The Iowa Caucuses - open thread

interesting effort

Just landed in my inbox from National Stonewall Dems:

National Stonewall Democrats has launched www.PrideInTheParty.org as a stand-alone website where LGBT Democrats can sign up to participate in the delegate selection process and access state-by-state information. The program will work with presidential campaigns, state parties and allied organizations to ensure that LGBT Democrats are reflected in each state delegation. Pride in the Party will assist in training and advising interested individuals and in the development of delegate campaigns.

The Iowa Democratic Party maintains longstanding support for LGBT issues, including the freedom to marry for same-sex couples. Additionally, the state Democratic parties of New Hampshire, Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Oregon and Washington State fully support the freedom of same-sex couples to marry. The state Democratic parties of Nebraska and Vermont voice support for civil unions. 

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 21:32:53 PM CST

too bad the candidates don't support it.

Yeah Pam, I noticed a while ago poking around for a Iowa Stonewall Democrats endorsement (couldn't find one) that even the Democratic Party of Iowa is for marriage equality....too bad the electorate doesn't know.

Again, straight supporters are uninformed about the assault on the rights of GLBT citizens.  Today with my physical therapist, she had NO idea how any democratic candidate stood on ANY GLBT issue....and as an aside she didn't HAVE a clue that 28 states have state amendments abridging the rights of GLBT people...didn't have a clue she didn't...

---

by: Karen in Kalifornia @ Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 21:44:18 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm really nervous

I think a woman might be able to win the presidency, but I do not believe that Hillary Clinton is that woman at this time. There are too many people who won't vote for her no matter who she's against.

I think Barack  Obama could win the presidency - if he were not black. I still think there is enough racism to nix the best candidate - if he or she is black. Remember that electoral votes are state-wide races, and how many black senators do we have? How many black governors?

On the GOP side, Huckabee is my worst nightmare. He seems non-threatening to people who don't bother to look at the records and positions of the candidates. Even his name is likeable.

Forget red and blue. Forget liberal and conservative. Forget evangelicals and atheists. Forget family values and the glbtiqso rainbow. Forget socer moms, NASCAR dads, and all of the other targetted groups.

The big group is: "people who vote but don't realy want to know anthing about the candidates". Win them and you win the election.

Color me cynical. 

---

Claim to fame: Posted first PHB diary to be demoted

---

by: cindik @ Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 21:36:44 PM CST

we call them low-information voters

And they are indeed the biggest fear. Ill informed, under informed people basing their votes on nothing more than who's the most handsome, or has the most engaging personality on the stump, or who manages to succeed by repeating the right negative message over and over until people believe the lies they are told in commercials. Remember John Kerry's mistake. He thought because the Swift Boaters were lying that ignoring them wouldn't have an impact. He failed to realize that sheer repetition of the message to low-information voters is all it takes to sway them into believing lies are true, and they'll vote on it. Kerry, incredibly, thought all he had to do was take the high road and people would see the light.

How wrong he was.

I also agree that we may be ready to elect a woman, but Hillary Clinton has too much political baggage that clouds the issue, she doesn't really represent "change" aside from gender, if you're talking about sweeping out the DC consultant class and entourage around her, and I think the GOP definitely wants her to be the nominee.

Oddly, I think that Obama and Edwards are going to be more difficult for the GOP to attack for different reasons. Edwards theme of courting the working man and woman, who have been screwed over by the Bush admin has serious juice that's hard to combat. I mean really, are these blue collar people better off now than they were before the GOP was in charge?

On the Obama front, the difficulty for the GOP is how base can they go in playing the race card without looking completely like the KKK. You can already see the lame Muslim smear tactics are being used (sadly, by Clinton's camp), it's only a matter of time before we see jigaboo flyers appearing in mailboxes, appeals to bigotry over fears of the Black Man chasing white women, oh, it's all so predictable. And, of course, none of it will be endorsed by the GOP, but it will all be out there. Hey, maybe it will result in more honest discussions about race. My fear is that enough race-baiting, overt or subtle, will result in actual serious threats against Obama by the underbelly of society. I can't imagine the level of Secret Service protection he will need if he continues to succeed in the primaries. 

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 21:51:13 PM CST

[ Parent ]

'Will need'? Is there more they know how to do?

He's in danger. And I say this as a pale, Midwestern American who saw a lot of subtle and a little not-too-subtle racism growing up. 

It is not my expectation that an Obama win in November, or even a nomination, will result in anything positive on the race-relations front. If white people who think racism is a personal failing get to wash away their privilege by voting for him, I'd say progress in this area is out of the question. In fact Obama getting elected could be a net loss for black folks.

Of course it's nice to spend an hour basking in the glow of a pale white Midwestern state splitting in favor of the kid from next door who happens to have an African parent, not that anyone noticed because they don't think of him as black at all.

My hour is up. 

But wait, there's more!

---

by: PhoenixRising @ Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 01:01:23 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I think Obama could definitely win it all

My guess is that racism might constrain him some as a candidate, but that he could still go on to win the general if he's our nominee.  Specifically, I think a black man can win--but probably an "angry" black man can't.  If Obama were campaigning on economic issues and against corporate power as Edwards has been, for instance, he'd be toast.  Sort of analogous to the narrower range of possibility for women political candidates, who are "bitches" if they're in any way aggressive or tough.

It's too bad, because I'd like to see the Dem standard-bearer campaigning on exactly those kinds of issues.  But I actually think Obama would be the strongest Dem candidate in the general, specifically because of his appeal to low-info voters.

"Our Liberties We Prize and Our Rights We Will Maintain" -- Iowa state motto

---

by: Sportin' Life @ Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 22:43:14 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Follow up, right on cue

Bennett: Obama isn't that kind of black

This is exactly the kind of crap I was referring to.

"Our Liberties We Prize and Our Rights We Will Maintain" -- Iowa state motto

---

by: Sportin' Life @ Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 22:57:46 PM CST

[ Parent ]

oh sh*t

here we go again. He's the right kind of black, you know, clean and articulate.

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 23:05:17 PM CST

[ Parent ]

From the left coast

I think it is very hopeful that a black man could win so resoundingly in such a white white white white state as Iowa.  I lvoe the fact that so many people turned out to vote, er caucus.  Again, a hopeful indicator that people don't just want change but are willing to do something to make change.

---

by: miss wild thing @ Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 21:44:57 PM CST

and so

Just off the phone with my relatives in Iowa on this night once every four years when I wish I still lived there.  Sounds like the caucuses where chaotic this year, with twice the normal turnout on the dem's side.  (The normal turnout is low, so twice is still a slim percentage of the population... consider you commit at least two hours, must vote publically, must have second and third choices if you first choice does have enough support in your neighborhood, AND in is under 20 degrees--- brrr!)

 I like Obama, but really think the pundits are overplaying his success in Iowa.  Yes, it is great that 37% of attendees at the caucus in a 97% white state are willing to stand for a black man, but it also has a lot to do with the fact that he is from next door in Illinois.  Neighbors ALWAYS do well in the Iowa caucuses.  In 1992, Iowa's Tom Harkin won.  In 1988, Missourian Dick Gephardt won and Paul Simon of Illinois came in second.  In 1984, Minnesota's Walter Mondale won.  Of those neighbors, only Mondale went on to win the nomination.  Is there intentional artificial Obama-hype going on, setting up expectations that he will not be able to match elsewhere and then claiming a reversal of fortunes? Maybe.

Clinton and Edwards are going to end it so close that the difference is meaningless in reality.  Probably a dozen delegates will separate them.  The number of persons it takes to get each delegate varies widely from preceint to precient, and within the same precient a candidate with 80 or 111 voters can each wind up with the same number of delegates, one, as occurred at my mom's caucus tonight.  A decisive third place finish would have been really bad for either Clinton or Edwards, but it did not happen.

All and all pretty exciting.  There strong candidates still very capable of pulling off the nomination.  And then there is the clown party over on the Republican side....  Fortunately, I have no relatives who participated in that mess. 

 

 

 

---

by: tony @ Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 22:09:15 PM CST

Fundie smackdown of Mitt

Bring on NH. Look at this roasting of Multiple-Choice Mitt by the fundies:

Family leaders call Romney 'disaster'
Letter criticizes 'deceptive rhetoric' around candidate

A coalition of leaders on family issues has released a letter warning about what they describe as the deception being assembled around former Massachusetts governor and GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

"Most of us are not allied with any presidential candidate," the letter says. "But we are troubled by the unethical and Orwellian cover-up of Mitt Romney's role in catastrophic events in Massachusetts, once the cradle of American liberty.

...The letter cites seven issues seen as problematic in the Romney campaign, including a "phony pro-life 'conversion.'"

"Mitt Romney established abortion as a 'healthcare benefit' in his own government-run healthcare plan at $50 per abortion - after his supposed 'pro-life conversion,'" the letter said. "He created a permanent, official government role for an unelected Planned Parenthood representative on the health care board."

Second, according to the letter, "Romney told Catholic Charities' adoption and foster agency they had to give children to homosexuals even when normal mother-father families were lined up to give them a home," the letter said.

Third, "Though Romney pretends he opposed homosexual 'marriage,' he did the opposite," the letter said. "Since the notorious Goodridge court opinion discovering a constitutional right to 'gay marriage,' Romney has methodically lied about the judges' legal authority and his own legal duty to enforce the Constitution. As professor of jurisprudence Hadley Arkes pointed out, under the state Constitution, the court has no jurisdiction over marriage law."

"Mitt Romney created homosexual 'marriage.' His 'conservative' legal experts are aggressively covering up both his role and the plain language of the Supreme Law of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts," the letter said.

The letter also said Romney opposed a citizen's drive to remove the "four rogue judges," he personally "issued more than 190 special one-day certificates to allow homosexual 'marriages,'" and boosted government funding for homosexual indoctrination.

"The truth is this: Mitt Romney's fictional defense of natural marriage, childhood innocence, life in the womb and constitutional governance is sustained only by our silence in the face [of] overwhelming propaganda," the letter said.

Look who signed it:

Judge Ned Kirby (ret.), former Assistant Minority Leader, Massachusetts Senate
Atty. Edgar Kelley, former Assistant United States Attorney, Massachusetts District
Atty. "Robert Paine," author: "The Governor's New Clothes; How Mitt Romney Brought Same-Sex Marriage To America"
Dr. William Greene, President, RightMarch.com
Dr. Ted Baehr, Chairman, Christian Film and Television Commission
Linda Harvey, President, Mission America*
Gary Glenn, President, American Family Association of Michigan*
Michael Heath, Executive Director, Christian Civic League of Maine*
Ray Neary, Director, Pro-Life Massachusetts (former President, Massachusetts Citizens for Life)
John O'Gorman, Member of the Board of Directors, Massachusetts Citizens for Life
Peter LaBarbera, Founder, Republicans For Family Values; President, Americans for Truth*
Diane Gramley, President, American Family Association of Pennsylvania
John Haskins, The Parents' Rights Coalition
Gregg Jackson, Co-host, "Pundit Review," author: "Conservative Comebacks to Liberal Lies," contributor, TownHall.com,
William Cotter, President, Operation Rescue: Boston*
Brian Camenker, President, MassResistance
Mark Charalambous, Spokesman, CPF-Fatherhood Coalition, Massachusetts
Nedd Kareiva, President, Stop the ACLU Coalition
Phillip Magnan, President, Biblical Family Advocates

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 22:16:04 PM CST

Wow.

I can't really express how much I dislike Mitt Romney, but the letter is incredibly misleading and dishonest.

The $50 abortion claim is bogus.  The Mass. constitution, as interpreted by their high court, requires public funding for abortions.  Romney had no choice in the matter, other than to prevent people who needed health care coverage from getting ANY coverage.  

Speaking of interpreting the state constitution, that is what the highest court in a state is permitted to do.  Romney wasn't wild about it when it came to marriage equality obviously and there is much to be critical of him for on this issue. But the criticism leveled in this letter is unreal.

I suppose the other signers of this POS are just as irrelevant as Peter LaBarbera, so it is probably not worth even thinking about.  It is good to see they bear false witness against their own and not just liberals.

---

by: tony @ Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 22:34:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

but aside from the misleading information in the letter

The fact that many signing on are from New England is significant. They are all turning on Romney big time, the very Base he's been courting non-stop. He didn't convince them and they are actively working to deep six him. It will be interesting to see how the big dogs like Dobson handle this. He's already said no to Rudy, Thompson, and McCain.

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 22:43:16 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Then he'll endorse Schmuckabee

n/t

---

by: teh registered user haha lol @ Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 23:56:52 PM CST

[ Parent ]

B-b-b-b-b-but...

Lou Sheldon told me he supports families!

"Our Liberties We Prize and Our Rights We Will Maintain" -- Iowa state motto

---

by: Sportin' Life @ Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 22:48:44 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Politico's Mike Allen

Had to pass along this from ThinkProgress. Mike Allen on the tool's 4th place victory:

Tonight is a fantastic night for John McCain. ... He's one of the biggest winners of the night. He's now in a fantastic position. Except for Barack Obama, there's almost no one you'd rather be tonight than John McCain.

Also, does anyone know if Giuliani ended up ahead of or behind Ron Paul? I've seen news reporting both.  

Electricity's for light bulbs!

---

by: n8nyc @ Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 22:16:23 PM CST

Ron Paul topped Giuliani

No pun intended, lol. Paul 10%, Rudy 4%.

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 22:20:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Interesting comment on the demographics...

MSNBC is reporting on the tube:

- that 236,000 Democratic voters turned out to caucus this year, and this was up 89% from 2004.

- 30% of the Democratic women voters voted for Sen. Clinton, while 35% of the women voters voted for Sen. Obama.

- 58% of Democratic voters under 30 voted for Sen. Obama.


-----
~~Autumn~~

As if there were safety in stupidity alone.
--Henry David Thoreau

---

by: Autumn Sandeen @ Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 23:02:35 PM CST

More demographics...

From the New York Times Caucus blog:

10:58 p.m. ... Iowa has a tiny percentage of African-American voters, many of whom live in Blackhawk County, which encompasses Waterloo. Mr. Obama won it big, 49 percent to the 32 percent won by both Mr. Edwards and Mrs. Clinton.

A lot of the counties were close, but Mr. Obama managed to win just a little bit more in each. Here's one that must have hurt: Clinton County went for Mr. Obama (16.9 percent to Mrs. Clinton's 15.4 and Mr. Edwards's 13.3.)

-----
~~Autumn~~

As if there were safety in stupidity alone.
--Henry David Thoreau

---

by: Autumn Sandeen @ Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 23:36:05 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Conservative Richard Vigurie apoplectic over Huckabee

Richard Viguerie Says Huckabee Win is Bad News for GOP

(Manassas,  Virginia) Richard A. Viguerie, the author of Conservatives Betrayed: How George W. Bush and  Other Big Government Republicans Hijacked the Conservative Cause  (Bonus Books, 2006), issued the following statement regarding Mike Huckabee's  victory in the Iowa caucuses:

"Mike Huckabee's victory in the Iowa caucuses is bad news for the Republican Party.

"Mike Huckabee is a Christian socialist. He is a good man, but with a Big Government heart. He is the most liberal of all the Republican presidential candidates on economic issues.

"Huckabee's approach to every problem or perceived problem is to pass a law and launch another government program. If you like President George W. Bush, you'll love Mike Huckabee.

"If, on the other hand, you're a limited government conservative in the grand tradition of Robert A. Taft, Barry Goldwater, and Ronald Reagan, you will want to redouble your efforts to make sure Huckabee doesn't win the Republican nomination. Four years of a Huckabee presidency would ensure that there wouldn't be a penny's worth of differences between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party on economic issues.

"Much has been made of Mike Huckabee's strong stance on social issues. In the 1970s, we conservatives had two legs on our stool-economic responsibility and a strong national defense-but that wasn't enough to win many elections. It wasn't until we added the third leg to our stool-social issues-that conservatives were able to win elections consistently.

"Now Huckabee wants to go back to a two-legged stool-social issues and defense. He would saw off the economic leg. That's a recipe for disaster for the Republican Party. Economic and traditional conservatives would stay home in droves, turning the country over to the Democrats.

"Conservatives in New Hampshire and the other early primary states had better wake up, and make certain the Huckabee victory is confined to the subsidized ethanol fields of Iowa."

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 23:24:31 PM CST

I'd buy a billboard to reprint some of that

if only more people who think they're Republicans knew who Richard Viguerie is.

'If you like W, you'll love Huck.' Yeah, that's kind of my worry at this point. 

But wait, there's more!

---

by: PhoenixRising @ Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 00:54:57 AM CST

[ Parent ]

My Children My Poor Children

Their childhood will be indeliby stamped by whichever idiot wins this race.

Is it possible that it was always like this?

 

Was there never a good candidate?

 

Why are they so angry?  Not like, "I wanna win angry" (the good angry) but the bad angry, the "I hate women and sort of black men, I hate gays and athiests, abortionists are conspiring against us all so they've got to be sent to prison..."  

 

Really, they're all so wacky in their anger, and dangerous too.     

---

by: SueDoeNim @ Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 01:24:13 AM CST

My prediction,

  Fox Noise will do everything they can to support Rudy.  The Hucker is going to be on his merry way to Flor-DUH to triumph over the smae-sex marriage ban and try to win the GOP Flor-DUH primary.  Remember Rudy has spent alot of time in Flor-DUH.  Mitt is finished.  McCain will help the Hucker as immigration is a big issue with the GOP voters, as McCain and Bush both failed the base on that issue. The Hucker will use that to say he is not Bush. and a way to keep him from Bush's low ratings.  Remember Hannity and Limbaugh have been attacking The Hucker and it hasn't worked., hence the Freepi vote.

 On the Dem side, Hillary is done, she was put in the top spot by the GOP.  All the GOP kew her negatives were to high and they pray for her to win the Democratic bid. Hillary's on slot of she has the most experience actually helps Edwards.  Edwards has Political office experience as Hillary has baggage experience.  Obama is the new comer and Hillary's campaign beat him up enough on the lack of experience.  Add that there are still a shit load of racists still breathing hurts Obama.

 The General election will be The Hucker and Edwards.  That makes it a bit difficult for the Hucker as they both are southern babtists.  The Hucker has been way to the religious right he has forgotten the Center where Edwards has been the whole time Just a bit left of Center.  The Hucker will carry the serious bible banging states in the South in the General Election, but not enough to put him in the White House.  

 Well, that is my prediction.

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.

---

by: HappyCat @ Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 04:07:21 AM CST