Iowa results (D)

Nashville_fan — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 14:41:04 GMT

I really do think that this was a victory for the American voter. It proved that our votes do matter, and that the political process can be changed.

I'm very happy with the results, and astounded at how accurante the Des Moines Resgister poll was - those folks should teach some polling classes!

Obama '08

Iowa results (D)

M. Boley — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 14:41:16 GMT

I hope all you 'hotshot' pundits who thought that this would be a Hillary win or a Romney win are enjoying your crow big time. Every last morsel of it.

All of you have been had... you have zero cred now.

Obama is on his way to being the next President and you 'pundits' are totally clueless. But that's all right. It's about time that the traditional Washington Establishment be smashed - and Barack Obama is the man to do it.

Iowa results (D)

Dean, Waterbury, CT — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 14:44:02 GMT

Now is the time for all Clinton supporters to leave the Democratic Party. We are hated on the net by the Obama people (especially on Daily Kos). Okay, you want your 2 bit nobody media-hype Obama? You've got him. You can have him. I said this yesterday and I continue to call for all Clinton supporters to support whomever the Repubs select this year. The MSM have won again. You want a vapid, inexperienced phony with a line of BS a mile wide. Again, okay. I personally don't care what the Obama supporters think. All I know as a Dem for decades and a volunteer for my party, the party has abandoned us for an undeserving upstart who wants it all without paying his dues. Please email me at deblasiogwae@hotmail if you will join me in this effort. I would like to get at least 100 Clintonites to respond. Best, Dean

Iowa results (D)

CitizenJ — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 14:52:01 GMT

It was a great night for Democrats. The explosive turnout shows that this swing state that went to Bush in 2004 just might go to the Dem nominee in 2008.

Congratulations to Senator Obama.

Iowa results (D)

Lewis, Cincinnati, Ohio — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 14:53:13 GMT

Dean, You're ridiculous. We all should support the nominee whomever it is. PERIOD. This isn't as much about Obama as it is about people wanting change. They want to be inspired by the process instead of picking the less of two evils. You should be ashamed of yourself!!!

Iowa results (D)

Eric, Newtown, PA — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 14:54:13 GMT

Dean,

Sour grapes much? What is it that Hillary is supposedly standing for anyway? She'd be competent, but we can do better. Take another look at Obama. He's not only an excellent politician - he has a shining intelellect and a strongly progressive record.

Iowa results (D)

M. Boley — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 14:55:39 GMT

Dean, you wouldn't be Bill by any chance? Feeling a bit sore, huh?

Yeah, real good 'advice' you have there. If you are 'real' and not some bumbling idiot troll then you have exposed yourself for being a Rightwinger underneath all that BS about being a Dem. And what's this rubbish about 'having to pay dues'? Oh, you must be one of those Establishment types... no wonder you are sore over Hillary's sorry performance, right?

Iowa results (D)

J Kerns, St. Joseph, MO — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:01:56 GMT

To some degree, I agree with Dean. My one wish is that the press (who have screwed up the last few presidential races) would do their job. Someone needs to tell me something I don't know about Obama and that isn't a huge challenge, as I know very little. "He's inspiring." Big deal.
He skips important votes. He wasn't in the senate for the Iraq vote, so we don't REALLY know how he (or IF he) would have voted!! I heard someone in the press say that 60% voted against Hillary. Well someone needs to know, if my vote switches IT WON"T BE TO OBAMA!! NOT RIGHT NOW. Someone in the press should pay attention and report FACTS! MSNBC has been missing the boat lately in my opinion.

Iowa results (D)

Barbara C., Pompano Beach, FL — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:02:15 GMT

OK....here is my take. I have NOT heard a speech that well cadenced since Bobby Kennedy. I have been saying this for over a year now. It is NOT about who has the experience or the machine...it is about who has the CHARISMA. Politics is a Sales Job.....

Two strategies stopped Hillary....and it was NOT the Philly Debates:

1) When her Campaign went negative.
2) Her inability to reach out to the masses the way
Obama did.

Iowa results (D)

Rick, Bonifay, FL — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:09:16 GMT

Iowa results (D)

nancy, baltimore MD — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:09:19 GMT

Dean,

Lets face it this country is screwed up, we vote for people who look good, not ones who show up in the senate and vote, or spend thier whole life in public service, women= %itches if they are strong politically
lets face it we do not want a woman in the white house, we want no experience, again like george bush who will BS thier way to the white house, I'm tired of hearing the " change" thing, change will happen because cheney is not running so anyone is a change from this, but
I'm really afraid if we want real change , then voting for Obama is not the answer, remember he is a senator, who is now a part of washington DC!

Iowa results (D)

Jason, Philadelphia — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:09:28 GMT

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

Iowa results (D)

jerry/corpus christi texas — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:09:56 GMT

Maybe if Hillary would have done a rebel yell like Howard dean did, maybe the reverse would have happened, she might have picked a few more votes up.

This has been a good week for me....
Picked Obama/Edwards/Clinton in exact order
won $180 in the lottery
won $100 on the Georgia/Hawaii game....

I should be booking a flight to Vegas today.

Iowa results (D)

blester,texas — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:13:34 GMT

hey first read,,, why are you always wrong.
Portsmouth does not have an air force base. it was closed over a decade ago.

Iowa results (D)

Dante — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:14:02 GMT

Dean is a bit bitter!! There has to be a lot more behind his hatred for Obama than meets the eye!! I mean seriously, he is calling for Democrats to leave the party b/c Obama won Iowa!! That is really crazy!!! Dean take a moment and relax, deal with your own hatred feelings, Obama has never did anything to anyone, just stop and think, maybe your candidate of choice is not the best candidate!!

Barack the vote!!!

Iowa results (D)

B Castillo, Las Vegas NV — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:19:56 GMT

What were the actual numbers for each candidate? Listing them in percentages hides actual values and makes it look better if the turn-out wasn't really that good after all. Quit hiding things from the voters. Let us know the full score. Thank you. :-)

Iowa results (D)

Crystal (Time for change) — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:20:25 GMT

J Kerns, St. Joseph, MO (Sent Friday, January 04, 2008 10:01 AM)

I am sorry that you don't know much about Obama, I suggest you read either of his two books or simply go to his website www.barackobama.com. For you to admit that you don't know much and then say but you will never vote for him, what is that based on? That is truly sad. I hope that you push yourself to make an informed decision!! The fact that he was able to beat out two household names "Clinton and Edwards" should intrigue you enough to give him a second look!!! Iowa voters are said to be the most informed voters and they made a good choice!! Just get informed so you can make a good choice as well!

Iowa results (D)

M Wells — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:24:23 GMT

Nashville Fan - you said I really do think that this was a victory for the American voter. It proved that our votes do matter, and that the political process can be changed.
Tell that to the Biden, Dodd, and Richardson supporters who were forced by the arcane Iowa Dems caucus process to switch their votes to some other candidate. Richardson, in particular, was a big loser by this -- and Edwards and Obama may have had their votes inflated by as much as 10%, depending on how the Richardson votes were distributed.

Iowa results (D)

Femi — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:25:20 GMT

Obama should have ran in Kenya(his fatherland). We need him more in Africa; with high level of corruption and zero healthcare...AFRICA NEEDS CHANGE, KENYA IN PARTICULAR.

WE have enough talents and monitors here in the US.

Iowa results (D)

David Anders Pharr ,Tx. — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:26:00 GMT

MIKE HUCKABEE HAS PROVED THAT THIS COUNTRY IS TIRED OF ANTI CHRIST PEOPLE, BABY KILLERS, AND MILITARY HATERS. WE ARE NOT GOING TO PUT UP WITH IT ANY LONGER. HOPEFULLY WE WILL STOP THE BABY KILLING, PUT PRAYER BACK IN SCHOOL, AND PUNISH ANYONE THAT IS CRITICAL OF OUR ARMY DURING TIME OF WAR.

Iowa results (D)

David Anders Pharr ,Tx. — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:26:13 GMT

HOPEFULLY THE PEOPLE IN N H WILL NOT STOOP LOW ENOUGH TO VOTE FOR A WOMAN THAT TOOK DRUG AND CRIMINAL MONEY FOR PARDONS FROM A PERVERTED MAN WHO ASSUALTED A YOUNG INTERN WITH A CIGAR. ALSO A FAMILY THAT RENTED THE LINCOLN BEDROOM TO A DRUG DEALER. AND A WOMAN THAT WONT REVEAL HER THESIS BECAUSE IT WAS WRITTEN ON HER PRAISE OF COMMUNISM.

Iowa results (D)

dcogan — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:26:26 GMT

For those who haven't followed the story (because the MSM has not reported it to you), Hillary is soon to be under oath in Los Angeles in the historic civil case, Paul v Clinton. You probably don't know that the FEC ruled in Dec. 2005 that her campaign had filed three false reports and hid $720,000. She filed a fourth false report in Jan. 2006. The GOP has all of this info and is hoping she will get the nomination. Discovery in the civil case is going to expose it all, including the actions of a US Attorney, who withheld important video evidence during official investigations and the criminal trial of Hillary's campaign finance chairman.

Iowa results (D)

Ann, Iowa — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:26:34 GMT

Mitt Romney wants Gun Control

In his 1994 US Senate run, Romney backed two gun-control measures strongly opposed by the National Rifle Association and other gun-rights groups: the Brady Bill, which imposed a five-day waiting period on gun sales, and a ban on certain assault weapons.

"That's not going to make me the hero of the NRA,"

Mitt Romney told the Boston Herald in 1994.

At another campaign stop that year, he told reporters: "I don't line up with the NRA."
- Boston Globe, January 14, 2007 Read the article

Iowa results (D)

CitizenJ — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:27:42 GMT

Ok......someone explain to me. Approximately 239,000 Democrats turned out in Iowa, yet the results sho Obama receiving 940 votes???? Maybe I need a lesson on the "Caucus" proccess. Thanks, and let's STICK TOGETHER as DEMOCRATS!!!!

Rick, Bonifay, FL (Sent Friday, January 04, 2008 10:09 AM)

The 940 represents the equivalent number of delegates that Obama will receive for the convention. You need a certain number of delegates to win the nomination, and because Iowa has this caucus format, it requires some weird mathematical conversions.

Iowa results (D)

Kymberly — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:31:16 GMT

Clinton Supporter all the way. She is great for our country. Obama is not good for the office. Not that much experience.
Jason, Philadelphia (Sent Friday, January 04, 2008 10:09 AM)

Jason,

Experience doesn't mean anything if you continue to make mistakes and do not learn your lesson. You have to be willing and capable of change. Clinton is not, did you watch last night, behind her stood all old faces, that doesn't help her campaign, people want to see change. We don't want the same old style politics. I was really disappointed when Clinton last week mistakenly spoke about Pakistani President Musharraf being on the ballot, even though Presidential elections were held 6 months ago and the issue now is parliamentary elections. It really messed up her credibility on foreign policy.

Iowa results (D)

Martin — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:33:43 GMT

Come on Dean, don't give up so easily! Let's keep on supporting Hillary all the way! Hussein Obama is worthless and annoying, Hillary will win the nomination and be the next leader of the free world! Hillary forever!

Iowa results (D)

Steve, Hartford, CT — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:34:34 GMT

*Sigh* People say Obama is all fluff and the media is hyping him...but then you say you know next to nothing about him. Well, which is it? If the media was hyping him, wouldn't you know all the good things there are to know about him? Things like:

- In Illinois, Obama got a reform of the death penalty passed, in a majority Republican legislature, against the original wishes of the police lobby. In the end, Obama was able to bring the police lobby around and bring in bipartisan support for mandatory taping of all interrogations in possible capital cases.

- Obama pushed through an ethics reform bill, also in a Republican-controlled legislature, in one of the most corrupt state governments in the union.

- Obama has not skipped important votes. He skips votes where his vote won't make a difference, and if you're thinking about those "present" votes, you should know that those were a way to register protest or to avoid falling into those nasty political traps that are so popular in today's bitter partisan atmosphere. (There was also at least one vote, on an abortion-related issue, where a pro-choice advocacy group asked him not to vote no, even though the bill would pass either way. He really wanted to vote no, but chose instead to honor the wishes of the advocacy group.)

- He may not have been in the Senate when he denounced Iraq, but he WAS running for that seat at the time. But despite the need to get elected, he still stood up and said that Iraq was a "dumb war." He also said (to paraphrase) that Iraq would turn into a quagmire, requiring an occupation of "undetermined length."

- One of Obama's many good ideas in the Senate was the Healthcare for Hybrids bill. This bill works to solve two problems at once (GM's healthcare woes + fuel efficiency).

- Obama has fought hard on nuclear nonproliferation and securing the stores of nuclear weapons and weapons material that are unsecured (largely in Russia).

I can go on if necessary, but that would require me to actually go and find out more myself. More info is available on various websites that analyze politicians, as well as www.barackobama.com of course.

So there you have it. All the things you didn't hear from the media about Obama. Still think they're in love with him? I certainly never thought so.

Iowa results (D)

Nashville_fan — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:38:16 GMT

To Dean, Waterbury, CT:

This is not about you sir, it is about America. We have all "paid our dues" under the Bush administration. If America decides that we don't want Hillary Clinton as President, that is not all about bringing her down. It is about who we want to lead America into the future.

Perhaps you should take your energy to help Senator Clinton win instead of abandoning the Democratic party based on one vote.

Iowa results (D)

Pat Huntington NY — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:41:27 GMT

Iowa results (D)

Nashville_fan — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:45:33 GMT

M Wells,

Although the caucus process is not perfect, everyone knew the rules going in - and they have been the same for over 30 years.

These candidates have been running for president for MONTHS, doing national debats for MONTHS, and raising funds for MONTHS. If they have not caught fire, it is not for lack of exposure. For whatever reason, they did not attract enough support.

Iowa results (D)

Joe Einloth — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:46:27 GMT

David Anders Pharr (from being an expert on the Constitution), ever heard of the First Amendment? And WHOSE prayer gets said in schools?

Iowa results (D)

Caucus Hater, NY — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:47:06 GMT

I just simply don't understand this whole Caucus stuff. Why do they do it? A Primary, run like a typical election where you go to a polling place, enter a booth, vote for your candidate, and leave, is much more efficient, and provides for a better chance of voter turnout. The Caucus process is unfair, too laborous, and no one can explain the numbers.

Iowa results (D)

M. Boley — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:48:14 GMT

Keep shouting, David Anders. I can't hear you... not that your message has any merit or anything.

Iowa results (D)

An amazed voter — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:58:46 GMT

Rick,

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.

Iowa results (D)

David Newman, Scottsdale AZ — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 16:01:30 GMT

Barack Obama is the first candidate since Bobby Kennedy to excite young people. As a 59 year old young person who campaigned for Bobby Kennedy in Terre Haute IN having been bussed over from Champaign IL, the same feeling is there.

Edwards is too angry, not passionate and Hillary is too 20th Century. Barack Obama is the first candidate of the new millennium.

All I can say right now is "Make it So!" This is transformational for the U.S. and soon the world.

Iowa results (D)

Dimitra — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 16:05:28 GMT

What a ridiculously outdated nominations process (electoral college; caucus) we have in this country! How on Earth did "Judging the entire nominating process on eight percent of one state.." Ever seem like a logical, equitable or viable plan for democracy? How can eight percent of Iowa adequately represent the needs, concerns or preferences of New Yorker, for example? Not even %100 of Iowa could do that. Why does this small, rural, mostly christan, mostly white, mostly affluent determine the candidates fot the rest of the nation? By what authority or qualifications? Wake up: This is the #1 reason why young Americans do not turn out to vote. After all this priviledged insanity that passes for a nominations process, we don't want much to do with it. Too much has got to change SYSTEMATICALLY for us to want in.

Iowa results (D)

Stu Hyvonen, Saginaw, MI — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 16:05:55 GMT

Dear First Read;

As another commentator asked: Obama 38% of WHAT?--Clinton 29% of WHAT? etc., etc.

Iowa results (D)

ace — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 16:12:00 GMT

femi, wow. freedom of speech abused.

Iowa results (D)

Rick, Bonifay, FL — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 16:19:38 GMT

THANKS SO MUCH FOR THE EXPLANTAION!!!!

Iowa results (D)

west palm beach florida — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 16:20:05 GMT

Clinton supporters,

What experience does Hillary has? Is it taking more money from corporate lobbyist than republicans themselves, is it voting to authorize war in Iraq without reading the national intelligence report, it is voting to give Bush and his NeoCons the power to authorize war in Iran even after her Iraq vote, is it not realizing that elections in Pakistan is parliamentary not for Prime Minister, is it to nominate Bill Clinton to be a Supreme Court Justice. Are you kidding me!

Iowa results (D)

Pat in NY — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 16:21:32 GMT

I'm a 52 year old woman in NY that supported Hillary when she first announced she was running for President. After initially contributing to her campaign I was horrified to see how qiuckly she blew through 40 million as if it would be a never ending supply of money.
I have a son and nephew in the military and I haven't been happy with her vote or views on Iraq.
Instead of Bush rewarding his buddies with good jobs, contracts, etc. I think Hillary will just replace these people with her own set of wealthy friends. I don't see any change there.
I stayed up last night to watch the Iowa caucus and I have never done that before. I can't thank the people of Iowa enough. Right now the only possibility for real change is with Obama.

Iowa results (D)

Alphie Brooks — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 16:22:12 GMT

The Dem results posted are wrong! Obama got 37.5%, Edwards got 29.8%, and Clinton got 29.5%.

Therefore, the only difference between 2d and 3d was was .3%! Hardly a total defeat for Hillary.

But, I will admit, it was a clear victory for Obama
....

....

Not a total defeat? Hillary had the organization, had the most money, campaigned like heck in Iowa, had one of the most popular ex-Presidents campaigning for her, had the best advisors and organizers that know how to run campaigns, just weeks ago had a huge lead in the polls, and had the most name recognition. And she lost. Couldn't even come in second. Close to a double digit loss too.

A total, and humiliating defeat.

Iowa results (D)

CJ — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 16:32:29 GMT

For the Clintonistas on this blog that type of attitude and perception is exactly what has damaged the Democratic party. We are not the GOP who are still living in the past (Foxnews pundits and the GOP establishment apparently despise Huckabee), we are about progress and hope. It isn't about Obama, but sharing in the same vision. He's simply carrying the message that the Democratic party has always had. He's a great communicator, and some of you may not know him, but you will and hopefully you will be inspired like many others have been. Keep your mind open. And the Clintons are not hated it's just time to move on from the past. He's far superior to Bush at the same point he was elected..he's better than Edwards. He is prevailing against the percieved odds. That's pretty good news.

Iowa results (D)

Moderate Republican in Virginia — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 16:34:39 GMT

To Dean - talking about candidates paying dues - Hillary has not paid any dues - she inherited all she is politically from Bill. She touts her experience, but she has no accomplishments. She was in charge of advancing education while Bill was governor of AR, but I believe AR school ratings fell from the high 40's nationally to the mid-40's while she was engaged in this endeavor. No need to discuss her health plan leadership in the 90's. What trials and tribulation has she overcome - nothing that many women don't face every day - a philandering husband. Did she stay with Bill to maintain her family or her political viability? I think the answer is obvious since they haven't lived together in eight years.

Obama - what experience did the Democratic icon JFK have when he became president that Obama doesn't. JFK was a congressman and one-term senator (I believe)before being elected. Obama has state legislative experience and also a Senator. They are similar in age, leadership experience and charisma at this stage in political life. The big difference is JFK's father bought him the presidency - Obama is a self-made man and earned his political creds on streets of Chicago, in Ilinois Senate, and U.S. Senate. If you feel that Obama does not have sufficient experience to be president, you would have to say the same for JFK.

This go-around, I'm looking for the candidate that has the most leadership ability, who is honest and straightforward with the American people, and one who can pull the American people together. Hillary , by nature of her political history, cannot do this. If Obama wins Democratic nomination, I will give him thoughtful consideration, instead of the usual knee-jerk vote for a particular party's presidential nominee - in my case Republican for the last 40 years. He greatly impressed me with his speech last night and if this is truly who he is, I look forward to a choice between him and the Republican nominee.

Iowa results (D)

--NSMsnbc — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 16:35:04 GMT

[Penn said they have a major debate Saturday night, and that she did very well with the older generation of women. “We have to make the argument that she represents change for all generations of women."]
--That is where the strategy is flawed, they need to appeal to more than just 'women'. In my judgment, the fact that they want to appeal to 'women' voters shows that the Clinton campaign is still only focused on winning and maintaining the status quo. We already have a President (Bush) in the WH who represents half the country who voted for him. What we need is a President to represent America, Barack Obama is that person. Barack Obama does so well, because he appeals to both a broad swath of voters and Democratic voters. He is the one Democratic candidate who does.

[Dear First Read;
As another commentator asked: Obama 38% of WHAT?--Clinton 29% of WHAT? etc., etc.
Stu Hyvonen, Saginaw, MI ]
--My guess would out of 100%. Te-he.

Iowa results (D)

kmnecole, st louis, mo — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 16:36:31 GMT

okay- trying to correctly explain this:

Iowa Democratic Caucus does not count individual votes- they count delegates:

C-span democratic caucus shown: for one Des Moines precinct:
Obama got 186 votes- equaled out to 3 delegates
Edwards got 116 votes- equaled out to 2 delegates
Clinton got 74 votes- equalted out to 1 delegate

so- what got reported by that precinct was the delegate count for each candidate
Every precinct around Iowa reported delegate #'s for each Democratic candidate-
Obama got 900+ delegates from Iowa- equaled to 38%
Edwards got 744 delegates from Iowa- equaled to 30%
Clinton got 737 delegates from Iowa- equaled to 29%

Hope that helps

Iowa results (D)

Jimmy CHICAGO IL — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 16:36:53 GMT

Dean,
Paid dues? What dues have to be paid? Where and when did Hillary pay her dues? I recall that her senate seat is the only publicly elected seat she has ever held.(Obama was elected state senator) She was the wife of a politician for years.(Obama was a grassroots organizer in my city for years) So I guess Laura Bush has paid her dues as well, maybe she ought to run for POTUS on the "experience" and "dues paid" card.

If you are so bitter, because your horse didn't win the race, that you want to vote against the the one that won, maybe you ought to convert and be an ornery, bitter discontent republican. After all, the patented Clinton triangulation does set you on the right path to becoming a Repug. Your candidate had ample amount of time to convince a whole state to vote for her, she couldn't accomplish the task, take the blinders off and realize that there is a good reason she couldn't convince more people to caucus for her.(hint, it's not Chris Matthews, or Tim Russert's fault)

Iowa results (D)

Connie T. Indianapolis, IN — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 16:38:40 GMT

I believe the young people of Iowa has sent a clear message...your vote matters. So I encourage all of the young people in the US to vote and let your voice be heard! I am a Africian American woman that is a democrat but that hasn't stopped me from looking at all the candiates that are running for President or voting outside my party (voted for Bush second term). Do your homework on these candidates, find out what they are about and what they stand for. Vote for who you think would run our country with us (the voters) in mind.

Iowa results (D)

Scott in San Francisco — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 16:40:14 GMT

Alphie Brooks, excellent point. Mark Penn and the rest of Hillary's unctuous staff are trying their best to spin, spin, spin. Americans of all stripes are not buying what the Crock is cooking.

In addition to the huge advantages you mentioned, don't forget:
1) Close to $100 million dollars of lobbyist money (let's not kid ourselves folks, most of her money is from lobbyists--she won't release the number of individual contributions because it'd be dwarfed by Obama)
2) Endorsements from most of the major papers who bought her "experience" schtick (shame on you "journalists," you're supposed to see through the noise)
3) A mountain of endorsements from establishment Democrats who probably don't believe in her but who were lining up for spots in what they thought was the inevitable next administration. If she loses NH, there are going to be an awful lot of professional politicians doing some fancy tap dancing and hoping they can get back into the good graces of either Obama or Edwards.

Iowa results (D)

Dave, Wilmington, NC — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 16:42:19 GMT

Clearly change is the real theme for the 2008 election. I see the article reports Bush's Approval rating in the 30% range...What about the Democratic controlled congress's approval rating??? It is worse. The bottom line is America is sick and tired of Washington. A good man once told me he wished Washington would remain in a state of confusion bipartisan bickering etc that way they would do nothing. I curiously asked why and the answer was that way we won't be any worse off than we already are. We need serious reform. Our tax system needs to be fixed, Lawsuit happy lawyers need to be shut up and put out of business, lobbiests need to go away, poloticians need to be held accountable to the constituents. What is the deal with Illegal aliens. this should be a non issue. They are "Illegal", the should be deported and if they would like to become Americans than come to the country in an offical capacity and file for citizenship. The same way my ancestors did it. Embrace America and become an American. We (America) is on the down side of being a superpower. That trend needs to change. I believe that it needs to start with leadership and that leadership will be elected by all of us. Unfortunately I don't see a leader that has the fortitude to truly effect change in Washington. Ultimately they all sell out to special interest groupds who fund their campaign and makes them electable. We need Farmer Johnson from Rural Iowa who knows nothing of the politics of this country but has the strength to say no we will do what is right in the face of overwhelming odds, and temptation to do the easy wrong. Who is looking out for the little man? John Edwards is a fraud. Another high dollar lawyer who has no idea what it means to be a hard working middle class person trying to keep a good job, raise a family, own a home and secure a decent retirement for our future. The mark of a good leader is the success of the people they lead. Empower us to effect change and change will happen.

Iowa results (D)

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 16:45:16 GMT

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.

Iowa results (D)

Houston — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 16:45:22 GMT

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.

Iowa results (D)

Harmony — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 16:51:23 GMT

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.

Iowa results (D)

Dave Tharp Trafalgar, IN — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 16:54:43 GMT

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.

Iowa results (D)

FL — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 16:55:24 GMT

"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.

Iowa results (D)

Lisa, Birmingham, AL — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 16:58:02 GMT

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.

Iowa results (D)

Doc W, Johnstown, PA — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 16:58:35 GMT

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.

Iowa results (D)

independent ndn voter — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 17:01:50 GMT

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.

Iowa results (D)

Houston — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 17:07:53 GMT

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.

Iowa results (D)

Nick ,Bronx,N.Y. — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 17:09:28 GMT

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.

Iowa results (D)

Dave Indiana — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 18:31:26 GMT

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".

Iowa results (D)

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 19:40:50 GMT

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.

Iowa results (D)

Mike K, Denver — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 19:44:16 GMT

Iowa results (D)

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 19:48:13 GMT

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.

Iowa results (D)

Perry, NYC — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 19:54:12 GMT

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.

Iowa results (D)

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 19:54:51 GMT

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.

Iowa results (D)

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 20:03:49 GMT

[[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.

Iowa results (D)

Judy — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 20:07:16 GMT

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.

Iowa results (D)

MK,MO — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 20:22:29 GMT

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

Iowa results (D)

Dean, Minneapolis, MN — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 20:25:08 GMT

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.

Iowa results (D)

Alan Dempsey, Auckland, New Zealand — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 20:34:01 GMT

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 :-)

Iowa results (D)

yiğit vahid özden,nicosia,cyprus — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 20:40:51 GMT

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.

Iowa results (D)

ME, Santa Ana, CA — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 20:53:37 GMT

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.

Iowa results (D)

Dave, Minneapolis, MN — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:13:32 GMT

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...

Iowa results (D)

Mindy Pendent, Dover NH — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:21:04 GMT

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.

Iowa results (D)

Mark Tutts — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:23:15 GMT

< 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.

Iowa results (D)

Lesley, Baltimore, MD — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:36:51 GMT

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.

Iowa results (D)

Tom Smith — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:42:40 GMT

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

Iowa results (D)

TomSmith — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:47:14 GMT

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.

Iowa results (D)

Kevin Vicalvi — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 16:14:20 GMT

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?