Someone putting their thumb on the scale .

Hi, Jane!

It sounds like things are crazy in Iowa. I hope that once the caucuses are over, you will post a more introspective account of what it was like to be there.

I admit a little confusion. The DMR has the reputation of being the most reliable poll(according to a poll of pollsters). So why the sudden nitpicking on their methods? And if they changed methods, why do that when you are considered the most reliable?

And I still think that Edwards isn’t going to get hurt here, Obama and Hillary can wrestle in the mud while he gets more media recognition and Mellencamp ain’t going to hurt either. Thats a sure plus in that neck of the woods.

Heh. I was at that rally in the picture, standing exactly where that picture is taken from. The cameras were right above, behind, and to the right of where we were. It was an incredible rally with 22,000 people in Austin.

Obama gets some help today when Kucinich tells his supporters to vote for Obama on the second ballot.

crap. First thing I’ve disagreed with him on.

Edwards wins in Iowa. I hope.

And BTW, the anyone-but-a-Republican attitude on this and other blogs is not thoughtful, IMO.

HRC as president, for example, could be a dream come true for repubs down the road.

Hello Jane. I hope the gnashing went on inside and when outside, you are keeping warm. We need you.

Obama isn’t my first choice but I would happily support him if he gets the nomination. Still it is a little disconcerting that, if the DMR poll is correct, almost half of the participants in the Iowa Democratic causus won’t be Democrats.

Meanwhile, Mark Ambinder explains the importance of John Edwards’ lead as a second-choice among likely caucus goers is important.

Consistent with this second-choice lead, the InsiderAdvantage poll (whatever that is) predicts a comfortable Edwards win. They assert that their polling methodology correctly predicted the 2004 Iowa Democratic outcome.

http://www.southernpoliticalre…..1_103.aspx

I’m not happy with any of my choices. Couldn’t we please have Howard Dean? :(

The Val Air Ballroom? That was where the “Dean Scream” happened in 2004!

Huck n Chuck. Too funny. Huckabee’s name sure lends itself to some comical soundbites.

I still think the DMR poll people know what is going on in Iowa. My question would be WHY did they use that sample of new causcus goers IF they didn’t see that happening in their interviews. So…I’m sticking with them, and the fact that things are still fluid.
The 2 other polls out, did not have an Edwards surge either, so, sumthin’s up!

Thumb? How about a hammer? This poll is so skewed to be both statistically

unreliable and invalid. WTF?

I have defended the DMR in Government classes for 30 years. WTF?

All these celeb endorsements hurt so good.

Hi Jane. Every two hours a different poll comes across my google reader and all of them seem to tell a different story.

I believe it will be Edwards, Obama, HRC. I think the media has hyped HRC and Obama, so they can have a big “story” when it all goes down. Obama has a very strong following with all types of people.

Yes, the ValAir is the home of the Dean Scream.

I and DeDurkheim are off to see the Mellencamp show tomorrow at the ValAir…I have a feeling we’ll see Jane earlier that evening.

I will resist buying a Chevy Pickup

I thought I heard that the Health Dept. closed down the Huck ‘n Chuck

And BTW, the anyone-but-a-Republican attitude on this and other blogs is not thoughtful, IMO.

That is not the attitude I have seen anyone here display. The attitude is, “Let’s try to nominate the best possible Democrat. Once a Democrat has been nominated, let’s support whoever it is against the Republican in the general.”

The only way you could see a problem with this calculus is if you consider at least one of the Republican candidates to be preferable as President to at least one of the Democratic candidates. Please tell us which ones they are.

BTW, as I live in the greater Des Moines area, let me tell you it is FREAKING COLD and WINDY hear today.

Just effing miserable.

Edwards/Obama could win the general.

Aw, crap, I sure wish I could edit #22 above.

I would like to see Mellencamp and Norris arm wrestle.

Huck and Chuck, sounds like what happens after a long night of drinking.

I, too, wish their were an edit feature. Admittedly, it’s absence does prevent certain pernicious trolling techniques.

Heh! Been there done that.

desmoinsdem needs to check his or her math.

If there were 175 voters last time, and we add 60% new voters, that gives 280, not 300. However, since most caucus voters are elderly, it’s also likely that a number will have died or will be in too poor health to make it this time around; also, some other former voters might not bother to show up.

Tonight’s big event will be the Huck’n’Chuck, when Huckabee trots out Chuck Norris to stump for him.

Will Chuckie will also sing for Huckie. Wouldn’t that be something!

Anyone besides me remember how awful Chuck Norris was singing the theme song of his TV program, aka the Norris produced amateur hour?

I am not buying it either.To many express an opinion
to the poll taker and then don’t show.Do we really
have a whole year of this stuff?

PhysioProf at 21

I’ve been alive from Truman through shrub.

I’ve seen good repubs and bad dems, and vice versa.

The notion that one party is better than the other is flawed, IMO.

I’ve drifted from repub to independent to dem to none of the above.

I think blogsites devoted to 1 party lack sufficient critical thinking.

I hear you. *g*
But why can’t you? Is there not an edit button right next to reply?

Mommybrain do you have an edit button?

Opinion polls are the modern equivalent of the Oracle at Delphi. Except, polls are more likely to be fraudulent .

Not for me.

I lose my “executive functions” after 6 a.m. Central. ;-)

Here’s the Des Moines Iowa weather for the next couple of days:

Tonight: Mostly clear, with a low around -1. Wind chill values as low as -15. Blustery, with a northwest wind between 11 and 18 mph, with gusts as high as 22 mph.

Wednesday: Sunny, with a high near 14. Wind chill values as low as -15. West northwest wind between 6 and 10 mph.

Wednesday Night: Mostly clear, with a low around 7. Wind chill values as low as -5. West wind 5 to 8 mph becoming south.

Makes me glad to be in warm, sunny Alaska.

Circus Circus. You can’t make this stuff up. There is no other way to express American politics. I thought Nevada was silly but they are looking pretty sophistocated compared to Iowa. The Las Vegas strip is conservative next to the Iowa scene. Thanks for the comedy, Jane.

(my face is red)

I have so many windows open I can’t tell what I’m doing anymore. No, it’s on another window, not fdl.

Never mind.

That’s all very nice, but you did not answer my question.

I’ve also lived from Truman through Little Boots. And you are correct that there have been good R and Bad Rs and Good Ds and Bad Ds.

Unfortunately, however, the time when there were reasonable, intelligent, thoughtful, dedicated Rs seems to have peaked back in the 70s. Ever since the “ReaganRevolution” and the rise of the movement Conservative, those people who claim to be R yet vote their conscience and the Constitution and reality seem to have been purged from the party or acquiesced to the Movement and lost their spines.

So if there is an R currently running that you feel does not fit this description, please enlighten us.

I usually lose mine after a couple of glasses of wine.

Exactly, precisely what dakine said.

And BTW, the anyone-but-a-Republican attitude on this and other blogs is not thoughtful, IMO.

How about the anyone-who-is-not-batshit-crazy? It covers much the same territory. That more helpful?

Yep.

Art45, it’s been my experience that owners of blogs have already done enough critical thinking to chose one party over another. If a truly cogent arguement is presented by someone of the other party, it is usually duly noted – often in astonishment, true, but noted.

Anybody see the “Minor Candidates Debate” from NH on CSPAN? Some funny stuff.

PhysioProf,

You did not ask a question. You made a statement.

I can imagine some repubs being better than some dems.

Why? Because I don’t trust what any of them say on the campaign trail.

And because I think the current dems in congress are largely corrupt or compromised. Just as repubs are.

That’s what I was trying to say.

So if there is an R currently running that you feel does not fit this description, please enlighten us.

This one…?

Gators Lost!!! Yes!!!! Give back the Heismann, Tebow until you learn how to read a blitz!

The Howard Dean “scream”? Let’s not forget that it was largely manufactured. Once they pulled out the loud ambient noise all around the auditorium, he did sound like a lunatic. But on the night of the event, not a single reporter noted anything unusual. It was carefully orchestrated to make him look unhinged and it worked.

Also, Art45, there may be some “undecided” or “uncommitted” blogs out there. Perhaps their critical analysis of the issues would be more to your taste. However, if you haven’t come to a decision of which party’s philosophy you support I’m not quite sure how you do critical analysis…

If I wanted to slip and slide through the slime of the viewpoints of those who defend politicians ranging from the criminally insane to the religiously intolerant and every sexually deviant variant in between, I know where they are at.
No thanks

What if Iowa Settles Nothing for Democrats?

You did not ask a question. You made a statement.

Partially correct. I made a request, which you ignored

I can imagine some repubs being better than some dems.

Is there a non-imaginary Republican that you think could be better than any of the non-imaginary Democrats? If so, how about revealing who these candidates are?

Busted linky. And then it’s on to New Hampshire, which is where the attention should be focused in the first place.

Ah but your esteemed Governor is not (currently) running for the Preznitcy. Given how she seems to have said F*ck you to all the corruption and corrupt members in the Alaska Legislature, she may herald a new beginning of the R party.

I won’t hold my breath.

That is absolutely right. I was there that fateful night and in person it was nothing like the processed audio of the news networks.

What the Iowa Poll suggests is that the independents have decided by a large margin to participate in the Democratic caucus. This is very good news and bodes well for November.

I’ve seen good repubs and bad dems, and vice versa.

The notion that one party is better than the other is flawed, IMO.

I’ve drifted from repub to independent to dem to none of the above.

I think blogsites devoted to 1 party lack sufficient critical thinking.

In the sense that the spineless democrats in Congress are voting for anything Gillespie, Addington and Cheney send down the Pike for incurious Junya, you’re correct, but there is a helluva difference in the irreversible for a generation damage the Rethughs have done to this country.

I don’t think you have a blog/threads here where you can’t express a critical or different opinion.

I can tell you for a fact though, as soon as you do it on most conservative blogs they resort to the same name calling they learned before they were housebroken as children.

No big deal, I thoroughly expect that Iowa will settle nothing for Democrats. (Republicans are another matter.)

I think blogsites devoted to 1 party lack sufficient critical thinking.

I think that sites that devote themselves to a single view on whether the earth is flat or not lack sufficient imagination.

The Republican party has gone off the far deep end as witnessed not only by the Gingrich Contract on America or the Bush Administration, but the current blighted crop of Republican candidates. The Republicans wouldn’t know critical thinking if it kicked them so it is a little bizarre for you to equate those of us who do think critically with those who don’t and then ascribe our unwillingness to do so to a lack of critical thinking. As I said, bizarre.

Marion at 53

My view, FWIW. The worst thing that could happen to posters on this site, from their viewpoint (and probably mine), would be 4 years of HRC and dem-controlled congress.

I’m not a troll and not a repub.

I respect posters here as thoughtful and dislike the idea that some posters trade thinking for party loyalty.

Very clever of the Capitalist advocates to use a political party, the Republicans. They get to keep the name, Republican, change their purpose and keep the party assets (its voters).

Republican isn’t about government, it’s about the rule of unfettered capitalism. That’s what we are up against.

Yes, it is also in the Democratic Party which is all the more reason we have to be activists and hold their feet to the fire. I don’t think there is anything left of the Republican Party but capitalistic ideology. Democracy is OUT. We the People are OUT.

I can’t count of the Democrats to regain our democracy so I have to help them do it.

Seems to me the point is this. All but two of the Repub candidates are at least aligned with, if not in favor of a more drastic version of, the policies of George W. Bush. *All* of the policies of George W. Bush.

The two that are not, namely Huckabee and Ron Paul, are quite possibly even more crazy and frightening than old GWB himself.

Anybody there you’re comfortable with?

It’s not gona. Why should it? Except who drops out and where their votes go-but even that’s unprexdictable.

Personally, I think the Dem turnout will be historic, and close if not greater than 200,000!

First, there is a base of 100,000+ people who participated in the confusing process in 2004, and understand first-hand how it works. Unfamiliarity with the process is the biggest limit to turnout, and for the first time in quite a while there is a huge pool of previous caucus-goers. (Note: 2000 was a shoe-in for Gore, 1996 didn’t matter at all, 1992 was dominated by hometown boy Harkin. So in 2004, you had to go back 16 years to 1988 for a caucus that was contested and truly mattered. Meaning in 2004 there weren’t that many people who had caucused before.)

How difficult will it be to double up from that base, given the expenditure of $100+ per caucus-goer at the margin? And of course there is a pool of hundreds of thousands of extra voters to be potentially dragged into the individual precincts.

Plus, the weather forecast is good. No precipation and relatively warm for January.

So my equation is Base + $20Million + good weather = fantastic turnout.

Iowa rarely settles anything at the top, it culls the bottom and sets up New Hampshire to whittle the field down even more.

Edwards/Obama could win the general.

yes, you are right on there.

nor will I hold mine, but people from both parties sometimes have good intentions. I have gotten totally tired of listening to bible-quoting hypocrites with Houston Texas accents controlling my state on behalf of the sleazy energy companies, though, no matter what their political affiliation.

The worst think that could happen to the entire country including you and posters on this site, is that any of the lying white men who are running on the Rethug side would become President, but their isn’t an ice cube’s chance in hell that they will whoever runs for the Dems in the general.

I respect posters here as thoughtful and dislike the idea that some posters trade thinking for party loyalty.

It comes across as very condescending to assume that the decision to exercise party loyalty was not the outcome of extensive analytical thought.

I would like that to happen.

I’ll wait and see though. I do think the point you make about prior experience and the enthusiasm for the Democratic candidates will drive up attendance to record highs. This has been an election cycle with a LOT of enthusiasm “in state” for the three major candidates, that was decidedly NOT the case in 2004 here. Edwards is known here, Clinton as well, and Obama has a real charisma, all are quite likeable to the Democrats. There will be little antipathy on our side.

Agreed in general. When 3/4 of your field are basically cookie-cutter images of each other (like the Republicans are this year), Iowa goes a long way toward culling the redundant copies.

Anybody see the “Minor Candidates Debate” from NH on CSPAN? Some funny stuff.

That was hysterical comedy. I give them credit. They have far more moxie than I have but then ignorance is bliss. I found it so entertaining that I watched it a second time. Each sentence that spewed was funnier than the preceding statement. Boy, it made even the Repug slate look smart.

Also, the Val-Air Ballroom is just across the street from the scenic Roto-Rooter Corporation headquarters. Just a fun fact.

jayt at 66

As a lawyer, you’ve read opinions of Hugo Black, who carried a copy of the Constitution in his vest pocket.

He was the BEST U.S. Supreme Court Justice in terms of the First Amendment.

Yet, before he was put on the Court by FDR, he was a KKK member.

My point: You can’t tell what a person will do necessarily by his or her past. You have to use some judgment.

For me, the most important quality is trust. Whom do I trust to be true to his or her word?

‘zactly.

Howard Dean, Nixon White House attorney, pointed that out clearly in a recent book…This republican party takes no prisioners make no compromises and marches in closed ranks and throws anyone who has a differing viewpoint under the bus. And the republican party is in lock step with the corporate oligarchy that is seeking world domination. Sorry ART45 I am not buying your subslime spin.I’d bet the farm noone here is either.

desmoinsdem needs to check his or her math.

If there were 175 voters last time, and we add 60% new voters, that gives 280, not 300. However, since most caucus voters are elderly, it’s also likely that a number will have died or will be in too poor health to make it this time around; also, some other former voters might not bother to show up.

JoeBuck, you need to check your math. If all 175 from last time show up, and they represent 40% of the caucus-goers, then the 60% of the total (all newcomers) would be 262. The DMR poll says that 60% of the caucusgoers will be newcomers, not that newcomers will be 60% of 2004’s attendees. So, presuming all 175 show up (and I take your point they might not, but still) then the other 60% (or 262) will be newcomers.

This means that in the caucus in question, there’ll be 437 attendees, something desmoinesdem couldn’t even imagine, so s/he rounded it down to “at least 380.”

*****

With regard to second-choices, Marc Ambinder puts in well, as do his commenters. Will non-viable caucusers (who fail to achieve 15% for their man) for Richardson, Biden, or Dodd (all experienced & resume-heavy) want to go for Obama, Clinton, or Edwards on the second round? It comes down to personal relationships at that point — where’s your next-door neighbor? Who is your boss supporting? The couple you usually babysit for? Your carpool leader?

These factors become much more important — retail politicking based on the people in attendance, not the candidates.

On the NewsHour last night Judy Woodruff opined that Iowa polls are notoriously inaccurate and that the caucusing process was unrepresentative. I agree that both of these things are true but they were true months ago and even in previous election cycles so I don’t see why Woodruff and the NewsHour didn’t bring it up then. Instead it seems that the NewsHour buys into the traditional memes and only abandons them when a non-traditional candidate like Edwards appears likely to do well in them.

Iowa won’t settle anything. With the re-emergence of Edwards, this will be a three-way race through Super Tuesday, (2/5/08), and we can almost hand the nomination to Clinton and her gang of party insiders.

It’s all in the delegates, and the only way us outsiders would have won is if either Edwards or Obama emerged as a single anti-Clinton choice. (and steamrolled her on Super Tuesday.)

Sure, there is some chance the Edwards and Obama teams coalesce at the Convention, but more likely is Obama selling out for HRC’s V-P slot, as he’d be a fool not to make that deal.

Anyway, let’s hope I’m wrong. The return of the Clinton Gang will set our progressive movement back at least a decade. (and I hope I’m wrong about that too, sigh.)

Yes, and Glen-Gery Brick…and there are fine culinary establishments nearby…

Taco Johns, Wendys, Burger King, Mister Donut

The worst thing that could happen is if a Romney or a Giuliani or a Thompson were “installed” via fraudulent elections because of the “machines”.

If you go to Applebee’s, you’ll likely upChuck.

Art45, I’m certainly not a Hillary supporter, so you certainly don’t have an argument there! However, I truly believe at this critical juncture in our nation’s history that the worst of our worst is better than the best of their best. (This comment comes from someone who started out life as a Republican, FWIW.)

My sis-in-law recommended it to me the other night and I saw it today. Hard for the moderators to keep straight faces. Caught Biden after that. he’s Ok. He takes flak here, but i like him.

Marion sorry. The link works perfectly in IE7; won’t work at FDL however, and I don’tknow why. All my previous links have worked at FDL and in preview but not this one.

The article does take into account New Hampshire and several states following.

January 1, 2008
Political Memo
What if Iowa Settles Nothing for Democrats?
By ADAM NAGOURNEY

DES MOINES — Iowa is packed with presidential candidates and hundreds of campaign aides, advisers and contributors. Twenty-five hundred representatives of news organizations have been granted credentials to cover the caucuses Thursday night, twice as many as in 2004. Rarely has a political event been so intensely anticipated as a decisive moment, at least on the Democratic side.

But what if it is not decisive?

What if at the end of Thursday, the three leading Democrats — former Senator John Edwards and Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama — are separated by a percentage point or two, leaving no one with the clear right of delivering a victory speech (or the burden of conceding)? A number of polls going into the final days have suggested that after all of this, the Democratic caucus on Thursday night could end up more or less a tie.

In truth, amid all the endless permutations of outcomes that are being discussed — can Mrs. Clinton, the putative front-runner, survive a third-place finish, or Mr. Edwards a second-place one? — aides are beginning to grapple with the frustrating possibility that all the time, money and political skill invested here might prove to be for naught when it comes to identifying the candidate to beat in the primaries and winnowing the top tier.

“It would be like a six-month trial and a hung jury,” said David Axelrod, a senior adviser to Mr. Obama. “I think it is really possible.”

Rather than clarify the state of play and consolidate this crowded field a bit, an outcome like that would almost certainly muddle things further and potentially extend the time before Democrats know their nominee.

For different reasons, Iowa is not likely to determine much for the Republicans, either. Only Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, and Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas, are going all-out here, and whatever happens between them, the Republican race already seems likely to go on at least until the cavalcade of primaries across the country on Feb. 5.

But for the leading Democrats, an inconclusive ending here would be a much more complicated result.

Because none of them would be judged a decisive loser, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Edwards and Mr. Obama would all be able to go on to the New Hampshire primary next week, no questions asked. And you can bet on this: the other Democrats in the race — Senators Christopher J. Dodd and Joseph R. Biden Jr., Representative Dennis J. Kucinich and Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico — would feel less of the morning-after-Iowa pressure to pull out.

It would be hard for any candidate to play the “I beat expectations” game and claim some sort of chimerical victory, much the way Bill Clinton proclaimed himself the winner after coming in second in New Hampshire in 1992 — although Mr. Edwards, who for much of the year campaigned in the shadow of his two rivals, would no doubt try.

“Frankly, if there’s a three-way tie, that changes the dynamics of what has been reported the entire year: that it’s a two-person race,” said Jennifer O’Malley Dillon, the Iowa campaign director for Mr. Edwards, who has put in more than a year preparing for this week. “It changes the way people look at the race, and they’ll see it as a three-way race.”

It is a good bet, in fact, that one candidate would try to claim a victory, even if it was by a single percentage point or less. Still, that is not likely to get him or her on the cover of Time or Newsweek (that would be the old-school way of measuring the political impact of winning in Iowa). The other two would be left fighting for the right of second place. And politics being politics, it is likely there would be a campaign trying to present a three-way tie as a victory.

Beyond that, New Hampshire, which for Democrats has seemed something like a stepchild in this year’s nominating process given all the attention being paid to Iowa, would get a chance to have some real influence over the nomination. For 25 years, there has been debate and study about how the outcome in Iowa affects New Hampshire voters. This time around, because of the decision by the New Hampshire secretary of state, Bill Gardner, to set the primary on Jan. 8, voters will have just five days to examine the candidates and make their decision.

One of the bedrock political assumptions of the year — and certainly one that has informed Mrs. Clinton’s campaign — is that winning Iowa and New Hampshire would set the table for sweeping the 20 or so states that vote on Feb. 5, the day when many Democrats believe that their contest will effectively be decided. But if Iowans end up being equally divided among what many party leaders view as an unusually strong cast of candidates, who is to say that voters in the Feb. 5 states won’t be as well?

None of this is meant to suggest that such an outcome would mean that what has taken place here over the past year is insignificant. Quite the contrary. Watching these candidates, Democrats and Republicans, deliver their final speeches, take the last rounds of questions from Iowans and shake the hands of supporters one more time, it is apparent that most of them are much better at campaigning than they were a year ago.

Mr. Obama’s campaign manager, David Plouffe, an old Iowa caucus hand who has moved here to help out in the final days, said as much in explaining why he would be comfortable with even an inconclusive outcome. “The experience here in Iowa,” he said, “has been tremendous for the entire campaign.”

However, I truly believe at this critical juncture in our nation’s history that the worst of our worst is better than the best of their best.

True dat. I asked ART45 to reveal which Republican he thinks is better than any one Democrat, and he has so far declined to do so.

This is the interesting part of the poll. Regardless of whether the numbers are correct, independents seem enthusiastic about voting for the Democrats. Obama in particular appears to inspire them. How can widening the coalition be a bad thing?

What I don’t get is Kucinich’s appeal to his delegates to caucus with Obama if he doesn’t get his 15%. I’ve written him at his site to ask why? It doesn’t make sense to me. Edwards seems the most closely aligned with his positions. I’m seriously perplexed.

For me, the most important quality is trust. Whom do I trust to be true to his or her word?

Well, that’s hard to argue with – have you answered your own question yet?

And – have you seen anyone on the R side whose word you’d like to trust? If so, I’d be interested in hearing which one, and the issues upon which you’d base this support.

Are there any Dem’s you feel are to be non-trustworthy? That too is a fair question; you might some some common ground here, depending on the answer…

On the NewsHour last night Judy Woodruff opined that Iowa polls are notoriously inaccurate and that the caucusing process was unrepresentative. I agree that both of these things are true but they were true months ago and even in previous election cycles so I don’t see why Woodruff and the NewsHour didn’t bring it up then. Instead it seems that the NewsHour buys into the traditional memes and only abandons them when a non-traditional candidate like Edwards appears likely to do well in them.

That is so aggravating to me. It’s not like this is the first election they’ve covered

The worst thing that could happen is if any Republican candidate got elected.

The fraudulent machines are a done deal. They will be up and running in thousands of counties throughout “We be knowin’ Britney’s lil sis got a baby in her belly America” because Americans are on the whole, too stupid and apathetic to demand change.

It’s been showcased emphatically that the propitiary machines that are all from companies who are huge Republican contributors can be hacked in five minutes and with no paper trail, you’d be better off with the “hanging chads” circuis.

I haven’t seen a worse slate of candidates that Romney, Rudy (”Ah killed firemen at 911 but so what I’m gonna milk it) and the rest of the Rethug candidates in the history of this country.

They won’t make it in the general, but the faulty voting machines and the effort to change the electoral votes by Republicans in California are huge concerns.

The NewsHour has been very mainstream in not covering Edwards.

Nothing wrong with widening the coalition, but I take BTDemocrat’s point about Obama’s use of GOP memes; if Barry’s using “trial lawyer” to attract independents and GOPs to our caucuses, he’s not being nominated by our party but by their defectors. Leaving behind his progressive messages doesn’t endear me to Obama, at all. It’s why Hillary lost me.

Amen to that. Obama has done an amazing job of hiding his Liberalism. (evidenced by how much Kos complains about him).

His brilliant positioning is what I like best about Obama. And contrary to others, his Presidency would be an open book. Who knows what Progressives might accomplish with our Democratic majorities?

Howard Dean, Nixon White House attorney

Maybe John Dean, unless Howard has led a secret life.

I heard an NPR reporter (might have been local, wasn’t really paying attention) interview 100 people at random places over the last couple of weeks. The question was “how do you feel about Alberto Gonzalez?” 99 people never heard of him, one said he should be traded to the Astro’s because he can’t hit.

Sigh.

I don’t see anyone on the Republican side I’d trust to take out my garbage or walk my dog. They would be horrendous at running the governmnet, and they would all continue Bush as usual, and the quest to embed a permanant Unitary Executive in place of the Constitution which has been gutted by a stupid, passive Congress who votes with Bush on every crucial vote. Watch ole S. 2248 aka the FISA bill get passed as a total piece of crap with immunity for the Comcos and Telcos in a couple weeks.

I do not look forward to having to identify, convince, and fund a progressive challenger to President Hillary Clinton in 2012 just so we can end the damn Irak occupation.

TrueBlueCT
“Brilliant positioning” with regard to governor arnold, with reaching across the decadent aisle? What makes you believe that his presidency would be an open book?

You meant John Dean, not Howard.

Hmmm…he’s sitting out Iowa, is that right? I haven’t heard that he has declared himself a non-candidate, but I might have missed it. By throwing his people behind Obama in the caucus, he could be trying to keep it in a tie; thereby, giving himself some room later on. Unfortunately, that would be pretty futile even though he is the one that best speaks the truth…

The NewsHour has been very mainstream in not covering Edwards.

straight down the mainstream!
It’s a disgrace that an important candidate from the last election cycle is universally ignored this election cycle.

Teddy I don’t see the Iraq occupation ending significantly for the next 25 years–Congress continues to be too stupid.

We have a multibillion embassy going up but we can’t put the infrastructure up and lights on for more than 4 hours. We have an undisclosed number of huge permanant bases being erected there.

There is no one in federal government currently with serious balls or intentions to get out of Iraq.

Without a doubt.

I should have added that the premise that continues to go out in Republican emails from Gillespie to the faithful idiot lemmings is “The surge is working.”

Bullshit. The surge is working to do one thing and one thing only. Kill more Iraqis and fill more Dover coffins period.

IMHO, Obama is positioning himself to be a Pelosi/Reid Democrat, and I disapprove.

I heard an NPR reporter (might have been local, wasn’t really paying attention) interview 100 people at random places over the last couple of weeks. The question was “how do you feel about Alberto Gonzalez?” 99 people never heard of him, one said he should be traded to the Astro’s because he can’t hit.

Sigh.

Choke…!
Warn a person next time, please? That’s too funny!

The idea of 8 more years of dictatorship/police state is intolerable. I think I’d pack up my belongings and attach them to a stick and hit the road…I can’t even fathom going there, but I thought that reelection of Bushco would be impossible before the 2004 elections. Maybe I’ll run off and try to be a buddhist monk or something….I can’t even take the thought…

They indicate that they wish to continue Bush’s major policies, but promise to pursue those policies more competently. But competence is not a virtue in fascists. I prefer my fascists to be incompetent; Bush’s incompetence is the only salvation for our republic.

I see Kucinch threw his Iowa support to Obama.

More from Trippi:

Joe Trippi, an advisor to the campaign, said he was skeptical of the poll’s findings. “It doesn’t make sense at all,” he said. “You’d have to have 220,000 people voting for that poll to be right. If that’s what’s going on, there’s no historic model for it.”

Mr. Trippi, who was Howard Dean’s campaign manager in 2004, invoked his experience in that year’s Iowa caucus, when the Dean campaign predicted unprecedented turnouts, which never materialized. “I was the guy here last time who thought it would be 200,000 people,” he said. “It didn’t happen.”

I cant agree enough and have lost all respect for Kucinich.
I used to think Obama might er great but after the last few days I dont. He sounded so weak on Pakistan

Hillary thinks the Rove machine is still obsessing over her:

Mrs. Clinton appeared feisty yet relaxed, lacing her stump speech with jokes about drug companies and a strange technical difficulty that fed her speech back through the speakers. Hearing words that she had just spoken reverberate back through the packed room, she paused, looked up at the ceiling, and laughed.

“I was in Muscatine yesterday in the middle of going on about the Bush administration, and the microphone completely died,” she said. “I said, ‘I know they’re a little obsessed with me, but this is getting absurd.’ “

Nothing wrong with widening the coalition, but I take BTDemocrat’s point about Obama’s use of GOP memes; if Barry’s using “trial lawyer” to attract independents and GOPs to our caucuses, he’s not being nominated by our party but by their defectors. Leaving behind his progressive messages doesn’t endear me to Obama, at all. It’s why Hillary lost me.

Fair enough, but after seven years of Cheney, I’m ready to win. Ugly.

Corrected:
But the facts stand Republicans today are a different animal and the rest of my comment is accurate. If you were reading I said the Nixon WH attorney.

I think that folks have made the assumption that because Kucunich’s views on some subjects (the war, the constitution) match their own, that the rest of his views do as well. I suspect that there would be some pretty big surprises from a Kucinich administration.

Obama isn’t my first choice but I would happily support him if he gets the nomination.

If Obama gets the nomination, it’ll be the first time that I won’t vote the Democratic ticket in a presidential race. I won’t forget his posturing and preening during the Alito confirmation. Nor the votes that he failed to show up for. Looks good, is articulate, let’s cast him in a movie, but he’s not presidential material.

The question that would have been more appropriate would have been

“How do you feel that now that Jamie Lynn Spears is pregnant, and how will it impact your viewing of Zoey 101.

The U.S. Congress really doesn’t know who Gonzales is either, apparently, because while they voted to hold (both House and Senate) Miers and Rove in contempt in Judiciary Committees, they have not lifted a finger to take the next steps to enforce the contempt citation.

The Jamie Lynn question would be more appropriate for House and Senate Judiciary Committee memebers as well–it’s way more their speed.

You mean the Kucinch/Paul (or Paul/Kucinich) Administration?

Bullshit. The surge is working to do one thing and one thing only. Kill more Iraqis and fill more Dover coffins period.

Actually, the war is for the purpose of keeping the price of oil, and the profits of the Big Oil companies, high. And the Surge is merely for the purpose of keeping the war going long enough so that those goals are fully and firmly locked down. But it’s a long story…. The deaths involved, on either side, are incidental, if not inconsequential, to that larger goal.

I’m as disenchanted and a long time ago, with HRC as you are. Edwards or Obama has to be the candidate.

Who is Jamie Lynn Spears and Zoey 101?

(Don’t answer that.)

Nothing wrong with widening the coalition, but I take BTDemocrat’s point about Obama’s use of GOP memes; if Barry’s using “trial lawyer” to attract independents and GOPs to our caucuses, he’s not being nominated by our party but by their defectors. Leaving behind his progressive messages doesn’t endear me to Obama, at all. It’s why Hillary lost me.

Ah. This is what I’ve been thinking but couldn’t figure out how to say.

Yes I did but the larger point is it would be idiocy or worde to entertain a republican candidate, If such a mind set existed as ART45 says, they would not be republicans but Inependents, democrats or of no affiliation. BTW libertarians are the most unreasonable bunch I have met and some are friends.

There may be less difference between those than it would seem at first glance.

I would vote for him. The Supreme Court is hanging in the balance, and to me that’s over rides all the concerns that I have about Obama, which are many.

Howard Dean, Nixon White House attorney,

OOPS that JOHN Dean, bb

There was some talk about them running together a couple of weeks ago. That’s what I was referencing.

I was never afraid during the Clinton years. I will vote for any Democrat that gets the nomination, even though HRC is not my first choice. My first choice is No Repub!!

I would vote for him. The Supreme Court is hanging in the balance, and to me that’s over rides all the concerns that I have about Obama, which are many.

Hmmmm. LIEberman for SC Justice?

Obama likely to nominate a Supreme who would vote with the conservative majority in the interest of bipartisanship.

Guess I missed that. But it would not surprise me.

You can’t poll an event that almost no one actually goes to.

Iowans know the deal: they all have to pretend they’re going to the caucuses, they’re really up on politics, and they have our national interests at heart. It’s that or oblivion.

But when it’s time to hoist their hefty keisters out of their La-Z-Boys, only 12% will make the effort to participate in the least democratic exercise imaginable: a 3-hour endurance test closer to a junior high volleyball choose-up.

John Dean’s positions are mostly aligned with the democrats. Not that his positions have changed over the years.

Don’t worry if you missed it. It didn’t last long.

Regarding the DMRegister Poll. I just do not see the independent 20% nor 5% Republican campaign. We’ll find out Thursday. Jim From Iowa

I see resord turnout but not 200,000

Alito, Roberts, O’Conner, Kennedy, Ginsberg, Scalia, Thomas, and Stevens have performed very close to expectations when appointed.

Bingo.

Liberman wouldn’t be able to cash in off his lobbying friends as Supreme. I don’t think that would happen.

The more I understand how this system works, the more profoundly grateful I am to be living under a parliamentary system.

Thankfully Justice Lieberman is never going to see the light of day on planet earth for a number of reasons, not the least is that Bush has no more appointments. The 365 day countdown is now.

New Christy upstairs!
Jeb Bush: A Conflict Of Interest He Didn’t Bother To Refuse?

Steve Gilliard had a few thoughts on this issue of pandering to so-called “moderates”:

I’m not writing to make conservatives happy. I want them to hate my opinions. I’m not interested in debating them. I want to stop them.

Now this is how I feel about it and likely many here, and this approach works well for debating, but considering what Obama has accomplished in terms of getting elected, despite his background and skin color in a very racist and classist country, I tend to think he knows what he’s doing. No one can argue that his life story is quite amazing.

So as a Liberal, do we believe that he’s now just doing the things he’s done throughout his life to get into this position, and that once in office he’ll shake shit up? He has been quite Liberal with many things throughout his life, especially outside of politics. Or will he be just another sell-out to BigMoney, like the Clintons?

Tough call. I’m excited by Edwards right now, but even his voting record is not that impressive. There will never be a candidate that any of us will agree with 100% of the time. Look at how quickly people jump off the Dennis bandwagon when he does one thing not quite as we’d like.

There’s one thing for sure however, and that’s that another Clinton Presidency will be a boon for BigBusiness and trouble for the middle class and the Constitution (flag-burning Amendment?!?). Some have been pointing to her voting record, but either don’t realize or are purposely avoiding many of her horrendous votes, and the tricky stuff Lieberman and her do so they can say, “See, we vote DemocratIC 90% of the time!” when we know that’s not the case. Plus, she has fundraisers with Ruturd Murdoch and surrounds herself with truly odious people like Mark Penn and Howard Wolfson and so on. Says a lot.

Hopefully not.

The worst thing that could happen is if a Romney or a Giuliani or a Thompson were “installed” via fraudulent elections because of the “machines”.

The worst thing that could happen is that big dick and chimp manufacture a terist emergency and declare martial law, cancelling elections for our safety, and chimp goes on TV to say amurcans hafta understand that big dick is going to stay in charge.

Thankfully Justice Lieberman is never going to see the light of day on planet earth for a number of reasons, not the least is that Bush has no more appointments.

Remind me, who was Obama’s mentor? Nevertheless, I hope you’re correct.

Point taken. I would’ve voted for Donald Duck were he running against chimp in 2004 or 2000.

New thread up top, kids..

Actually, I’m enthused by the independent and Repub turnout for Obama…Iowans for Lieber, er, Obama…

Worked out well in Connecticut for the ‘06 cycle, didn’t it?

To add to that thought, Millineryman, I would really like to vote for someone this year, more, to work my ass off for someone I believe will make a great president. Voting against horrible candidates? Not so great.

Road to Nowhere

David Brooks sees the light of the Republicans in the general election:

“And what Romney failed to anticipate is this: In turning himself into an old-fashioned, orthodox Republican, he has made himself unelectable in the fall. When you look inside his numbers, you see tremendous weaknesses.”

The thinking got traded when you believed Romney or Rudy would be a viable candidate or a sane choice. No one else has a chance to be the Rethug candidate in the general.

It’s too late for Bloomberg to be in serious contention as a 3rd party candidate now although he might be a 3rd party candidate. I know his staff has researched whether Arnold fro Caleeeforney could run for Veep.

Obama also said Russ Findgold is a hero and wants to model his career after Russ. Plus, he has publicly chastised the DLC, whereas Hillary has been the President of the DLC.

Maybe I’m naive, but I’ve tried to be understanding the societal hurdles Obama has had to overcome. Truly amazing accomplishments. And just judging from some personal experiences, I can understand how he sort of has to work things from all sides given our racist and classist society. Looking at what he has actually done in life, I just enough faith to give him the benefit of the doubt so far. He certainly has been testing that faith though recently.

That said, still strongly for Edwards at this point, but will defer to Obama if need be.

Believe me Carolyn I couldn’t agree more. I’m going to work for congressional candidates this year. NJ always goes blue for President so my effort here wouldn’t matter too much for whoever is the candidate.

I will focus on finding more and better Democrats and help them to get elected. It’s a way of building for future by getting rid of the deadwood. Dean’s 50 state strategy is to build the party from the ground up, and by working for congressional candidates, and ensuring a strong progressive future, I feel like I will honoring Howard’s legacy. He’s a great man, and has been a tremendous influence in getting me active, engaged and ready to fight.

The gulf and the contrast between Dem and Republican candidates is infinitely wide and infinitely clear–that is for sure. As you well know, a lot always depends on the interaction with Congress, and right now we have a broken one of those.

Delurking for a moment. I agree with your take on the ‘Republicles’ completely. The worst of the Dem candidates would still be be orders of magnitude better than any R candidate. Any of the R’s would onlky result in the continued destruction of our country, the subversion of the Constitution and the perversion of the rule of law. Having watched several of the R ‘debates’, they are all appealing to the baser emotions, in a nutshell, fear of terrororism, fear of immigrants, you name it. That plays well with voters who do not analyze issues. If the Dems can find an issue that appeals to positive emotions of some of these voters, they can pick up some of those votes. It’s unfortunate that this is the case with a lot of voters, but it seems to be part of the reality. HRC is not my candidate of choice, but people I talk to seem to have some kind of obsessive hatred of her, it is not a rational thing. Even though I live in a state that is completely red except for the capitol city, I think she will have an uphill battle in any red state, moreso than the other Dem candidates. Guess we’ll just have to wait and see. Until then, I’m supporting Kucinich, Dodd, Edwards, in that order.

Very few Americans understand any of the issues being discussed at FDL. But they do know who

Zoey 101 is.

Krugman, Samuelson, Kensyian economics, microecomonics, macroeconomics, not so much.

They get and follow that Jamie Lynn Spear (Zoey 101) is with baby.

America livesin a Nicolodian MTV BET world with that mindset and frame of reference and the MSM drives that. Just listen to the commentary of the MSNBC barbie dolls or note that MSNBC ran 24 hours of “To Catch a Predator” and tonight “Lockup Extended Stay.”

I do think this country though is moving toward locking up every adult not that the FBI has a billion dollar biometric tracking system in progress that has a 20% accuracy.

Art, I’m a little younger than you (I was born when Eisenhower was president), but I can’t honestly remember a good Republican president. I have pretty much been a yellow dog Democrat all my life. I’m interested in who you would consider a good Republican president.

Forgive me in advance, K? but i think all the MSM fuss and coverage of the non-debates and iowa caucus is Wag The Dog baloney (not to imply that the caucus goers aren’t sincere) to convince the american people that elections in US are still legit. YOu know, keep playing up the showtime rituals and maybe , and given the NPR gonzalez poll, probably, most voters won’t notice their votes are being manipulated.
I’m am not a cynic either, I’m an idealist still, after all these years. But i’ve also learned to see beyond the calls to an american sentimental reluctance to believe the worst.

no longer
no longer
these last seven years really put the last nail in that coffin for me

Yup Fear is very much the mantra of the Republican candidates. Ironically they are the lest qualified to protect Americans. Bush has been a great example.

To “Why haven’t we been attacked yet?” One answer is that all the obsessing about planes isn’t the way the attack will go. It’s going to involve dirty bombs or loose nukes and it’s well undderway. It has nothing to do with efforts by nitwits like Mike Chertoff, Fran Townsend, or Mike McConnell who have succeeded in gutting your rights thoroughly and doing next to nothing with efficacy to protect you.

And whoever is the Dem in the general is going to be smart enough to dissect the crap out of that Republican fear premise that is the infrastructure of their campaigns.

It wouldn’t be a surprise to me if Obama came in first in Iowa, since he is from a neighboring state. I also think Edwards has a very good chance because he is the second choice of a lot of Iowans, and he has the boots on the ground in Iowa to get the right people to the polls.

I agree with you. And grimly, that has resonance with a lot of people. Unfortunately Congress is blind to it, and they are backing Bush and Addington as packaged by Gillespie and Fielding.

I’d surely prefer HRC to Obama. At least all her flaws are visible.

On the NewsHour last night Judy Woodruff opined that Iowa polls are notoriously inaccurate and that the caucusing process was unrepresentative.

Tonight I watched a couple of minutes of the News Hour just in time to hear her answering about this DMR poll being an “outlier”. She simply refused to answer and gave a coy smile while talking all around it.

They know the DMR poll is b.s.

This is a horse race and it’s neck ‘n neck.

Whoever gets out the most caucus-goers across the state will win.

Is he even a fucking attorney?

David Brooks is to perceptiveness as positrons are to electrons.

The question was “how do you feel about Alberto Gonzalez?” 99 people never heard of him, one said he should be traded to the Astro’s because he can’t hit.

Well, it’s true! And who better to get stuck with him?

Bush has already “released” him, so they could probably pick him up for a steal. They might have to hand over a few (maybe 8) USAs, but nobody would miss ‘em anyway. Right?

Hillary thinks the Rove machine is still obsessing over her:

Maybe they aren’t obsessed with her.

Maybe she’s the one obsessed with them (and herself) and it shows when she displays this (fake?) paranoia.

Maybe the sound system just broke.

if Barry’s using “trial lawyer” to attract independents and GOPs to our caucuses, he’s not being nominated by our party but by their defectors. Leaving behind his progressive messages doesn’t endear me to Obama,

It wouldn’t be just leaving behind the Progressive ‘message’, it would be leaving behind perhaps the entire Democratic party.

What sense would it be for the Democratic party caucus to be dominated by non-Democrats and to elect someone who says they’re Progressive, but then courts and gets elected by non-Progressives and non-Democrats?

That would really prove to be a disaster for everyone but Barack. Wow, what leadership.

I would agree with you in most cases. But he has Romney’s failure in the general correct.

You have reasons why Romney will succeed?

Blind squirrel.

Glad to remind you. Obama had a whole passle of mentors, including Harvard Law and the law firms he worked with after and during.

What the hell is this obsession with Leiberman’s relationship with Obama. It has very little to do with the President he’d make.

Who was HRC’s mentor as a Goldwater Girl? It’s about as relevant. Who were her mentors growing up Republican? About as relevant.

LOL say what? And is who even a fucking attorney. Leiberman is, if that’s who you meant.

It’s not about getting a big story. The Powers That Be fear Edwards, as he is not indebted to the powerful donors; so they have continued to dismiss and minimize his candidacy.

Read with care. Desmoinesdem’s doubts are based on the assumption that their one precinct is representative of all of Iowa. Who has the larger sample, a precinct captain or the major newspaper’s polling operation?

NPR doubted the 60% new to caucus figure too, but was told it was 45% four years ago and the increase was plausible.

What has changed? Let’s face it, “Greatest Generation” is dropping like flies in a Raid test facility. Also, four years ago, the mantra from the White House was to not change leaders in a time of war. That surpressed interest in Dem candidates. Of course the number of GOP and Independent voters attending Dem caucuses this time will be higher than 2004! Add to that the, uh, attractiveness of GOP candidates.

If you mean Lieberman he is.

If you mean the technical legal requirements to serve as a U.S. S. Ct. justice, being an attorney isn’t technically one, but no one will hit that bench without being.

What most people don’t realize at all, is if you look closely at a high percentage of Federal Trial and Appellate Court judges, they are without litigation experience in a federal courtroom. To me that’s tantamount to being a physician without med school and residency training but that’s the way it is.

On some Circuits there are between 50-60% of judges who have no federal litigation experience. A high percentage of federal judges come from the ranks of former AUSAs (U.S. Attorneys) and they bring a prosecutorial agenda with them. Currently it’s been worse as many judges have no federal lititation experience but are loyal Bushies, and that’s all that has mattered. Congress has refused to do anything about this, because while they’ve held Rove and Miers in contempt for not answering subpoenas, they haven’t acted on enforcing the contempt.

Currently immigration judges are appointed by DOJ, and a high percentage of these appointments have had no experience whatsoever as immigration attorneys and know far less than the lawyers before them.

I would say that Obama’s “mentor” in the US Senate from 2004 is probably a bit closer to his current ways of thinking than HRC’s “mentor” in the Goldwater Girls from 1964 is to her thinking today.

As always, YMMV

I’d say it’s really fucking irrelevant if you all keep harping on Lieberman in the equation of Obama. That will go nowhere; won’t matter,and won’t influence Obama’s chances any more that Jamie Lynn Spears’ baby will.

Further, Jane’s article is heavily based on Desmoinesdem and is limited in its, dare I say it, “Truthiness”. But Jane adds, “Which is probably one of the reasons he (Obama) feels at liberty to engage in wink-wink, nudge-nudge derision of them (Democrats).” As a Dem, I do not feel derided by Obaman. HRC might be feeling it up her spine, but most Dems do not.

If you think it’s such a big deal, why aren’t you in Iowa and doing the talking head thing, trying to use it against Obama.

It’s a non-ssue. And I hate the fact that Leiberman is in the Senate. He’s abominable, and one of my candidates for the top ten worst Senators. Leiberman isn’t stupid, but many on my list are–Imholfe, Kyle, the Maine Bobsie twins Snow and Collins come quickly to mind.

Lieberman has no significant influence on Obama. People who are Hillary suckers or obsessed with Edwards (and Edwards would be fine with me, damn fine compared to what else has a chance on either side besides Obama) are afraid that Obama can attract Reupblicans who can participate in the Democratic caucauses in Iowa or first time participants/or voters apparently.

You might appeal to the Iowa legislature to change the law, but it won’t happen.

I only “harp on Lieberman in the equation of Obama” as to how it shows Obama’s judgment, or lack thereof. Obama has bragged about how he was against the invasion and occupation of Iraq from the very beginning yet selected one of the biggest if not THE biggest hawk in the US Senate as his mentor after two years of war when it was obvious that the invasion and occupation were bad. THAT shows poor judgment to me. Compounded by his wholehearted support for Short Ride in the CT senate race in ‘06 when it was even more obvious how disastrous the policies that Short Ride supported had become. That also shows poor judgment.

Believe me, if Obama somehow captures the Dem nomination, I will vote for him as every Dem candidate, regardless of the flaws that I see in them, is superior to the Rs running. But he is not the second coming of JFK or RFK or MLK or Eugene McCarthy or George McGovern. He is a calculating politician out of the Chicago machine. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Kusinich?

yet selected one of the biggest if not THE biggest hawk in the US Senate as his mentor after two years of war when it was obvious that the invasion and occupation were ba

.

Whatever reasons Obama was associated with Leiberman, and I know it bleeds off the walls of Liberal and Conservative blogs, Leiberman’s Chenesque perception of foreign policy wasn’t one of them.

And shots like “he’s not the second coming of any of the Kennedy’s or pretty cheap.” Obama has plenty of potential to be a fine president in general, and in particular if you look at who else has a viable shot from either party.

We both agree the Republican candidates are so horrendous, and we could both articulate long and hard as to why and probably substantively, there is no contest there.

I think it’s unfair to dredge up Lloyd Benson’s “I knew John Kennedy” yada yada as ammunition against Obama. It’s a cheap shot.

I also believe that Kennedy is over-rated as a saint because tragically, he was shot. He was every bit as venal and calculating a politician, and for that matter Obama doesn’t have a figure as cruel and calculating or as much of a law breaker on several fronts as Daddy Joe Kennedy was in JFK’s equation and Presidency.

If you think you can find a candidate for U.S. House or Senate who isn’t calculating, get back to me, but I’m not holding my breath.

If you think that Kennedy wasn’t part of something that would have made what you’re calling a “Chicago Machine” for Obama look like a parade of choirboys, you need to reread some history of the Kennedy family and JFK’s ascent to the White House.

Obama’s support for Leiberman was probably driven by loyalty. It wasn’t “good judgement,” I’d certainly agree, but I can conjure up a score of poor decisions by HRC, and she represents a continuation of many of Bush’s policies. I don’t want her anywhere near the general.

Officials involved in Libby Scandal(excludes media like Russert, Mitchesll):

23 Administration Officials Involved In Plame Leak

100% of the votes for Obama (or any candidate) in the Iowa caucus will be Democratic votes. You have to change your registration to the Democratic Party to participate. Once upon a time Wes Clark, Markos Moulitsas, and Hillary Clinton were all Republicans. Then, like Iowa caucus voters, they changed their voter registration and became Democrats.

Good for any Democratic candidate that is attracting new people to power the party.

The voters in Iowa will continue to see, and understand, how Barack Obama wants to change the nature of politics and bring REAL change to Washington.

Incredible. Progressives have been complaining for the last 4 to 8 years about the bad campaigns run by Kerry and Gore in ‘04 and ‘00 respectively. Now when Obama states the obvious – that we need a candidate who doesn’t have built-in negatives, like HRC, he gets plastered by the same people who’ve been picking at Gore’s and Kerry’s campaigns. The central reason not to support HRC is that she has negative ratings of 38 to 50%. Many of these people would never support her in a million years. Neither Edwards nor Obama have this problem. What is wrong with Obama pointing this out and how was it a slam on Kerry or Gore?

Look at the current crop on the Supreme Court. Not one has any trial experience except Alito. Thomas may claim he argued an administrative law case and roberts oral arguments. But none of this carries the weight or close to it of the trial experience of Earl Warren, Hugo Black, etc.

Warren was a former prosecutor who knew the score for criminal defendants and he attempted to even the playing field.

You can surely predict the views of scalia, thomas, roberts, alito, ginsberg before appointment. These people are academic technocrats.