the media is ignoring the only voice of reason as our nation dives hopelessly in debt to COMMUNIST CHINA and our jobs are disappearing at a record rate...right along with the record increase in home foreclosures! What are we thinking?
 Obama definately had a good night, and would probably make a great vice-president.

"Clinton Supporter all the way.  She is great for our country. Obama is not good for the office.  Not that much experience".  

Rumsfeld and Cheney had all the experience you can ask for and look where that got us. I believe we need real life experience like Roosevelt, Lincoln, and JFK. There is a difference between Washington experience and real life experience. Think about it.

To all,
Unfortunately, the raw number of Republican votes were reported as opposed to the number of delegates being reported on the Democratic side.  It is, as usual, a bit misleading purposefully to have the naked eye believe that the one party's votes outweighed the others during the critical election time.  Therefore, causing some people to believe that their vote will probably not matter.  Here are some roundabout figures:

239,000 Democratic voters
Obama 38% - 90,820
Edwards 30% - 71,700
Clinton 29% - 69,310

The remaining 7,170 were among others who were not highlighted.

Please continue to watch closely and do not be deceived by creative reporting.

Well, it looks like Obama vs Who?  Obama's the most anti-war of the Democrats, but he would push us farther down the slope to socialism at home.  And as I recall, even Obama would not commit to having all the troops out of Iraq by the end of his first term (2013).  There's only one candidate who's non-interventionist abroad and pro-liberty at home.  Figure it out.

It seems the traditional Democrats are taking back control of their party after the Clintons claimed ground in the center, but in the end, it was things like the Welfare Reform Act where they caved in to the right.  The old line Democrats' children grew up during the years the Newt Gingrich neo Conservatives ran this country; and the Democratic party has been reinvigorated by young voters supporting Obama. The Clinton political brand is no longer appealing.  Personally, I feel HRC was only first lady but was a driving force in abandoning the base (poor voters) and aligned with Dick Morris to pass the WRA.  This has left millions of Americans already in poverty without a safety net.  An Obama/Edwards ticket would be strongly supported by the American people because there are too many Americans slipping into poverty, largely because Democratic leaders like the Clintons too easily sold them out.  

Dimitra [[What a ridiculously outdated nominations process (electoral college; caucus) we have in this country!]]

It seems pretty weird to me, too. But one thing I do like about the Democratic caucus is that people backing candidates that don't get enough votes to be "viable" can switch their votes to other candidates. Kucinich encouraged his supporters to back Obama, and it may have added a percent or two to Obama's totaly.

I wish the federal election system would adopt a similar "second choice" option to voters for what's been called an "instant run-off." If no candidate gets 50% of the vote, then voters second choices are added to the totals. That way, people could vote for Ralph Nader or a Libertarian to make a statement without worrying that they were "wasting" their vote. That would be good for all minor parties, although I doubt the either the Dems or the Pubs would go along with it for obvious reasons.

[[Why does this small, rural, mostly christan, mostly white, mostly affluent determine the candidates fot the rest of the nation?]]

Well, the Iowa Dems did vote for a black guy who's Christian but not a fanatic about it and who even has Muslim (gasp!) heritage. The Pub voters in Iowa are another matter entirely. They voted for Pat Robertson in the past and voted for another preacher man this time, too.

Edwards is still alive in the election and he will go on to N.H. on a good note and hopefully he will win there. He will win the nomination.

Who wants to join me in bringing back the Silent Majority, only this time representing the great mass of Americans sick and tired of both parties? It is that unrepresented average "Joe" or "Jane" who believes in patriotism and a strong defense, in keeping God in our schools, our courts and our life, and who are tough on crime but also believe in a woman's right to choose, civil rights and equality for all citizens, limits on lobbying and political contributions and a pro-Green approach to the environment. I don't know about you but every election seems to be the same old choice between two organizations that no longer represent the "everyman and everywoman".  

P.S. Edwards gets 30% for rounding up.  The actual separation between he and Hillary is less than 3 tenths of a percentage.  Yes, he has a higher percentage, but it can hardly be considered a decisive second-place finish.

And for all of you out there who were so positive my second choice was going to be Hillary...

It wasn't.  It was Edwards.  

Congratulations to Barrack Obama, his staff, and his supporters for winning the Iowa Caucuses.
Now here are some harsh facts they have to deal with;
*The caucusing among Democrats only, was Obama 32%, Hillary 31%. A close race and an indication that 68% of Democrats in Iowa voted against the caucus winner. (This could be very telling.)
*20% of Obama's support came from Independents and Republicans who probably caucused for him because he would-be easy to beat in November. The question is; Would they support him in a general election?
*3 out of the last 4 Presidents all lost The Iowa Caucuses. (interesting statistic, huh?)
*Big "winners" in the Iowa Caucuses previously were;
1972-Edmund Muskie, wasn't nominated
1976-Gerald Ford, an incumbant President who got less than 50% of the popular vote in the general election and lost to Jimmey Carter
1980-George H.W. Bush, wasn't nominated
1984-Walter Mondale, won exactly one (1) state in general election, lost worst landslide of all time to Ronald Reagan.
1988-Dick Gephart, wasn't nominated
1988-Bob Dole, wasn't nominated
1992-Tom Harkin, wasn't nominated
1992-George H.W. Bush, incumbant President, lost general election to Bill Clinton
1996-Bob Dole, took 39% of the popular vote and lost general election to Bill Clinton.
So as you can see, Iowa frequently does not reflect the "pulse" of America.
In fact, the Iowa Caucuses usually go the opposite way of the rest of the primaries, and the general election.
One other thing needs to be said here. MSNBC's television coverage last night was the most prejudicial, and biased news coverage I have ever seen in my 40 years of watching Presidential elections.
According to Chris Mathews, Obama has the nomination all sewn up. He didn't do any homework as to what historically happens with candidates AFTER Iowa.
He spent most of the evening sniping at The Clintons, proclaiming that Hillary can't "comeback" from this, and saying that Obama is going to win NH, and South Carolina too.
Howard Fineman did the same thing. I don't know if I ever saw a candidate who was hyped by the media, like this, ever before in my life.
If I could research the facts I've stated above about where Obama's support comes from, and what has happened through the years to those who won in Iowa, you know full well the staff at MSNBC can too.
But they avoided saying it like the plague.
I think this is a blantant case of irresponsible, yellow journalism at it's finest.
The only one on MSNBC's panel who made any sense was Rachel Maddow, and of the interviewees, Chuck Todd (of all people) made sense too.
Both intimated that this isn't as devestating a blow to Hillary's campaign as Mathews was making it out to be, and certainly not an indication that Obama would or will win the nomination.
I also noticed that MSNBC reported first ballot percentages on The Republican side that shows Huckabee winning. But, they waited until well into the second ballot so they could report that Obama was ahead. Why the early reporting on ones side, but not the other.
Bear in mind that "underdogs" make good stories when they win. I'm wondering if that had something to do with it.
Andrea Mitchell was particularly obnoxious as well. She went to the extent of saying that the ralley put on by Hillary's supporters was "staged." She said nobody was in the hall thirty minutes before, when clearly that was a lie.
Mitchell herself was there and on the air thirty minutes before. There was music playing and Hillary's supporters were indeed there. How can MSNBC or NBC News expect to be taken seriously when they pull something like this?
Clearly MSNBC has an agenda with Obama, and this concerns me greatly. It's one thing to look at this in terms of an African American winning a caucus for the first time. That in and of itself has historical significance.
It's altogether entirely different to bend and twist news coverage of an event so that it becomes a made for television political advertisement, and psuedo endorsement of one candidate.
The concern I have is that the media could hype one candidate to help him or her win, just as much as it could hype another weak candidate to help the opposition win.
That's what MSNBC did last night.
We'll see what happens in the primaries that lay ahead. Primaries where one single vote is cast and there is no negotiating that goes on for a second ballot.
I've voiced my concerns here several times. They are that Independents, and/or Republicans who aren't likely to vote in the general election for a Democratic candidate, are trying to influence the nominating process of The Democratic Party. The question then becomes; will they be there to support that candidate in October? The polling data suggests not.
Republicans are always a step ahead when it comes to dirty tricks. The Democratic Party needs to be careful in this regard.
The good news is that Bill Clinton's campaign didn't take off until after New Hampshire and South Carolina in 1992. Hillary may well parrallel that scenario. My guess is that she'll be in the lead by super Tuesday.
But, the nomination itself will probably go down to the wire, right to the last few primaries.
Nobody would have thought that initially.
But after the made for television event I saw last night, I believe the media's influence will keep it close until then.
In the end it's about qualifications, and electability. Obama lied again last night about hiw healthcare plan in Illinois. That really bothers me because he did not pass legislation that provided anyone with healthcare. The Illinois Healthcare Justice act of 2004 did nothing more than create study groups, and task forces who didn't even submitt their reports until last summer. (Three years after Obama left office to run for the U.S. Senate)
Hillary is still the best, most capable, and most highly qualified Democratic candidate, with the best shot at beating the Republicans in November.
Social conservatives, and hard core Southern Republicans will energize to defeat Obama all throughout the South, and the Southwest.
I just hope the voters in New Hampshire have a level head on their shoulders and don't fall into the trap that's being laid for them by the mainstream media and by conservatives who want the weakest Democrat to get the nomination.
Change is good. But you have to be able to win the general election in order to change anything.
Hillary can, and will win.
But we have to get her nominated first. Let's not allow a state (Iowa) that usually picks the loser to influence who we should run in November.



J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY (Sent Friday, January 04, 2008 11:45 AM)

------------------------

I'm gonna hang on to this bitter diatribe to repost on 2/6. By then, with 30 states holding primaries or caucuses a day earlier, we should know the nominees from both parties. I'm going to repost this and show you, for what I hope will be the FINAL time, that Obama's support is national. People nationwide are sick and tired of Hillary. The attention at the national level given to Iowa over the last several weeks, along with the unusually early debates show that she is dreadfully ill prepared to lead the country. Her gaff about Musharraf being on the ballot in February shows just how out of touch she is with foreign issues and her mandate for healthcare does not sit well with ANYONE I know, especially given the debacle she lead in 1993. People I speak to daily in person and via several online communities are dreading the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton monopoly on power we may see and have said they are voting against it.

So, I will see you on 2/6 and see who's eating the crow, sir.

As First Read alludes to, if the 220,000 votes were counted and reported like a normal election, Obama's win would have been even more astounding.  First Read estimates he would have won by 15-20%.   For those who watched the CSpan airing of the main Des Moines caucus last night (apparently picked by CSpan because it was the most representative), Obama had almost THREE times as many people standing up for him as Hillary.  It was astounding.
An amazed voter (Sent Friday, January 04, 2008 10:58 AM)

Incorrect.  Biden, Dodd, Kucinich and Richardson supporters ALL had to go to their second-choice candidates when they were not viable.  In a popular vote, those who showed up to support the second-tier candidates but didn't meet the viability threshold (which increased turnout made higher) would have been counted.  Richardson was consistently polling at around 10%, while Biden was consistently polling at around 5%.  That 15% (assuming the accuracy of the polls) had to go somewhere, as it is not reflected in the delegate distribution.  

In my precinct, the non-viable vote split between Edwards and Obama.  If viability were not an issue, neither would have gotten those supporters and their delegates would reflect that.

Marc Penn explains it away with "the difference is the under 30 group turned out" & Hil will fix that in New Hampshire "by making clear that she was about change for all generations." Then Jay Carson gets talked into a hole & falls back on "but older women love her!"

It's younger folks she needs to convert. You can't put a band-aid on that in 5 days!  She just *doesn't appeal* to younger voters.  Many of whom CAN'T REMEMBER a president not named Bush or Clinton.

If she loses NH, she's toast, puppies.

Pat in NY (Sent Friday, January 04, 2008 11:21 AM)

Just out of curiosity, you do know that Obama is blowing through money just as fast as Clinton, right?  He actually spent a couple of million more than she did in Iowa.  

The purpose of raising money for a campaign is to SPEND it in furtherance of that campaign.  It's not like she could say "oh, I don't need it so I am going to give it to the Red Cross."  It seems a bit odd that you would object to a candidate because she spent the money campaign that was raised for her to do just that.  

[[Why does this small, rural, mostly christan, mostly white, mostly affluent determine the candidates fot the rest of the nation?]]

Mostly affluent???  Take a trip to Iowa and see how "affluent" people are.  My grandparents were all poor farmers who worked themselves into the middle class.  Not the upper class - the middle class.  

I don't consider Iowa to be a poor state, but neither is a it a particularly wealthy one.  

I agree with Dean. If Hillary is not the Democratic Nominee I will be voting Republican. I cannot support Obama.He is not a proven entity. Let's work to get Hillary elected.

hillary nor obama can win the general election, never could, edwards is still the only dem that can beat the repubs, ignore this fact at your own peril

Geez you guys are really slow. I'd bet even money that "Dean" - also my name, incidently, although mine is legit - is a Republican in Dems clothing just trying to con voters into supporting his party's nominee. Remember: many Republican supporters, although certainly not most, are card-carrying members of the "Dirty-Tricks-Are-Us" club. Don't fall for such an obvious load of B.S.

I am a New Zealander (What?/Where? ;-), which probably in the eyes of Americans should disclude me from this debate, and I respect that view. I am a great "Americanist" and have watched the reputation of the US undeservedly slide here and in the rest of the world that I travel. I'm sure this slide is due to young people and the press at large not giving due thought to the processes at large in the world, and understanding that the US is basically defending all our democratic beleifs. It scares me not as a  fan of the US particularly, but more as to the alternatives. Therefore the leadership decisions of the US are immensely important, and no more so than now, following this period where frankly the leadership of the US has brought derision worldwide (sorry GOP-ers, Bush had the impossibility of Iraq/Al Qaeda, but it's true)
So you may be surprised at the level of interest in this election there is down here, and everywhere. The reason I'm blogging (a rare event) is that although I've been following the Obama/Clinton race closely, as several writers have pointed out, getting hard facts about Obama, and his real objectives and his methods there to acheive, has been hard to do. The press has got a 7-second "oh what a lovely smile" fixation on him, and don't seem to want to tell us what he's actually about except in sweeping (usually gushing) statements. CLinton certainly rides on Billy's coat-tails, but at least you all know she's got the smarts.... but then is it "too smart by half" ? I don't envy the American voter, although maybe I do because these two protagonists are the best offerings the US has had to pick from since you wisely chose Bill (Clinton) and John (FK) (I bet I get a reaction to that one! LOL)
The point is: I think you, and the rest of the world, should be demanding higher press scrutiny to the protagonists in this , the most important politcal decision in the world. As it stands, it seems that black and young people are voting for Obama because he's black and he's young, and older and white people are voting for Hillary because she's older and white. Yikes! Or... and this is obvious, there is a whole raft of floaters who are simply voting against Hillary. Yikes again! Where's the scrutiny, the hard questions, the qualified unbiased journalism? I'm no apologist or fan for her, but there seems like a lot of "conspiracy theory" BS is floating around (latest; she new about 9/11 before it happened? what crap) that's simply BS on top on BS, designed to discredit her.
The qualification for President is not "oohh, isn't he like me"... it's (internationally) what the real resolutions to the entire Middel East situation is with a view to global security and the very real World War that now exists. And Internally(no pun intended Bill) how to resolve the heinous internal debt/motgage position and massive trade deficit to prevent a meltdown of the US economy. Voters SHOULD DEMAND answers with personally signed , legally binding policy-action statements(can you imagine?) on these items, and you've got your man, or woman. I know there's more to it, but just distill the issues to the core stuff. Politicians hate that! Get to the core; all the rest is just smoke, mirrors, spin and colgate smiles.
Voting just because they seem "nice" or "my type"? That's how you (read we, mate) all got George Dubbuyah. Mind you, he's got a great swagger, is a mean horseman, and has a fair golf swing, and he doesn't call mulligans.And I like those ivory handle Colts he packs; nice Texan touch. Goes with the horse and the boots.
Vote well, our great friends; this one's the biggest decision you may ever as a nation make, as US policy fiscal and international are pivotal right now as to where history will track.... and to put my perspective ... thanks for 1945.... I wasn't even born then, but sure do love my little peice of democracy, and to be able to write freely as I do this morning. It wasn't that long ago really, neither was Korea and Viet Nam and the whole Cold War, and although I protested like the dipshit 16 year-old I was, I now realise the meaning of those GI gravesites here and scattered through the South Pacific Asia and Europe. There's one behind the hospital my 80 yr dad's in (built by the US and NZ jointly in 1943, btw), and a walk through there yesterday inspired this letter.
Save your economy (probably Hillary)and get your foreign policy sorted, and explained to the world(defintiely Barrack) There's a lot at stake due to the debacle of the last 8 years. It wasn't of poor George's making, but the talent sure has been lacking when it was needed.

CHeers from summer (it's 26deg C this morning, I'm off to the beach :-)

ı hope and ı believe obama will continue to take other states much more easier,not for just the benefit of one nation  in the world also for the sake of whole world.He is the man who deserves to assure peace and prosperity among the globe.İn this  global world,hillary and edwards are just like swiss chocalate does not mean any more,no representation of american dreams carry on.

The TV commentators said something critical:  People have known Clinton for years, even decades.  If they did not vote for her, it was for a reason.  Basically, 70% of the DEMOCRATIC base voted against her.  Independents opposed her.  Republicans certainly do.  With these kinds of negatives, she just can't win in November. Dems want a winner AND ALSO someone who can get things done instead of fighting old partisan battles from the get-go.

People want to move away from Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton and the intertwined special interests that have been feeding from the trough.  

That message was loud and clear.

Dear DAVID ANDERS,

I read with intrique your proposal to PUNISH ANYONE THAT IS CRITICAL OF OUR ARMY DURING TIME OF WAR.

Personally, I rarely criticize anyone in our army itself (except the ones who torture, rape or kill civilians - but I criticize civilians who do the same).  My one exception is the Commander in Chief of our army.  At the risk of punishment, I think he's an idiot who put our nation's security at risk, devastated thousands of military families (more than were impacted by 9/11), and made the mistake of approaching 2 simultaneous wars without definite end points.  If I waited to criticize him until it's no longer a time of war, he'll already be out of office.

If I don't post again, it's probably because David Anders has sent me to Gitmo for speaking my mind...

Remember to keep some perspective:
ANY of the Dems would make a better leader than the current White House occupant. Also, the candidates' websites are revealing. Obama devotes an 11-page .pdf to specific energy/environment issues and solutions. This impresses me more than the short platitudes I've seen on some other sites.

< Who wants to join me in bringing back the Silent Majority >

I would, but only if were really quiet about it. Don't want to offend anyone.

Dean (and others) Wow. We get over 200 thousand dems, including historic levels of young people to vote and some of you are angry? What the hell is wrong with you? How selfish are you that you pout and say that you'll sabotage the election because democracy didn't go your way. See, I would support your candidate if she were the nominee. That's what we do. I'm seriously beginning to wonder if the Clintons and some of their supporters really did become what they were fighting against.

A few quick observations... It seems that the Obama people hate Clinton and spend more time attacking her character than her ideas. Secondly their hatred of Clinton seems to be transferred to the Clinton supporters. Third how will Obama win the presidency when he and his supporters seem bent on driving the Clinton supporters out of the party. I feel our country is at a cross roads and will need the leadership that only comes from the experience that Hillary can provide. The only thing that Obama seems to bring to the table is I am for change, but seems to have absolutely no idea how to implement change

I agree with Merle Stanley's position on Chris Matthews he should wear a Obama campaign button or move to fox noise where he belongs.

It's amazing to me to be reading so much garbage from so many American Citizens. It's the very beginning of the election - no one knows how it will turn out in the end. The one Democratic candidate who vows to protect the Consitution and wants to impeach the warmonger/war-profiteer Cheney, namely Kucinich, is treated as a joke by everyone.  The one Republican who actually sounds like an American who cares about this country's future, namely Ron Paul, is treated like a total outsider. Meanwhile, rabid "Christians" who wouldn't know Jesus if he stood right in front of them and rabid Pentagon worshippers who probably never wore the uniform or fired a shot in combat want to crucify the Clintons and install a militaristic theocracy. If this was the 60's Giuliani, Romney, Huckabee, Thompson, and McCain wouldn't be able to get a job emptying wastebaskets at a local Republican headquarters. The only Democrat who actually speaks in concrete terms, namely Edwards, is in 2nd place.  He actually speaks of bringing our misused, underpaid, overworked and under-equipped troops home. He actually speaks of releasing this country from the stranglehold of large corporations that undermine our security and future in the name of short-term profit. HE'S the one in 2nd place. It's time the American voter finally said, "What is this candidate going to do for ME?"  "Is he/she going to make sure that my job doesn't go to China so that the executives in my company can retire with millions while I'm left with a stinking 401k?" "Will this candidate actually go after Osama instead of chasing ghosts in Iraq?"  "Will this candidate give tax breaks to people who want to buy electric cars (not hybrids) and invest in solar and wind energy?"  "Will this candidate release us from our foreign oil entanglements by promoting alternative energy so we can tell the entire Middle East to go jump off a cliff?"  "Will this candidate lead us into the 21rst Century instead of rehashing the same old crap from the 20th?" Come on, people. Will you please GROW UP?

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):