Interesting evening. . .

-

iowa cornfield.jpg
Chris Dodd sent a gracious note tonight saying he is out of the race — but his advocacy for the good things in politics and policy will continue. I salute and thank him.
Senator Joseph Biden — a brilliant and experienced foreign policy hand — who controls the helm of the Senate Foreign Relatons Committee has also bowed out — and I’m looking forward to Biden, Dodd and others getting back to the kind of issue-oriented and oversight hearings that they are so adept at.
The Nikkei plunged 5% yesterday — and is perhaps the real news we should be paying attention to. . .but that aside. . .
Here is a quick snapshot of my take on tonight’s fascinating reulsts from Iowa.
First of all, a win is a win is a win. . .and Barack Obama pulled it off as the latest polls said he would, better in fact than they said he would.
This probably indicates a few things — some positive and some negative.
Obama probably got the lion’s share of caucus goers who abandoned Dodd, Biden, Richardson, and Kucinich. That explains the 6-7% jump in his estimated take from the polls. Obama won. . .but he got an assist from other Dems.
The bad news for Obama is that — setting aside Edwards — this may be the “as good as it gets” number. He drew the votes that went to the second tier; he drew dissident Republicans; and he drew a lot of Independents — and while he won, it wasn’t stunning.
What was surprising was the fact that Edwards has legs. He really did well in Iowa and kept the entire race competitive. I don’t know what waits ahead in New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina — but Edwards is still in the game, at least for a bit.
Hillary Clinton is in for a marathon — and while she came in third — she’s still very much alive. As Donna Brazile said tonight, her campaign can easily push the “reset button” and ‘possibly’ perform well elsewhere.
I’m not an expert on these kinds of games and how they impact the future choice of voters — but I do sense that the impact of Bhutto’s assassination and foreign policy in general had a momentary impact on the presidential race. But that impact dissipated rapidly.
Voters seemed to be chasing the avant-garde, vision, change, and their pocketbook issues — not the fear that we have grown accustomed to on the national security front under the Cheney wing of Bush’s White House.
Had Bhutto’s murder occurred yesterday, we might have seen different results. it is anthropoligically interesting that American citizens peripheralized the stress in Pakistan so quickly.
So Obama wins on the Dem side — but the real truth is, he didn’t win definitively, and Edwards and Clinton have chances ahead to change the outcome. So, no closure here.
On the Republican side, Huckabee really performed well — and Romney less well. But I sense that John McCain is lurking with some real strength ahead.
I talked to some of the most seasoned Democratic political strategists in the country tonight — and they fear McCain and relish Huckabee, Guiliani and even Romney as the Republican nominee.
Even though McCain was somwhere just into double digits tonight in Iowa, they think he has political legs. But on the other hand, Huckabee won. Ron Paul’s support did not defect and stayed solid at 10% — extremely impressive in the Iowa caucus structure — and Romney. . .well, not sure what to say. . .he just didn’t perform well in the state he believed was essential.
Romney’s Massachusetts DNA should play well in New Hampshire — but McCain is surging there. Romney will be in for a while though. . .and he really must be John McCain in NH or run for other jobs.
Not sure if I missed anyone. . .hope not.
New Hampshire next Tuesday night — and it’s a serious gambit.
I thought Hillary Clinton and Obama both “looked great” and Edwards was exhausted — like I am — so my sympathy/empathy goes to him tonight, my congratulations to Obama. . .my anticipation to Hillary’s next moves. . .my guesses about surprising moves ahead to John McCain. . .my farewell wave to Romney. . .and my “Oh my gosh, could Dems be so lucky?!” nod goes to Mike Huckabee. . .
More tomorrow.

— Steve Clemons

Comments

30 comments on “Interesting evening. . .

  1. Steve Clemons says:

    RollaMO — good point. I was going to blog this. . .but ran out of time. I remember when Musharraf took over Pakistan’s government during the election campaign for the presidency in 2000 — and Bush did not know his name.
    best, Steve Clemons

    Reply

  2. RollaMO says:

    “Had Bhutto’s murder occurred yesterday, we might have seen different results. it is anthropoligically interesting that American citizens peripheralized the stress in Pakistan so quickly.” True, Sen. Clinton would not have had time to demonstrate her knowledge of Pakistan by insisting Musharraf would be on the ballot.

    Reply

  3. susan says:

    “…vile, bigoted remark contained in your comment.”
    I am sorry, Chris, what is vile and bigoted about my comment?

    Reply

  4. Kathleen says:

    Luuuuurker, ooooo and POA tooo.
    Robert Morrow, what is it about Repungicans’ fixation with other people’s crotches??? Maybe you could expound on Rudy’s serial adultery and cross dressing or doesn’t it count if it’s a Repug screwing around? Are you one of those “do as I say, not as I do”, Repugs or is that the only kind there are?

    Reply

  5. Chris Brown says:

    Susan, or whoever you are,
    Grow up. I am also thrilled with Obama’s Iowa showing, but believe one may make one’s point without engaging in the type of vile, bigoted remark contained in your comment.

    Reply

  6. Tim says:

    I’m also skeptical of Obama. His only saving grace, so far, is that he appears to surround himself with people more experienced and (I assume) smarter than he is. That’s far better than Bush. Obama also seems willing to adapt his message over time based on what works and does not work.
    That said, Obama was nowhere when Dodd filibustered the telecom immunity bill in the Senate. Giving out amnesty without first finding out exactly what they did is un-American, and unprecedented. Unless he picks Dodd as his VP, or someone of equal passion for the Constitution and the law, call me skeptical about Obama.
    If we want to save our country, we need to not confuse partisanship with accountability. We need to hold politicians accountable for their actions, regardless of their party, now and in the future. I hope Obama understands the difference.
    As an aside, Steve, in watching media coverage of the Dems closely since election night 2006, the media flat out refused to cover more than Hillary, Obama, and Edwards. They did not give equal coverage of all Democratic candidates before voters voted. Don’t know why. But it had the effect of shutting down the Dodd, Biden, and most likely Richardson campaigns because they got very little media coverage.
    Instead, the media darlings got excessive coverage which translated into strong funding and polls. Meanwhile, the media has had no problem giving mostly equal coverage to 4-6 Republican candidates. I think that’s an under-reported story and more likely the cause of Dodd and Biden going out rather than their backgrounds as NE politicians. If the media had been fair to the Dems, covering everyone equally until voting happened, Dodd and/or Biden at least would have been in the top 3 in polling, funding, and votes.

    Reply

  7. erichwwk says:

    Nobcentral:
    For much more than a one liner on international markets try:
    http://tinyurl.com/2y3ec3
    JPRI Occasional Paper No. 37, October 2007
    Risk vs Uncertainty: The Cause of the Current Financial Crisis by Marshall Auerback.
    The paper I originally had intended to link to from another of Steve’s Institutions. (sorry about linking to an older paper by Marshall Auerback.
    mea culpa

    Reply

  8. Nobcentral says:

    Hey Steve – Just wanted to say, keep up the good work. Don’t much like your pro-Hillary slant at the moment (primarily because I think she’s a better policy wonk than politician) but in general, you do great work and we all get to take part in that work for free.
    Anyway, as an IR guy who works in the field (Colombia) aside from CNN style newbits, I’m not really tuned in to what’s happening in Japan at the moment (I lived in Yokosuka once and part of my heart will always be Japanese). Would love to see you give us an update bigger than the one line comment about the Nikkei. Frankly, it would be a bit refreshing given the blogosphere obsession with the primary process that we are all addicted to.

    Reply

  9. Carroll says:

    Obama-rama does not bode well for the dims in the end.
    I am sure he is a principled guy. And the MSM is in love with his Martin Luther King I have a vision speeches and his Kennedy-like-ness.
    And I could be wrong but I doubt it…the public is looking for someone with his feet on the ground and not his head in the clouds. We don’t need a global visionary with global plans to spread America, no matter how beign, around the world on the neglected taxpayer’s dime.
    Been there, done that.

    Reply

  10. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Its truly depressing to see such reader appreciation and enthusiasum for a charade that is undoubtedly going to place yet one more “leader” in the White House that will maintain the status quo, and continue to build a “ruling class”,above the law,
    with global aspirations, and total disdain for our founding principals, our general welfare, and our sovereignity. How any patriotic American can laud the ascendence of ANY of these candidates is beyond me. Have the people of this nation gone so fucking daft that they will forget 2500 all too real yesterdays so the can conjure up a fantasy for tomorrow?
    Tell me one God damned thing that Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Huckabee, or McCain have done these last seven years to preserve the Constitution, or to hold the Bush Administration accountable.
    Have we forgotten McCain’s complete detachment from reality when he was drooling that ignorant horseshit about strolling around Bagdad lioke a walk in the park? Or his COMPLETE and utter disdain for what the MAJORITY of Americans feel about illegal immigration and amnesty?
    And who the hell is Obama, and what the hell does he have in his background to qualify him for the pesidency? A brief stint in Europe as a youth? His stated intention to keep Israel’s gravy train running? Will someone PLEASE tell me exactly what this media created sensation has done?
    Clinton? All she has done is HIDE from EVERY controversial issue for the last seven years, so she could become whatever she thinks she needs to become to slime her way into the Oval Office. Are we so fucking STUPID in this country that we don’t realize the kind of leadership and fopreign policies that we can expect from a person that AIPAC and the Arms industry will endorse?
    Huckabee holds up aid to a tornado devastated area for three weeks because the aid bill calls the tornado “an act of God”, and now the zealot is actually gaining momentum to the White House???? Have we all gone absolutely bonkers?
    The truth unknown about 9/11. The investigation blocked, manipulated, impeded and dishonest. A nation lied to war. The Justice Department criminally politicized. Our vote, insecure, unverifiable and tallied on unreliable and easily manipulated machinery. Torture and renditions. Illegal wiretapping. Need I go on?
    Kiss this democracy goodbye. We’re a nation of sheep, led by an elite class of self serving criminals. We’ve arrived.

    Reply

  11. Lurker says:

    ARTICLE:
    McCain in NH: Would Be “Fine” To Keep Troops in Iraq for “A Hundred Years”
    (not much to say beyond, “Just wait till America’s mothers hear about this latest McCain bon mot!”
    That, and at least two of McCain’s sons will be actually participating in his 100-Year War, although I’m sure Chelsea and the Bush Twins will bow out of active duty with deep regrets (SNARK)…)
    (ENTIRE ARTICLE AT LINK – Hat tip to the indispensable http://www.antiwar.com)
    The United States military could stay in Iraq for “maybe a hundred years” and that “would be fine with me,” John McCain told two hundred or so people at a town hall meeting in Derry, New Hampshire, on Thursday evening.
    http://tinyurl.com/yu639c

    Reply

  12. erichwwk says:

    sorry about omitting the link to Steve’s thoughts. To verify that my comment was not completely off topic, Steve did write:
    “The Nikkei plunged 5% yesterday — and is perhaps the real news we should be paying attention to”,
    and I was agreeing with that.
    We already knew what would happen in Iowa.

    Reply

  13. susan says:

    Today I am sending Obama a check, and I am going to call every one of my friends and family members (regardless of party) and urge them to do the same.
    What we are witnessing is extraordinary, and the fact that Steve and his “weenie eating” buddies are hyperventilating over it just makes Obama’s win more delightful.
    Oh, and in addition to money, I have a large supply of torches and pitchforks that I am donating to the cause.
    We’re fed up, Steve, thoroughly and completely fed up, and we are going to take our country back.

    Reply

  14. Steve Clemons says:

    Thanks NobCentral — I think all of the campaigns have a lot left, but Obama scored very big — I agree.
    Not really sure I agree about Edwards and Clinton’s looks last night…guess perception differs. Edwards was exhausted — and he should have been! He had been campaigning straight for 36 hours….I think Hillary rested… Bill Clinton just behind her left shoulder looked terrible though…
    Obama “looked” and sounded energetic and fantastic.
    Thanks — and look forward to more shredding. 😉
    steve

    Reply

  15. erichwwk says:

    An excellent paper on Frank Knight’s distinction between risk and uncertainty (or Rumsfeld’s “known unknowns vs. unknown unknowns”) by Marshall Auerback is available from Steve Clemon’s (and Chalmer Johnson’s) Japan Policy Research Institute on CDO’s or what Warren Buffet describes as “financial weapons of mass destruction” at http://tinyurl.com/2r3e3z .
    What has been done via tranching debt instruments, and the attempt to unload this disaster on foreign markets, currently completely outside the control of Bernanke is truly astonishing, a scam potentially magnitudes larger than the S&L scandel of the 80’s. It might behoove one to pay attention, and be prepared.

    Reply

  16. Steve Clemons says:

    Hey folks — what a night. Some quick responses that you all deserve:
    To Chris Brown: I do think that in retrospect Obama’s identity strategy seems to have been a draw for youth and others. It’s interesting that so many Obama supporters in the last days have denied there was any such effort; I disagree….but yet, it seems to have been successful.
    MNPundit – not sure what you mean here, but I do think Obama’s win is big — but not decisive. Still, it’s big. I think we probably agree on that.
    Rob Morrow — Maybe I am reflecting DC establishment?! Not sure…hope not. Just trying to parse numbers. I’m just waking up now — and remember something like 37% – 30% – 30% split. If one took out the support for the 2nd tier candidates, Obama would be at 30%. Another way of looking at this though is that there is a potention for an anti-Hillary or non-Hillary vote of 67%…i.e., relating the the potential of an Obama-Edwards pairing against Hillary at some point…But I’m just looking at numbers – not trying to stifle sizzle. There should be sizzle. Obama pulled a real upset — and so did Huckabee, and that concerns me lots.
    Maxwell & Dan Kervick — really terrific posts, both of them. The polling data you put up really does show that this was a major wave for Obama — but the youth element is important in a way that we haven’t seen before…are the youth going to turn out in same degree elsewhere. It would be healthy for the country if they do. But a question to you guys — the polls this time, including Des Moines Register and Zogby/Reuters, really seemed to track well….and the numbers were dead on target it seems. Has polling gotten better? Why was the track polling off in past years? Have we gotten to a point where these polls can be trusted again? Maxwell might know this better than I would.
    Joshua — I stand by what I wrote. Yes, for the first few days after the Bhutto assassination, Hillary got a bump in support….and then that dissipated. Did Americans move from one view to the other and back again or elsewhere after we moved further away from that incident, yes — some seem to. Not sure what your challenge is other than you think this didn’t happen, and I disagree.
    All the best,
    Steve Clemons

    Reply

  17. Nobcentral says:

    You’ve been shredded by the rest on all the key points so I’ll reserve my comment to just the following:
    Hillary was the one who looked defeated, exhausted, and depressed last night, NOT John Edwards. Edwards was just as fiery and proud and strong as ever.
    But the real deal was that Obama shattered the two key points the Hillary has based her entire campaign on: that experience matters and that he can’t win the general (and she can). No matter how you spin last night’s results, the Hillary message has been reduced to 50% (i.e. she is more experienced, which is a load of hooey). All she’s got left is “I’m ready to go from day 1” and by implication, he’s not. And the voters don’t seem to be buying into that tripe.
    Put it another way, Obama outfoxed Hillary in both strategy (message) and tactics (get out the vote). What else does she have left?

    Reply

  18. Chris Brown says:

    “Romney’s Massachusetts DNA should play well in New Hampshire…”
    On the other hand, folks in N.H. are more familiar with Romney’s performance and policies as governor, so may be a bit more familiar with his many changes of positions. His phoniness was cited by the two N.H. newspapers, the editorial staffs of which took the unprecedented act of urging N.H. voters to reject the guy.

    Reply

  19. Chris Brown says:

    Steve,
    Don’t you think Obama “identiy” approach deserves credit for bringing into the process lots of first time caucus participants, particularly young folks and that he won in almost every demographic,, including amongst women?
    I think it is quite remarkable that Obama did so in a mostly rural, 93% caucasian, relatively conservative, quite religious state.

    Reply

  20. john o. says:

    What Maxwell (and others) said. Obama’s victory was more than convincing — it was amazing. He cleaned Hillary’s clock in a state that, demographically, should have been every bit as tough for him as for her, if not tougher. Her experience spin and muslim smearing failed. She is not inevitable — she is in deep trouble. If Obama wins in NH — which is likely — she should do the right thing and withdraw and let the real Democrats in the race contend for the nomination.

    Reply

  21. Katy Schares says:

    Having attended a rally by every candidate in the past week, I can tell you they all talked about Bhutto and Iowans asked probing, informed questions. The problem is that Hillary, in laying out her case sounded like George Bush with a modulated voice that was trying to hypnotize the crowd. Iowans rejected the fear mongering, pure and simple.
    My daughter was the precinct captain for Edwards and she got all of the second choices, Kucinich, Dodd, Biden and Richardson. Obama won on his own, without second choices.
    I went to a Obama rally in Waterloo on Wednesday, and when we left we all thought we had seen the beginnings of a movement. And believe me it was a big rejection of HIllary Clinton. No matter who you talked to, or who they supported they were all just hoping to beat her so she couldn’t go on!!!!!!!!!! I have to laugh at the thought that you think Iowans don’t understand that the world is a dangerous place. We do, we just agree with Barack that when you keep sending the same old people to do the same old thing you get the same damn results.(AND WARS)

    Reply

  22. LIZ says:

    Considering all Presidents have had blue eyes since the beginning of the USA, Hillary ought to come out ahead at some point. ( No I am not a Hillary supporter.)Do any other candidates even have blue eyes??

    Reply

  23. MNPundit says:

    No way, Obama won from the get go tonight and Iowa is not ideal territory for him.
    Sorry Steve, but wrong.
    Dead wrong.

    Reply

  24. Robert Morrow, Austin, TX says:

    Boy, that was an extremely strong performance by Obama. But the Washington insider establishment, personified by our own Steven Clemons, still just can’t believe that the Clintons are going down in a primary. Hellooooooo, is there anybody there? Hellooooooo. 70% of Iowa Democrats said they do not want Hillary. Obama won the WOMAN vote, despite the fact that Bill has said that Hillary has eaten more pussy than he has [Gennifer Flowers, Passion & Betrayal, p.42] Obama was getting strong support from INDEPENDENTS and even a scattering of some REPUBLICANS who decided to caucus for him. Question: can Hillary bring that to the table. No.
    An Obama Huckabee General election match up would be won by Obama 60-40%. It would be a Reagan style landslide. I am very involved in Republican party politics, we are not going to nominate Guiliani or McCain. The most likely candidate is still Romney, then Huckabee … then Ron Paul.
    Every Republican but Ron Paul would be splattered by Obama. Almost every Republican would be competitive with Hillary, but thank God we are reaching the part in the movie where they throw water on the Wicked Witch of the West.

    Reply

  25. Maxwell says:

    This is far more spin, and far more expectations management, than I’m used to from you, Steve.
    Obama won with exactly the same percentage of votes as Kerry in 2004: 37.6%
    The youth vote TRIPLED, and 57% of those voted for Obama. New caucus participants were also 57% of the complete total, and 2 out of 5 went Obama. Obama helped DRIVE the unprecedented turnout, certainly.
    Was Kerry’s margin not decisive? Because Obama won by a larger point spread, two points larger in fact.
    Obama won across every single income group, led among men and women, led among liberals and moderates, led in union households, led among urban and suburban voters, led 30-44 voters decisively.
    He led among Iraq war voters, among healthcare voters, among economy voters BY 10 POINTS. (And that latter point should get your attention.)
    Look at the exit polls:
    http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#val=IADEM
    You’ll be interested in those internals, because they probe the Pakistan question as well, where Obama was very competitive with Clinton among voters who felt those events important, and Edwards scored comparatively poorly.
    According to the entrance poll, which only measured first preferences of the participants going in, the numbers were: Obama 35%, Hillary 27%, Edwards 23%. That’s even more decisive.
    So, no, he didn’t win just on second-tier support or the indie and Republican vote. He led among Democrats, independents and Republicans ALL. Look at the internals before improvising.
    Obama’s capital support came largely from half a million individual donors, the largest number of individual contributors for any candidate. It’s mostly grassroots money, from a bottom-up organization.
    Obama’s a guy worth just over a million bucks up against Edwards, who is worth $54 million, had millions of dollars in 527 support, was the former Democratic VP candidate, and had been campaigning for three straight years non-stop in Iowa.
    Edwards received a smaller percentage of the vote than in 2004, lost by a larger point spread, lost the self-declared “liberal” vote by double-digits, came in third among union households, all in a race with only three competitive contenders as opposed to at least four in 2004.
    I understand you have reservations about Obama. Fine. But you’re also a smart, fair-minded guy that usually makes a data-driven argument.
    With this post, you’ve departed from that precedent. You’re flying by the seat of your pants, and making false assumptions. That’s unlike you, and I think it’s fair for me to rib you for it. Come back, Mr. Clemons.

    Reply

  26. XYZ says:

    “it is anthropoligically interesting that American citizens peripheralized the stress in Pakistan so quickly.”
    What makes you think they peripheralized it? Maybe they looked at the decisions of the Beltway foreign policy elite, on both sides, over the last seven years and decided that they are in fact, idiotic.
    Would you describe the Iraq War as a success?
    What about the decision of the U.S. to support Israel in attacking Lebanon?
    Supporting elections in Palestine?
    And specifically with regard to Bhutto she was encouraged to return to Pakistan by Rice. Does that look clever?
    Does supporting Musharraf look clever now that he is so isolated and may not have his hands clean in the Bhutto killing?
    Seriously you guys in Washington think no matter how much you screw up you can just “press the reset button” and have do-over as Brazile so revealingly puts it.
    Unfortunately that option is not available for Mrs Bhutto or for the uncounted thousands that have died in Iraq thanks to the decisions of the likes of McCain and Clinton.

    Reply

  27. Dan Kervick says:

    The result was actually extremely close to the last DesMoines Register poll. The second round votes from the other candidates seemed to break for the top three in more or less the predictable proportions, based on the relative percentages of those top three in the Register poll.
    I had a conversation on New Year’s Eve with a political scientist and professional political observer here in New Hampshire. Clinton’s coalition in New Hampshire is founded on the old established Democratic coalition, and on long-time loyalty to the Clintons who have been cultivating loyalists here since before 1992. But just as in Iowa, independents are going heavily for Obama. Many rank-and-file organization Democrats practice a sort of machine inertia, which tends to stick with the old reliable until they are convinced someone else can win. Despite much dissatisfaction with Clinton among ordinary Democratic voters, the bosses have said stick with her, since she is the best poised to win in November. She also picked up some key newspaper endorsements.
    But Clinton’s campaign against Obama has been built in substantial part on the message that Obama couldn’t win a general election. That has become increasingly implausible over recent weeks. Tonight Obama won in an overwhelmingly white state, and his margin was beefed up by his ability to attract large numbers of independents and new voters to a Democratic caucus, groups who went overwhelmingly for Obama. To hungry Democratic voters and operatives, that says “jackpot” and “promised land.” Everybody already knows Clinton has high negatives and does poorly with independents and Republicans. But tonight she didn’t even win the Democrats, despite being the most know of known quantities and the heir to a two-term Democratic administration. So I would expect the next New Hampshire poll to show a dramatic move toward Obama.
    The Clintons look to be in disarray. Some of the campaign’s statements this morning suggested they were anticipating the loss, so that means they had all day at least to work on their message for tonight’s speech. But her speech altogether lacked energy and sparkle, and had no clear message. Contrast that with the energy of Edwards, who also had a tough defeat in a race many said he had to win. And unlike Edwards the Clintons weren’t even able to turn out a modestly enthusiastic crowd of supporters to the speech. It almost sounded like a national concession speech. Her words were “I’m going to fight on”, but her tone and body language said “I want to quit now.” She emphasized the fact that the results showed Democrats are going to kick ass in November. That’s a valid inference from the results since the Democrats turned out almost twice as many voters as the demoralized Republicans. But it undercuts their campaign’s message that she is the only Democrat who can win.
    It appears for now that the Clinton team is still going to roll the dice on the experience message, aim at older voters, and argue that Clinton will be able to take charge on “day one”, while Obama will have a learning curve. I was really quite surprised by this approach. Clinton delivered the speech with an exhausted, depressed and ancient looking Bill Clinton on one side, and a gloomy and even more ancient looking Madeleine Albright on the other. There goes the “change” message! Obama was basically trying to create a “torch has been passed” moment, and declared his victory an historic turning point. If I were the Clintons I would have had Chelsea standing behind Hillary, to inject a little energy and youthful pizzaz into that dismal long-in-the-tooth tableaux. “Experience” is one thing, but surely they don’t want to send the message that the “only” people still supporting Clinton are the passing generation. If they can’t turn that image around by associating some young faces with their campaign, they will only succeed in reinforcing Obama’s message that he represents a tide of historic generational inevitability.
    More often than not in these campaigns, some candidate comes along to capture the imagination of youth, only for us to find out in the end that those young people don’t vote. But not only did young people vote in Iowa, they voted in an incredibly organized way, and well-trained way in a caucus system that tends to intimidate and confuse first-time voters. Something very different is happening here.

    Reply

  28. Joshua says:

    You write:
    “it is anthropoligically interesting that American citizens peripheralized the stress in Pakistan so quickly.”
    This has been a reporters’ obsession but nobody else’s. Without claiming that events in Pakistan are unimportant, I have to question whether even 1% of American voters have Pakistan on their minds when voting.
    I mean, seriously, do you know any Americans? Have any of them told you they were changing their votes because of Pakistan? Did even 5% of Americans know the name Benazir Bhutto before last week? How can this be such a surprise?

    Reply

  29. easy e says:

    Rudy, McCain, and Hillary will start marching to the drums of neocon power.
    Madness Compounding Madness
    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18992.htm
    Rudy Ad Featuring Bhutto Footage
    http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2008/01/new_rudy_ad_features_benazir_bhutto_footage_warns_of_death_at_hands_of_radical_muslims.php

    Reply

  30. easy e says:

    S. Clemons @ 11:28pm
    “…I’m not an expert on these kinds of games and how they impact the future choice of voters — but I do sense that the impact of Bhutto’s assassination and foreign policy in general had a momentary impact on the presidential race…”
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    The politics of FEAR will regain momentum. Rudy will be joined by McCain, as well as Hillary.
    Calls for Intervention in Pakistan
    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18992.htm
    New Rudy Ad Features Bhutto Footage
    http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2008/01/new_rudy_ad_features_benazir_bhutto_footage_warns_of_death_at_hands_of_radical_muslims.php

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *