I'm trying to figure out why Iowa is so darn important. Being first isn't everything.
Dani
Who Won’t Be Caucusing In Iowa
Today, Iowa Democrats, Republicans and Independents head to gymnasiums, church basements
and community centers across Iowa to pick their choice for their party’s nominee.
Here’s who won’t be showing up:
Active Duty Soldiers: Because the Iowa caucuses do not allow absentee voting,
soldiers serving overseas in Afghanistan or Iraq are unable to participate. Says Jason
Huffman, serving with the National Guard in western Afghanistan, “Shouldn’t we at
least have as much influence in this as any other citizen?” [NY
Times]
Night Shift Workers: Caucus meetings take place in the evenings for two hours,
that means folks with night jobs or kids have trouble making it out.
The Vast Majority Of Iowans: If past years are any indication, most Iowans
will be staying home tonight. In 2004, when the Democrats held their caucus, only
124,000 people turned out, less than a quarter of those eligible. In 2000, when both
parties caucused, less than 6% of voters showed up. [Slate]
The root of the problem? The caucuses were originally designed to take care of local
party business, and are designed like community meetings, not voting booths.
As Jeff Greenfield of Slate writes: “As far as a mechanism for selecting a president
is concerned, you might end up with Iowa’s model if you set out to design a system
that discouraged participation and violated basic democratic values.” [Slate]
"Something tells me his security is going to be bumped up as this primary season starts gaining momentum, though."
And why exactly is that?
... wouldn't increased security be reasonable for ANY candidate as we progress through the process?
Todd
p.s. btw, I'm personally very happy with Iowa results. If I had to choose my favorite candidate from each party ... they both won ... although, I have my doubts that they'll be around in the end (especially in the case of Huckabee).
My last act for the night. I have not slept for days and it's time...
My opinion after CNN-- Obama was in my opinion very calculated-- I noticed his speech, somewhat deliberately resembling MLK's "dream" in both tone and content. Compelling thought, unity.
Edwards was second most compelling in my opinion from the news.. I am very interested in who Dodd is going to get behind, but not interested enough to stay up for Larry King.
Huckabee sounded good for a base party appeal, to those who look for the "R" and not much more. Partisan politics aside, if all other things were equal, I feel he and was more compelling than Hillary to the swing voters, but this is not about the swing yet. Hillary seemed to base her speech on why it's her time to be President-- with little more "selling" than she has been there and done it. She is going to have to bring way more than money to the table.
I would have liked to see more on Paul AND Kucinich.. Kind of a bummer that Guiliani made news by being a no show in IA.. Um Guiliani who?
I wonder if Fred Thompson has more Reagan-esque appeal than I give him credit for?
I also did not see coverage on "Mitt" "Mitt" he's their man, if he can cover the Republican Hand. ;D Soooo it appears I have a bit of catching up to do on Iowa. Anyone see what I did not? Got links? I don't have another minute left for this day. :D
Because Todd, we have a black man running for the nation's highest office. A nation which I am sure has a few whack-job racists left who would rather see him dead than president.
If he can truly bring great change, then I truly worry about his safety, just like Edwards. Clinton I find myself worrying less about, because I really don't see her bringing any big change. She will say whatever is needed to win, and her transparency is really obvious (at least to me).
Robert Kennedy rallied a lot of the working class, as well as people of color, and we know what happened to him. Obama has twice as much to worry about, in my opinion.
I'm just saying I will worry. :-)
Dawn, Dodd stepped down tonight I believe. So did Biden.
I too am not unhappy with the results. What I don't like is how an entire primary season seems to be determined by this beginning. I would think Super Tuesday would be way more important. Is there something I'm missing about Iowa, or is it just media-created fervor that everyone falls for every 4 years?
~Dani
PS: Todd- nice to see you, btw. Hope all is well. Are you still in Iraq, or are you home? Do tell, I'm sure many of us here want to know how you are! :-)
I have come to believe the Iowa Caucus benefits are not so much for the candidates as it is for the travel revenue to the state that is first to host, so the first to be courted and camped on.
So who benefits from Iowa most? Iowa.
I guess it is not so much yelling the sky is falling to suggest Obama's life may be in jeaprody by his very popularity and what he stood for.. like Abraham. Martin, and John. I don't want to be the "loving" the thing they stood for.
"PS: Todd- nice to see you, btw. Hope all is well. Are you still in Iraq, or are you home? Do tell, I'm sure many of us here want to know how you are! :-)"
Hi Dani,
Thanks for the welcome ... yes, I've been home from Iraq for a couple of months now. It's great to be with my family again. In hindsight though, I really have to tell you that going to Iraq wasn't any where near as bad as I expected it to be ... and honestly, I'm really not too stressed by the fact that I'm probably going back again later this year.
Now, back on Topic ...
"Because Todd, we have a black man running for the nation's highest office. A nation which I am sure has a few whack-job racists left who would rather see him dead than president."
There's always a few whack-jobs out there. Always have been, always will be. The reality is though, this isn't the 1960s. Barrack Obama is no more likely to have an attempt made on his life than any other current or potential President. In fact, I think a case could be made that there are MANY more people who have (openly expressed) feelings boarding on "whack-job" about both George W. Bush, and Hillary Clinton.
I think rather than worry about Obama [i]because[/i] he's black, we should instead be celebrating the fact that a black man can win so decisively ... in a State who's population is 98% white. This says something [i]Good[/i] for, and about, our country. I don't see any way to spin this as anything but encouraging.
"I too am not unhappy with the results. What I don't like is how an entire primary season seems to be determined by this beginning. I would think Super Tuesday would be way more important. Is there something I'm missing about Iowa, or is it just media-created fervor that everyone falls for every 4 years?"
Super Tuesday Will be important (especially on the Republican side). But, the reason Iowa and New Hampshire are so "special" is to some extent because they are small states, where "face to face" campaigning plays such a big part, they tend to present more of a level playing field. Again, look at the Republican side, where Huckabee was outspent somthing like 10 to 1, and still won by a substantial margin.
If there was ever a chance for a candidate like Kucinich to actually catch on, it would have to come in a place like Iowa ... when it comes to the big Super Tuesday states money will have Much more impact. If primary voting all took place on one day, it would have almost ensured the nomination of Hillary Clinton. Whereas, with a 3rd place Clinton finish in Iowa (even by such a razor thin margin), the contest is now much more wide open.
As I said in my earlier post, I have my doubts that either Obama or Huckabee will end up being their party's nominee ... and the prospect of them Both running against each other is the longest of long shots (even after last night's results) ... even so, you can't help thinking that if such a thing were to happen, it would provide us with the best chance in a long time of witnessing a truly "positive" campaign ... as opposed to our normal MO of both sides spending months tearing the other person down ... leaving voters to hold their nose at the polls and cast a vote for the "least bad" candidate.
I don't know about you, but last night made me feel hopeful about America.
Glad you're home.. hope you don't end up going back- even if you're not worried about it! :-)
"I think rather than worry about Obama [i]because[/i] he's black, we should instead be celebrating the fact that a black man can win so decisively ... in a State who's population is 98% white. This says something [i]Good[/i] for, and about, our country. I don't see any way to spin this as anything but encouraging."
Why can't we do both? I posted this in James' network:
I thought this was an interesting commentary. While I do think it's a good move to not play up race in his campaign, at the same time I would not want anyone to be fooled into thinking that this is proof of the end of racism. I am always wary of the terms "do not see color" or "color blindness". The terms are usually used as an excuse to not confront a problem that is still very prevalent in our society.
This is merely a step in the right direction, and I feel it's a good idea to be aware of that. It's still *reallllly* early on in the primaries, too. Not to sound negative, but I can think of a couple people in the 60's who wanted great change in this country, and died for daring to bring it.
Anyway, here's the commentary! ~Dani
Iowa Results: Race Invisibility or Invisible Race?
New America Media, Commentary, Roberto Lovato, Posted: Jan 04, 2008
Editor’s Note: The victory of Barack Obama in the Democratic caucus in one of the country’s whitest states has been hailed as a sign that the country is moving beyond the old rhetoric around race. But race might just be becoming invisible, now identified by symbols such as “illegal immigrant,” the cornerstone of the campaign of Iowa’s other winner, Republican Mike Huckabee, writes NAM contributor Roberto Lovato.
As news broke of Barack Obama's victory in Iowa, one of the country's whitest states, political pundits of all stripes quickly told us that we were witnessing a historic shift: the end of race and racism as campaign issues. Even CNN's dour conservative political analyst Bill Bennett waxed multiculti as he proclaimed that Obama "taught" African Americans that race wasn't an issue they needed inorder to succeed in politics. Though enthusiastic about the Obama victory,
Bennett's more jocular colleague Jack Cafferty was not quite ready to intone a full-throated Kumbaya. But he did declare that the Illinois senator's win "gives him currency in a state where the color of his skin may be an issue."
NBC's Tom Brokaw credited the Mike Huckabee victory in the Republican caucus to "his defense against illegal immigration," an issue not viewed in racial terms by white voters. On all parts of the political and media spectrum, pundits and politicos are interpreting the Iowa results to mean that we inhabit a color-blind electoral system.
While watching a black man win the vote of an overwhelmingly white electorate is especially welcome in such racially-charged times as ours, and while the victory of a poor (at least in terms of electoral cash) populist preacher over the preferred Republican candidates of corporate America is refreshing, we are hardly entering the age of race invisibility in politics.
Instead, Iowa points us towards the age of invisible race politics.
To his credit, Barack Obama has carefully cultivated an image as a "change" candidate who takes the higher ground, one that talks about race – but not racism. Iowa confirms that, in doing so, he can make even the whitest electorate feel like it's voting to overcome the catastrophic legacy of racial discrimination, like the Oprah viewer that gives himself or herself a racial pat on the back for really, truly liking her show.
"[Obama] is being consumed as the embodiment of color blindness," political theorist Angela Davis told the Nation magazine recently, adding that "it's the notion that we have moved beyond racism by not taking race into account. That's what makes him conceivable as a presidential candidate. He's become the model of diversity in this period...a model of diversity as the difference that makes no difference. The change that brings no change."
It was interesting to watch Obama deliver the most memorable and moving caucus victory speech in memory, one that included King-like intonations and references to the activists who "marched through Selma and Montgomery for freedom's cause" in the 1960s. Such inspired, impassioned pleas follow a campaign trail-tested rhetoric in which racism such as that surrounding the Jena Six case remains a largely unspoken part of Obama's speeches and policy platforms. He appears to be more comfortable getting choked up when speaking about the fight against the racist past than he does during those few times he talks about the racist present.
On the Republican side, Mike Huckabee also did his part to promote invisible race politics. The GOP underdog did so in no small part thanks to the issue of immigration, a very racial electoral wedge that many voters believe has nothing to do with race.
By focusing on "illegals," "illegal aliens" and other racial codes, Huckabee and other Republican candidates get to ride the juggernaut of anti-immigrant, anti-Latino sentiment gripping the country - without appearing racist. Pundits have even taken to calling the immigration issue the "New Willie Horton," in reference to how, during the 1988 presidential race, a political advertisement deployed by George H.W. Bush against Democratic rival Michael Dukakis featured a black man convicted of murder who, after being furloughed. raped a woman. Many African Americans and others deemed the Horton ads a thinly veiled appeal to anti-black sentiment in the electorate.
Latino leaders and editorials in Spanish-language newspapers have denounced Huckabee for openly touting the endorsement of Jim Gilchrist, one of the co-founders of the anti-immigrant Minutemen, an organization denounced as a racist hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center and others. In an election that will witness the largest Latino voter participation in history, how well the veil of legality hides the racial aspects embedded in the immigration issue may determine the fate of Republican candidates like Huckabee.
Regardless of the outcome of this year's election, the success of Barack Obama and the immigration politics of Mike Huckabee signal clearly that we are well on our way to a new era in race and politics. Obama's story and his echoes of King make us feel good about ourselves and God knows this country desperately needs that. The question we need to ask is: "Are we willing to push him to talk seriously about those echoes of the racial past in the present that he so skillfully avoids?" And as far as Republicans like Huckabee, we have to ask, "How long are we willing to accept their unskillful use of the racist appeals inherent in their rants about immigrants and immigration issues?" Failure to ask these and other questions will leave us vulnerable to the silent poison of invisible race politics.
What Obama's Iowa Win Means for Everyone By Arianna Huffington, HuffingtonPost.com Posted on January 4, 2008, Printed on January 4, 2008 http://www.alternet.org/story/72596/
Even if your candidate didn't win tonight, you have reason to celebrate. We all do.
Barack Obama's stirring victory in Iowa -- down home, folksy, farm-fed, Midwestern, and 92 percent white Iowa -- says a lot about America, and also about the current mindset of the American voter.
Because tonight voters decided that they didn't want to look back. They wanted to look into the future -- as if a country exhausted by the last seven years wanted to recapture its youth.
Bush's re-election in 2004 was a monument to the power of fear and fear-mongering. Be Very Afraid was Bush/Cheney's Plans A through Z. The only card in the Rove-dealt deck. And it worked. America, its vision distorted by the mushroom clouds conjured by Bush and Cheney, made a collective sprint to the bomb shelters in our minds, our lizard brains responding to fear rather than hope.
And the Clintons -- their Hillary-as-incumbent-strategy sputtering -- followed the Bush blueprint in Iowa and played the fear card again and again and again.
Be afraid of Obama, they warned us. Be afraid of something new, something different. He might meet with our enemies. His middle name is Hussein. He went to a madrassa school. A vote for him would be like rolling the dice, the former president said on Charlie Rose.
And the people of Iowa heard him, and chose to roll the dice.
Obama's win might not have legs. Hope could give way to fear once again. But, for tonight at least, it holds a mirror up to the face of America, and we can look at ourselves with pride. This is the kind of country America was meant to be, even if you are for Clinton or Edwards -- or even Huckabee or Giuliani.
It's the kind of country we've always imagined ourselves being -- even if in the last seven years we fell horribly short: a young country, an optimistic country, a forward-looking country, a country not afraid to take risks or to dream big.
Bill Clinton has privately told friends that if Hillary didn't win, it would be because of the two weeks that followed her shaky performance in the Philadelphia debate.
But it wasn't those two weeks. Indeed, if we were to pinpoint one decisive moment, it would be Bill Clinton on Charlie Rose, arrogant and entitled, dismissive and fear-mongering. And then Bill Clinton giving us a refresher course in '90s-style truth-twisting and obfuscation -- making stuff about always having been against the war, and about Hillary having always been for every good decision during his presidency and against every bad one, from Ireland to Sarajevo to Rwanda.
So voters in Iowa remembered the past and decided that they didn't want to go back. They wanted to move ahead. Even if that meant rolling the dice.
Again, this moment may not last. But, for tonight, I am going to savor it -- and cross my fingers that it may stand as the day that fear as a winning political tactic died. Killed by an "unlikely" candidate -- as Obama called himself again and again -- who seized the moment, and reminded America of its youth and the optimism it longs to recapture.
. . Did you catch Edwards' speech after the voting? Wow. I see how he won those big courtroom cases.
What I like about Edwards is his "letting it all hang out" attitude about national health care. Where does a person who needs chemo therapy go without health insurance. Probably to hell on earth.
Obama's idea of the issue, as I understand it, is that all children will have healthcare whether the parents can afford it or not. I don't understand that. What if I have the money and opt not to take the insurance? Will I be jailed? I feel that Obama took the low road on this one.
Hillary all of a sudden seems so OLD SCHOOL to me. I am surprised I didn't see it so clearly before. For me, she gained stats just because she is a woman. Oh well.
Huckubee - I just cannot imagine that a guy who appeals so strongly to the Evangelical right can win. Oooops! Deja Vous all over again. Then let's just say I can't imagine the US having a President Huckabee!
Gotta admit that it's Obama's to lose at this point. Maybe the Republicans will draft Newt?
I like Obama and Edwards even though they still believe that there is a war on
terror. None of the other dem candidates did. And Hillary believes like Bush
there is only one way to fight terrorism, with its own tactics, overall chaos
and violence.
Obama I believe is a man that sways to the will of the people and I see that in
Edwards as well. As a liberal however I feel that we would be better off as
Edwards as a presidential hopeful in November. But I get this view not from
pages and print but from people.
And from what I heard last night to my own ears "I would never vote for a
nigger" well I think how Dani feels is significant. Sad but true.
And if history should have any say in the matter, they shoot at republicans but
they kill democrats. Yes Lincoln was a republican, if not the founder of the
party, but then again he freed the slaves. He would have been better off if he
told everyone right from the get go that he freed the slaves but would never
give them equal rights. That may have saved his ass.
As for the man that siad, "I would never vote for a ..........." well as out
dated as even that sounds in this so called utopian world of not seeing color
(BS) he's voting for John McCain. Oh I know it but I didn't have the heart.
On that note if I voted against all conscience Huckabee would be my candidate of
choice all things considered regarding voting records and such.
In a way however the blacks in this country need this Obama win more than any of
us. Will it remove racial doubt and discrimination? Hardly.
You only need to look at New Orleans and Jena to see how far we have not come in regards to race in the United States.
As for Obama, some questions:
Eight Questions Reporters Should Ask Obama The war and more By Todd Gitlin Wed 2 Jan 2008 02:58 PM
* Print * Email * Comments * Single page
The following is the second post in my Questions Reporters Should Ask series, which I kicked off three weeks ago with Eight Questions Reporters Should Ask Mike Huckabee. As I wrote earlier, my goal with this series is to highlight questions that, to my mind and to the best of my research, the press has not asked (or at least not asked often or insistently enough) of, in this case, the Democratic candidate Senator Barack Obama. I’ll be posing questions for other candidates going forward. Next up: Mitt Romney.
Questions for Barack Obama
1. In June 2006 you voted against the Kerry-Feingold amendment that would have set a deadline of July 2007 for the withdrawal of almost all U. S. forces from Iraq. But in January 2007, you supported a deadline, proposing to begin redeploying troops by May 1, 2007, with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008. Why did you change your mind about the desirability of setting a deadline for withdrawal?
2. At October’s Democratic debate in Philadelphia, you said: “We are committed to Iran not having nuclear weapons,” and that “there may come a point where [diplomatic] measures have been exhausted and Iran is on the verge of obtaining a nuclear weapon, where we have to consider other options.” Is preventive war with Iran one of those options?
3. You have said: “We must lead by marshalling a global effort to stop the spread of the world’s most dangerous weapons.” Toward that end, would you support a nuclear test ban treaty, and if so, how would you win a two-thirds vote of the Senate for it?
4. Many experts have taken issue with your health insurance proposal because it includes a requirement of coverage—a “mandate”—for children and not adults. Proponents of a mandate for all argue that universal coverage cannot be attained without it. You have called a health insurance mandate an attempt to “force” people to buy insurance. Are you opposed to all government attempts to force people to do things they’d rather not do—for example, pay taxes? If not, why draw the line at a health insurance mandate?
5. On a related topic, you have said that medical costs must come down, and propose to bring them down by reducing paperwork and increasing competition among insurance and drug companies. Do you really believe that such measures are sufficient to bring down medical costs?
6. You have said that you are a member of the “Joshua generation,” whose challenge is to complete the work of the “Moses generation,” specifically with respect to the rights of African-Americans. Why, then, do you criticize Hillary Clinton and others who, you say, have “been fighting some of the same fights since the ’60s?”
7. Republicans have lately taken drastic steps against what they say is a plague of voter fraud. Indiana now requires every would-be voter to present a government-issued photo ID before casting a ballot. If the Supreme Court upholds that requirement, other states may pass or strengthen similar laws. What is your view of the prevalence of such voter fraud, and what should be done about it?
8. Nearly five million Americans—some 2% of the American electorate—cannot vote today because of they have been convicted of felonies. In this regard the US is unusual among the world’s democracies, which think that the rights of citizenship should be restored once a felon has served his or her sentence. Do you agree that former felons should regain the right to vote?
[Thanks to Michael Meyer and Mark Crispin Miller for suggestions and research.
Note: The direct quotations cited above can be found here and here.]
Very moving, very graphic. Stinks it had to be on HBO, when it should have been an ABC special presentation. Anyway, Obama made a commitment to the region.
My question, how high a priority will it be should he become president?
based on how the front runner after Iowa and New Hampshire never seems to actually win, I'm now going to predict that Richardson ends up being the Dem nominee. Doesn't mean I'm a fan, just my call as to who ends up on the ticket. The only thing I see to like about him is his willingness to admit he's made mistakes and been wrong without blaming everyone else for that. Makes him the most human candidate, if nothing else.
