Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
Back to Main

January 4, 2008
Iowa Primary Results

The potato had it quite right, especially on Paul and Giuliani. The results are below the fold.

The main driver for the winners was turnout.

Obama mobilized youth and women, Huckabee mobilized the religious nuts, 60+% of yesterdays repub primary voters in Iowa, and won. Turnout for Democrats was record high, 239.000 in total vs some half of that for Repubs. Biden and Dodd are now out.

This all may change in New Hampshire, but there are a few things one might take form here.

  • The turnout points to a huge general preference for Dems.
  • Obama’s ‘change’ marketing talk (despite his neocon foreign policy and right of center economic policy) gives him lot of support.
  • Clinton and Romney certainly took a big hit.
  • Huckabee’s victory will make the Repub establishment VERY nervous. It is fine for them to pander to the nuts, but let them have a real voice? No way. If Huckabee stays this strong expect Bloomberg to enter the race as the ‘Independent (R)’, Wall Street and K-street candidate.
  • Paul will suprise from here with ever increasing percentages beating McCain and Thompson.

What’s your take?

Results:

Dems     Repubs
Obama 38.0%   Huckabee 34%
Edwards 30.0%   Romney 25%
Clinton 29.0%   Thompson 13%
Richardson 2%   McCain 13%
Biden 1%   Paul 10%
  Giuliani 3%

Posted by b on January 4, 2008 at 09:09 UTC | Permalink
Comments

Apparently Kucinich is bowing out in favor of Obama (as already noted on
the other Iowa Primary thread). It’s hard to see this in a favorable light, except, perhaps as an act of political (and financial) realism. On the other hand, compared to this even Hillary or Obama looks good. At this point (pace Mike Gravel) Ron Paul is the only candidate in either party whose foreign policy is anything other than “enlightened imperialism”.

Posted by: Hannah K. O’Luthon | Jan 4 2008 9:54 utc | 1

Here is Justin Raimondo’s take on the Iowa primaries. The links therein to Obama’s recent statements on Iran
and Pakistan are trenchant reminders of just how bad the “serious candidates” are on foreign policy. One assumes that Obama must “know better”, but that he also realizes full well the obeisances which must be made in order to qualify as a “serious” candidate.

Posted by: Hannah K. O’Luthon | Jan 4 2008 10:25 utc | 2

Nothing much to add, except that a friend in the US said a week ago, that the number of people turning out for Ron Paul events was MUCH higher than was being reported in the press, and that a significant number of Ron Paul’s supporters are US military officers and US soldiers.
Another friend said, around the beginning of September, that Ron Paul did not expect to get elected, and just wanted to get his message out.
I have also read some speculation that Ron Paul should stay out of small planes, or else he might die in an unfortunate crash.

Posted by: Owl | Jan 4 2008 10:37 utc | 3

Obama for president
If he can win in Iowa and do well in New Hampshire with Independent support, Obama will have earned the opportunity for a final appeal to Democrats. As he does so, he will undoubtedly tout his then-proven ability to attract Independents and attract new voters into the process. That is why Clinton’s status as frontrunner will be more vulnerable.
Carlos Menéndez
http://www.segurosmagazine.es

Posted by: creditos | Jan 4 2008 10:47 utc | 4

McCain says he’s fine with US troops in Iraq for another 100 years. He later tells a journalist that even a million more years there is fine with him.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jan 4 2008 11:08 utc | 5

I heard some of Obama’s speech from last night and it’s really hard not to fall, be enthralled by his oratory — despite what I know of the reality I hear Kennedy and King and see the towers of Camelot in the distance.
If he takes New Hampshire, he’ll have a shot at the Prez — assuming some lone gunman doesn’t take a potshot at him.

Posted by: Chuck Cliff | Jan 4 2008 12:08 utc | 6

I heard some of Obama’s speech from last night and it’s really hard not to fall, be enthralled by his oratory — despite what I know of the reality I hear Kennedy and King and see the towers of Camelot in the distance.
If he takes New Hampshire, he’ll have a shot at the Prez — assuming some lone gunman doesn’t take a potshot at him.

Posted by: Chuck Cliff | Jan 4 2008 12:08 utc | 7

I’m puzzled by Kucinich’s move. My guess is that he feels or even knows deep down that Dems will win and may win big and he’s angling for some position of influence in the apparatus when/if Obama wins. Which one I can’t say. VP may not be the most useful or glamorous and may be a bit too much of an apparent prize for his support. Cabinet position? Some high place in Dem leadership?
Obama/Huckabee for the big duel has the potential to create the most antagonising and polarising campaign and election since 1860, for quite obvious reasons. Next months will be interesting.

Posted by: CluelessJoe | Jan 4 2008 12:49 utc | 8

In re Ron Paul. I’ve been working recently in the d.c. area and have seen nothing but Ron Paul signs (as far as repugs go) and here at home in Richmond, usually considered red, the same. Yesterday at noon I saw one man standing alone on an interstate overpass with a Ron Paul sign.
just observing.
Would also like to add that it thrills me to see Newt’s br’er rabbit imitation (“Oh PLEASE, not Hillary!”) blow up in his face.

Posted by: beq | Jan 4 2008 12:57 utc | 9

Interesting story from McClatchy

Kim Wolanyk, 38, a self-professed liberal Democrat, thought her husband had become a tad obsessed with Paul. But the more she heard her husband talk, and the more she realized how angry she was at congressional Democrats for failing to end the Iraq war or kill the Patriot Act, the better Ron Paul sounded.
Now she’s waving signs along highways and living in a group home — and loving it.
“I didn’t know there were other people out there who thought like me, I didn’t know they felt the way I felt,” she said. “Ron Paul — I don’t agree with him on everything, but he’s a man of integrity.”

Interesting motive – progressive turned Paul…

Posted by: b | Jan 4 2008 13:27 utc | 10

he also realizes full well the obeisances which must be made in order to qualify as a “serious” candidate.
Hannah has hit the nail on the head.
I believe, however, that the nail is much bigger than Hannah has mapped out.
Were Obama to be elected the next President of the USA, as a blackish man, he would have to deal with a perceived kinship with other blackish people of the world, specifically those that the Right wing Americans love to call ‘sand niggers’.
Said ‘sand niggers’ would make some sort of obsequious gesture towards Obama and Obama would feel compelled to refute said gesture, and would probably do so with foreign policy violence.
Furthermore, we all know how the Likudniks hate their ‘schwartzes’, and, let’s face it, Likud is set to control Israel once again.
So how does everybody think that a racist Israel will deal with a black American President? To wit, how has a leftish government dealt with Condi?
Working on the premise that, on the domestic front, there can never, ever be a blackish American President, one would expect that poor little Obama will try his best to be whiter than Bill Clinton.
Add to that the uninvited support of the ‘terrorist’ and the expected antipathy of the Likudniks, I fear that our good man Obama, in order to ‘bed down’ his Presidency, will find better political fortune in being a near carbon copy of his predecessor.
On this matter, I am open to, and hoping for, persuasion to the contrary.

Posted by: Marek Bage | Jan 4 2008 14:08 utc | 11

Marek Bage@11,
in other words, having sold half his soul to the devil, will Obama be able to get it back or will he have to sell the other half too ?
also, Obama is not running for first Black President. It seems he would rather be the first Brown President. Anyways, there’s already a first Black President — Bill Clinton.
Obama has a bit of Mario Cuomo in him but Obama’s also quite opportunistic. And if elected, he may put Mario Cuomo on the Supreme Court.
One way to think of an Obama presidency is — he’s going to create a big buzz wherever theres issues that present the opportunity, that provide the most bang for the buck, that ruffle the fewest feathers, no rocking the boat too hard. And the real pay-off for Obama will be if he can create a new constituency (he’s already well on the way). And then, if he is able to get others to re-frame key issues (domestic & international) without being too out-front himself. The neo-cons have O’Reilly, Limbaugh … Its not inconceivable that we may see voices like Oprah slipping in the occasional re-framing here & there. The USA is ripe for a massive amount of re-framing. The energy is there, it just needs to be engaged.

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Jan 4 2008 16:35 utc | 12

Hmmmm, Frederick Douglass (1817-1895) running on the People’s party ticket with Victoria Woodhull (Claflin), 1838-1927. Frederick Douglas, an American abolitionist, b. near Easton, Md. The son of a black slave, Harriet Bailey, and an unknown white father, he took the name of Douglass (from Scott’s hero in The Lady of the Lake) after his second, and successful, attempt to escape from slavery in 1838, let’s see, then there was Shirley Chisholm In 1972, followed by Jesse Jackson, Alan Keyes and my personal favorite, Cynthia McKinney of whom I would prolly vote for over any of the false prophets we have now.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jan 4 2008 16:58 utc | 13

Here at the Upper East Side Liberation Army, we so enjoy watching the squabbles over petty cash that the American public calls election campaigns.
Oh, you kids!
Here in America, one percent of the population owns nearly half of the assets of the nation, and controls most of the remainder. Now, that’s truly the catbird seat, isn’t it? And that’s us, the UESLA. We ‘march on Washington every day;’ and we dictate America’s economic and foreign policy to benefit our perch. Politicians of every stripe and flavor either follow our policies or go home to spend more time with their families. There isn’t another option.
It’s ours. We run the place because we own the place. We own the place because we run the place. It’s all good.
It’s all ours. Not yours. You rent in our nation. Even if you hold a mortgage and a career, you rent. As you will have noticed by now, it can all go away — whereas we do not, will not, cannot go away. We’re way too big to fail, no matter what it costs you.
Perhaps it is past time that you got used to the idea, hey? Get back to work, get back to shopping, and how ’bout them Patriots? You consumers aren’t actually in charge of anything here, including your own lives, so relax.
Relax! Things will only get more like they are from here, unless there’s trouble of the guillotine variety, in which case we’ll wait until it’s over to come back and set up shop all over again.
But you don’t want to do that. Nah. You want to work hard for a ‘progressive’ candidate this time around. Yeah, that’s the ticket — you want to send one of these pre-approved candidates to the Oval Office, where they can work with us to further our agenda.
Who sits in our White House is a detail. It’s a hollowed out office, long since. The most powerful man in the world gets to sign his name a lot, smile for the cameras, and deal with the real power in America.
And that’s UESLA. That’s us.

Posted by: UESLA | Jan 4 2008 17:12 utc | 14

…I fear that our good man Obama, in order to ‘bed down’ his Presidency, will find better political fortune in being a near carbon copy of his predecessor.
My sense is he’s much more likely to be a carbon copy of Bill Clinton – a moderate Republican – than a complete nutcase like Bush.
And if elected, he may put Mario Cuomo on the Supreme Court.
*swoon*

Posted by: mats | Jan 4 2008 18:14 utc | 15

I found it interesting how the Iowa caucuses, held up as solid American democracy in action, so much resemble the ideals of people’s soviets or anarcho-syndicalism.
But, everybody knows the game is rotten and UESLA is right. A blow-out in the first quarter would cut into ad revenues as the TVs turn to the Home Shopping Network.
Phillip Weiss on UESLA vs Tweety

Posted by: biklett | Jan 4 2008 21:04 utc | 16

What is it with these people?

Posted by: beq | Jan 4 2008 23:26 utc | 17

beq
I am sure I share your disgust at the young lad who hung a dog. It bothers me too when I think of a person killing for the fun of it. However, why should we be shocked at this? His father is a hunter who happily kills pretty birds. furthermore, most of us eat meat and those soft brown eyed cows we eat did not commit mass suicide.
what I find interesting is the timing of the story. this crap happened nearly 10 years ago while the son was quite young.
compare it to the Wall Street Journal article that accuses Huck of being a New Deal Leftist.
it appears to me that the PTB are not comfortable with Huckabee, maybe he is not part of the old elite, maybe they don’t have enough dirt on him to control him properly, time will tell i suppose.

Posted by: dan of steele | Jan 4 2008 23:58 utc | 18

Stan Goff for Ron Paul!
Monkeywrenching the System
Parliamentary political stuff moves too fast for me to try to follow or understand, but I can certainly understand Goff’s reasoning here.

Posted by: Alamet | Jan 5 2008 0:16 utc | 19

Hillary Clinton 11 – 8
Mike Huckabee 11 – 1
Fred Thompson 40 – 1
Barack Obama 2 – 1
John Edwards 20 – 1
Evan Bayh 125 – 1
Rudolph Giuliani 6 – 1
Ron Paul 25 – 1
Bill Richardson 125 – 1
John McCain 13 – 2
Al Gore 33 – 1
Tom Daschle 125 – 1
Mitt Romney 10 – 1
These are the odds, by Ireland’s leading bookmaker. For the next Emporer

Posted by: Cloned Poster | Jan 5 2008 0:57 utc | 20

Both Huckabee and Paul aim to abolish the income tax system and maintain the crushing
Neo-Zi deficits with an abusive and egregious sales tax system, basically taking the
rich out at the top, and dumping the rest of US onto the slag heap of Ancient Egypt.
There is no difference whatsoever between a US sales tax fueled Fed, and Buchenwald.
As the poverty spreads, Neo-Zi’s will just print more money and vote more deficits.
A vote for either side means One World Government, NAFTA Highway, expat overlords.
At some point, they’ll have to issue a decree seizing gold fillings, offer rewards
for gallows rope made of human hair, and legalize the Wahhabi white-slavery trade.
Since 2000, Americans have proven the rubric that a panicked population will vote
the exact opposite of their personal interest, walking voluntarily into the ovens.
But one lasting beauty is, ordinary people of all stripes are finally talking again.
If only there was one stoic epicurean, who could unemotionally record the end of US.

Posted by: Choss Keppler | Jan 5 2008 2:15 utc | 21

Some excellent observations about the Iowa results at the Group News Blog – I suggest you scroll down and read them all.
FYI, Lower Manhattanite is a scriptwriter, and also a black Muslim whose family knew Malcolm X. He was getting phone calls during Obama’s speech, from blacks who were terrified that Obama could be assassinated. Wife became afraid to watch the speech, and he himself realized he might see a death live on TV.
Lower Manhattanite is one of the New Yorkers who detests Rudy Giuliani with a passion, and depending on how far down you scroll, you will read his posts about Giuliani as well. L.M. says they are fated natural enemies, like Batman and the Joker, or Superman and Lex Luthor.
Link to Group News Blog

Posted by: Owl | Jan 5 2008 2:19 utc | 22

Clinton is getting spun out of the race. She is getting the gore treatment.
She is a stronger figure than barak. He cannot take the heat like she can. She can stand and deliver, and since the election is likely going to the party nominee and no other underfunded ununderstood charlatan fake idealist skunk bookbird, obama had better get overcoming-all-odds compelling. He will need it in the oval office. It is going to be a sh** gig to take over from W and there will be hell to pay, dollars, for you and me, for sure. Bloomberg should wait until 2012 after the crash and buy it for himself. The RNC has had 5 of 7 elections and this is where we are. George Bush is in the white house, and we are on the razor’s edge. Both barak and hillary will start where we are and move in the right direction. Which will lead better? Clinton.
The big 6 want her out of it.
🙂

Posted by: bellgong | Jan 5 2008 8:17 utc | 23

So now the Clinton spruikers are desperate enough to push their worn out whore around here? Yeah why not support her she’ll take any position going if some billionaire pays her to favour it? Just as long as it’s not something ‘unamerikan’ like calling an end to the amerikan empire whose jackboot is across the necks of hundreds of millions of citizens on this planet, nor for that matter anything that approaches justice for Palestinian people driven off their land by murderers and thieves.
Shit whaddya mean justice for the Palestinians since she’s got no intention of delivering any sort of justice for the people stupid enough to vote for her why would she try and do anything for that mob whose blood keeps splashing over the feet of her biggest backers?
No No you don’t get it. Support Hilary Clinton no matter what because if you don’t the other mob will win. Politics has nothing to do with policies or caring it’s about our team winning. No matter that half of the ugly rethug candidates on a bad day would shit all over Clinton ethically or that a goodly chunk of them have shown more compassion for the poor or imprisoned or newly migrated than Clinton, she’s a dem and because many of the people here have held ‘leftist’ views the dems have an automatic lock on lefty votes, no matter that they always spit in our faces straight after they get that vote.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Jan 5 2008 9:18 utc | 24

Hillary’s retainers must’ve worked out a losing-Iowa scenario, inasmuch as her personality and politics (wherever they are allowed to surface) do not play well in the American Midwest. If she does not come into her own in larger states with more urban populations, then she is truly in trouble.
Huckabee could move ahead on the same strategy used to sell George Bush: he is a bit of a simpleton and way too conservative, but he is sincere and honest about it.
And it is a trait of American voters that they will prefer a sincere imbecile to a slick intellectual.

Posted by: ralphieboy | Jan 5 2008 9:19 utc | 25

In simple political speak Clinton is off the (loose) “change” edge – Obama isn’t. Harry Reid must be on her side.

Posted by: anna missed | Jan 5 2008 10:59 utc | 26

from driftglass
The MitteryRomniton-3000
The potential “he-said-she-said” attributes of this model are breathtaking.

Posted by: dan of steele | Jan 5 2008 14:39 utc | 27

I’m too depressed to say much at the moment, but must respond to Cloned Poster’s comment –
Emperor of America is NOT an elected position. He is David Rockefeller. that he holds that position became clear a few months ago, when Jap. concerned about their dollar holdings. Jap. Emperor summoned David. I realized then that he summoned his counterpart. We always knew he was the Most Powerful American. I just hadn’t made the connection. Of course, that’s what the singular ruling member of any society is. Yes, Virginia, America does have an Emperor.
The Thing they stuff into the Oval Office, is merely the Top Salesboy/girl whose job it is to manipulate the masses into accepting elite policy. The lavish perks merely mask the triviality of the job.

Posted by: jj | Jan 5 2008 19:28 utc | 28

Deb MOST woman hating formulation is so standard for him across the board that it’s not worth discussing.

Posted by: jj | Jan 5 2008 19:30 utc | 29

#28, quoting henry kissinger:
David, he is now over 80, has done great things in his life, but he is a little bit naive. He believes that any good idea can be implemented. And, by God, you have to be a little bit innocent to do great things. Cynics don’t build cathedrals. David’s function in our society is to recognize great tasks, to overcome the obstacles, to help find and inspire the people to carry them out, and to do it with remarkable delicacy….
David, I respect you and admire you for what you have done with the Trilateral Commission. You and your family have represented what goes for an aristocracy in our country—a sense of obligation not only to make it materially possible, but to participate yourself in what you have made possible and to infuse it with the enthusiasm, the innocence, and the faith that I identify with you and, if I may say so, with your family. And so I would like to propose a toast that this be preserved to us for a long time.

Posted by: anna missed | Jan 5 2008 20:26 utc | 30

say what you will about Barack Obama but this speech is such a welcome change from the horrible syntax we have been subjected to over the last 7 years that I actually got a bit verklempted.

Posted by: dan of steele | Jan 5 2008 20:57 utc | 31

When I close my eyes and listen to Obama, all I can hear is-
‘Mmmmmmmm, puddin’ pops.’
Jello brand change.

Posted by: biklett | Jan 5 2008 22:23 utc | 32

The news on the Republican front is interesting:
Blackboxvoting is worried about possible fraud and is investigating voting irregularities in the Republican primary.
Shades of things to come?
Black Box Voting

Posted by: edwin | Jan 5 2008 22:42 utc | 33

With regard to the black box page given the minor nature of the adjustments, maybe the rethugs are just rehearsing for the big game. I am unsure of what the article means by the public being excluded from the process. It is one thing to keep all the hoi polloi out to be sure nothing insecure (eg the smuggling of ballots) is occurring but the democratic process only has credibility if ballots and counts are done in front of observers. In a rethug primary or caucus that would have to mean people from outside the rethug party.
Vote counting in this part of the world, when I have been around it, always includes party nominated scrutineers who oversee every vote counted.
That said there is a certain piquancy about the awful Guiliani losing his votes to someone he would consider to be a lesser light.
I find it interesting when I read the NYT coverage yesterday that Huckerbee appeared to get less coverage than Romney, just as Clinton ( whom I called a whore because she exhibited the same kind of behaviour that males who I have called whores in here have) copped more space than Obama.
I suppose one could excuse the Clinton thing as NY parochialism, although I was under the impression the NYT was a national fishwrap, but it doesn’t really explain the Huckerbee one.
Here is a NYT search on “republican primary” over the last seven days. When I did this search page one of the search results had two instances of Huckerbee’s name against 8 of Romney and 2 of McCain who did really badly in Iowa, didn’t he?
“democrat primary” led with Romney’s name but boiled down to Obama 5 and Clinton 8 – no mention at all of Edwards (didn’t he come in 2nd?). Of course this is a thoroughly unscientific way of discovering any bias since search engines are so arbitrary and the result will constantly change, but still it does give a tiny indication of where the NYT is spilling it’s ink.
p.s.It seems Kucinich has not bowed out and I wonder if that shouldn’t be clarified at the top of this page.
While I don’t have any time for the bloke myself it does seem a little unfair for MoA to be seeming to do him down the same way as ABC is.
Is there a story to this? Did Kucinich waver or is this just more democrat dirty tricks? (eg Obama is a muslim drug pusher)

Posted by: Debs is dead | Jan 6 2008 1:47 utc | 34

Ron Paul is a big favorite in Europe, on the ground, not that of the pols, and particularly in Switz, mainly because of his foreign policy (in Switz the libertarian aspect goes over big. There are young leftists rooting for him here. see also b’s post at 10..)
The censorship and dismissal he has been subjected to is appalling. People here wonder, in the different political climate, why he has not gone for a large coalition, and out of party stance, the real populist stuff. Politics in the US does not work that way, as it is in second possibly third or lower on the power tier.
In fact the US president has far less power than others (eg France) though Bush and his handlers have augmented it in the dark, on the sidelines – always a bad idea and a sign of weakness.
Obama can talk the talk. In a way, he is the new Bill Clinton, leaving the next, conservative Clinton in his wake! The PTB will be doing fine with Obama, if it happens, unlikely. As a wannabee, he really takes the cake, and that is both wonderful as pliancy is guaranteed, and detrimental as US leaders, corporate, etc. are very attached to sincerity, principles, and don’t really want anyone who is popular with the ‘people’ by now. Sounds strange…
Obama does not have any ‘roots’ in the establishment or the corridors of power. Still, by the right he will be hailed as a welcome or acceptable candidate, a worthy opponent, etc. Much better than the stand-in Kerry.
I think all of it matters little. CEOs come and go. The policies remain, world events sweep on, puppet presidents look good on TV care of makeup artists.

Posted by: Tangerine | Jan 6 2008 18:18 utc | 35

I stand corrected with regard to Kucinich’s withdrawal: I, probably along with many others here, received an e-mail from the Kucinich campaign stating that

A real Democrat keeps fighting …
Yesterday, the Kucinich for President Campaign filed an
emergency complaint with the Federal Communications Commission claiming that the ABC television network is violating its obligation to operate in the public interest by excluding Ohio Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich from tonight’s scheduled debate in Manchester, NH. The filing points out that Kucinich is the only Democratic presidential candidate who has qualified for Federal matching funds who is being excluded by ABC. Further, the complaint charges, the televised event is not a true presidential primary debate without including all credible
candidates, but instead is effectively an endorsement of the
candidates selected by ABC.
Besides fighting this in court, we are fighting on the airwaves by purchasing TV and radio time. …
Did you know Dennis just won another straw poll? It was held by the Washington State Democratic Party but you will have to look hard to find it!

Posted by: Hannah K. O’Luthon | Jan 7 2008 7:52 utc | 36

The voting is all rigged anyway, so it doesn’t matter who you vote for. If you remember right, the voting machines of ’04 just happened to pick Bush, whether you pulled that lever or not.
By the way, that UESLA propaganda is quite sobering.
Obama sadly, however popular, is not electable. The good ole’ boys that run ‘Merica (we lost the ‘A’ in America when Bush was installed)
will see to that, however ruthless and unconscienable that would be.
God help us all!

Posted by: a voter | Jan 8 2008 20:25 utc | 37

Back to Main