Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Does Obama Need To Win Iowa?

Over the last week, two members of Sen. Barack Obama's inner circle seem to have suggested that he must win the Iowa caucuses to have a chance at the Democratic nomination.

The candidate's wife, Michelle, told voters in Davenport, Iowa late last week that "Iowa will make the difference," according to the Associated Press. "If Barack doesn't win Iowa, it is just a dream.," she added.

The next day Obama campaign manager David Plouffe was quoted in a Michael Crowley New Republic story saying: "Iowa -- that's the whole shebang! I guess I'm not supposed to say that."

The Obama campaign played down both comments, insisting that no matter what happens in Iowa they will have the organization and money to carry the fight all the way to February 5 if need be.

But, is there a grain of truth in the off-the-cuff comments made by Michelle Obama and Plouffe? Yes.

Of all the early states -- we're including Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina in that list -- it's the Hawkeye State where Obama has consistently run strongest. The latest independent poll in the state shows Obama leading the field with 28 percent to 24 percent for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and 22 percent for former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.). Most Iowa polling -- aggregated (thankfully) by -- shows a close three-way race between Obama, Clinton and Edwards.

Obama's ground game in Iowa is also the most advanced of his organization in all of the early states. Led by Paul Tewes, who was intimately involved in then Vice President Al Gore's Iowa caucus victory in 2000, the Obama operation now has 31 field offices open in Iowa -- far more than any of the other Democratic hopefuls. Both Tewes and Steve Hildebrand, who ran Gore's 2000 Iowa effort, are extremely well regarded both in the state and nationally and have spent years studying the best way to build an effective field program. (Obama's organization -- and the enthusiasm within his Iowa ranks -- opened many eyes at Sen. Tom Harkin's annual steak fry last month.)

Finally, Obama's message of judgement on the war and change more broadly in politics seems a natural fit for the average Iowa caucus-goer. It's no coincidence that Obama is in the midst of a four-day campaign swing through Iowa to not only commemorate the five-year anniversary of his speech opposing the war in Iraq but also to kick off his "Judgment and Experience" tour.

It's clear then that Obama has real strengths -- financially, organizationally and message-wise -- in Iowa. Given those assets, it's hard to overstate the importance of the state to his chances at the nomination.

Iowa will be the first real vote of the 2008 presidential race and therefore the first real test of whether or not Clinton is invincible. There's little question now that Clinton will enter Iowa as the race's frontrunner. And, the only way to breakthrough that aura of inevitability is to beat her early.

If Obama manages to win Iowa, it's possible a slew of indepedents would flock to his cause in New Hampshire where they are allowed to vote in either primary. That sort of surge among independent voter could erase the Clinton edge in the state or at least drastically narrow it. Imagine a scenario in which Obama wins Iowa, Clinton narrowly wins New Hampshire and the two square off in South Carolina -- a state where black voters made up nearly 50 percent of voters in the 2004 Democratic presidential primary.

On the other hand, if Clinton wins Iowa, it's hard not to see her running away with New Hampshire -- given the lead she apparently has in the state at the moment. And, if she wins Iowa and New Hampshire, it's over.

So, does Obama need to win Iowa? Yes and no. Winning would likely poke a hole in Clinton's inevitability argument, which would cause all sorts of fascinating aftershocks that are tough to predict this far in advance of the vote. If Obama loses in Iowa, he would need to hope that Edwards, not Clinton, wins.

The truth is all three of the top-tier candidates need to win Iowa. For Edwards, he has remained among the frontrunners due almost solely to his continued strength in Iowa; a loss would likely be the end. For Clinton, much of her appeal in the race is based on the idea that she is the nominee-in-waiting; if that image is tarnished in Iowa, Clinton will have the financial and organizational strength to bounce back in New Hampshire but the race will immediately become far more difficult for her.

By Chris Cillizza  |  October 2, 2007; 3:06 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Hillary's Haul
Next: Parsing the Polls: Inside the Clinton Surge


I have not had as much time as usual lately to post here since my wife and I will be leaving on an extended vacation in less than 2 weeks. There is lots to do with our business to enable us to take this trip.

But, I do want to weigh in on the Iowa caucus. I agree that Edwards has to win this one. I agree that Clinton will be on the way to an early coronation if she wins Iowa. If Obama wins Iowa and none of the second tier candidates gain traction there, it could quickly narrow the race to Obama-Clinton. I think you would see Obama attract a great deal of support from supporters of the other candidates, especially Edwards's supporters. Her high negatives would be a much greater problem in a two person race since there would only be one place for those who dislike her or consider her a sure loser to go. Clinton would probably win New Hampshire but Obama would do much better in South Carolina in basically a head to head contest with Clinton.

Posted by: JimD in FL | October 3, 2007 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Thought for the day...

Holding a resentment is like drinking poison...
...and expecting someone else to die from it.

Posted by: Alan in Missoula | October 3, 2007 2:21 PM | Report abuse


Posted by: RUFUS | October 3, 2007 12:08 PM | Report abuse

I think CC is right on the mark. Obama may not have to win Iowa to win the race. Clinton already has New Hampshire in the bag, it appears, so he she doesn't have to win Iowa. Edwards does, in order to have any chance or continue the race, have to win Iowa. I think Clinton has NH wrapped up, so she doesn't have too. If Edwards won Iowa, it would be a 3 headed race: Clinton vs. Edwards vs. Obama. If Clinton wins in Iowa, it would appear the race is over. The only shot would then be if Edwards dropped the race and publically endorsed Obama, that's the only way there would be any shot Clinton may not win. Even then that's a stretch. If Obama won in Iowa, Clinton would still likely win in New Hampshire so it would then be a 2 horsed race. I don't, at all, buy into the fact that independents will flock for Obama. Obama is competing for those independent voters with John McCain. These independents are the same voters who seem to adore Sen. Gregg. Clinton has the Sheheen's backing her candidacy as well as most of the other top NH Dems. I think she has NH in the bag. So the analysis in Iowa:

Edwards: Only chance to hang on is to win. Then it's Edwards vs. Clinton vs. Obama

Obama: If he wins it knocks Edwards out and he makes the race 2-horsed. Obama vs. Clinton. If Obama wins Iowa, I still think Clinton has NH but by a smaller margin. That makes it Clinton vs. Obama, on equal footing.

Clinton: She wins Iowa, it's over with. Clinton is the Dem. nominee.

Posted by: reason | October 3, 2007 11:55 AM | Report abuse

"I don't know why the same registration system isn't used here as on the other blogs on the site."

I suspect we're (currently) stuck with a legacy system. The Fix has been around longer; I think the other system is only used on blogs created more recently. Perhaps someone can convince the decision-makers that having one system site-wide would be more effective. Or perhaps some at the Post Online prefer to have a couple unmoderated blogs to keep the riff-raff from invading the others...

Posted by: bsimon | October 3, 2007 11:30 AM | Report abuse

I don't know why the same registration system isn't used here as on the other blogs on the site. It seems like that would go a long way towards fixing the problems here. It would also help the Post enforce their rules, by immediately preventing anonymous posts and impostors. I've suggested it in my emails, which remain unacknowledged.

Posted by: Blarg | October 3, 2007 11:06 AM | Report abuse

bsimon, I agree. It would be great if you could reliably tell who was saying what... but I don't necessarily want to give up just yet, although I am also open to visiting new sites.

Posted by: Bokonon | October 3, 2007 10:27 AM | Report abuse

On the subject of cleaning up the blog, a good first step would be to just use the login name one uses to access The Post. This is how The Trail blog works. Yes, they still get garbage posts, but fewer of them.

The next step would be having a human moderator that checks content once in a while & tosses the garbage posts. This is also the person that warns abusers & eventually (potentially) blocks IPs. The need for such a gate-keeper / street sweeper is sometimes the reason that sites just shut down comments.

If the options are to either put up with the nonsense, or eliminate comments entirely, I'd vote to put up with the nonsense.

Posted by: bsimon | October 3, 2007 10:22 AM | Report abuse

BleedingKansas, thanks for the tip. I live in Massachusetts and I'll check out that ballot initiative. Not that it matters; we're basically a one-party state.

FemaleNick: I found this blog by clicking through from the main page. I'm sure almost everyone else did also. I like that this is an open community. Most of the time, new posters don't stick around to read replies to their posts, but every now and then new people who are worth reading join. I'm concerned that a more insular community wouldn't get much diversity of opinion or much new traffic. It's happened to me before; I've helped start spinoff forums to larger forums that were out of control, and eventually the poster base became too small to support the site. I'm not saying that would necessarily happen this time, but it's a risk.

Others: There's an email link at the top of the comments section for reporting abuse and violations. As far as I can tell, it's the only way to contact the people who might be in charge of this blog. I've sent them a couple messages but haven't received any responses.

Posted by: Blarg | October 3, 2007 8:55 AM | Report abuse

FemaleNick -- sent you an email, if you'r still checking that address...

Posted by: drindl | October 3, 2007 8:43 AM | Report abuse

International Blogger Day for Free Bumra ( 4 October 2007)

We would like to inform, in fact request you to know about the brutality and information blackout in Crisis Burma recently.

( for further information :

Junta is so cruel and wicked neglecting outside world. But international pressure have been getting higher through local bloggers and internet users. So now they are targeting all people including bloggers, internet cafe, journalists, even to those who carrying camera and handphones. ( what a worst in this 21st century)

The fact is that defenseless people are suffering and struggling apparently behind the international watching windows now. Junta cut down all blogspot service, even the whole internet system . In that sense , we would urge you to promote your freedom for those of unfortunate Burmese civilians by campaigning International Blogger Day ( 4 Oct 07) for Free Burma as follows.

We world request you to make know the rest of the world on behalf of those who have no more information freedom and severely suppressed not to talk and speak out the world.

We do hope a lot for your help on behalf of Burmese Google and Blogspot users.

Burma changer ( on behalf of Free Burma campaign)

Posted by: burma.changer | October 3, 2007 3:46 AM | Report abuse

FemaleNick, why don't you make the group call itself, The Group?

Posted by: Mary McCarthy | October 3, 2007 3:41 AM | Report abuse

Does anyone know if Obama is endorsed by Bono or Borgen?

Posted by: trey | October 3, 2007 2:34 AM | Report abuse

And please start by explaining your reason for creating the people who call themselves Rufus, Zouk, and intouchwith yourfemineside.

Posted by: God Help Them | October 3, 2007 1:55 AM | Report abuse

God, if you exist, please explain why you made the idiots who comment on this site.

Posted by: God Help Them | October 3, 2007 1:53 AM | Report abuse

Dear Diary, That awful person is back, again, saying terrible things about Hillary. It's an insult to all womyn. It's probably a man because womyn are evolved and sensative and stuff. I did notice that all of my fellow womyn, of whatever gender, banded together and scolded the awful person soundly. I hope it hurt his or her feelings! We will ask CC to expose this awful person, perhaps to ban them for their lack of sensativity. Banning would be best because we wouldn't have to read any more of their comments which do not agree with the thoughts of truly evolved being like womyn. Of course, we can post under whatever name we like because we are womyn and are entitled due to past injustices. At least that is what Hillary said...heart, heart, heart! Hillary says that all men are insensative, though. Just look at Bill. Ewwwww! Tomorrow we womyn will be hosting a womyn conclave here and will ban men from commenting at all. Hillary says, as super evolved beings, only we have the right to say anything and what we say is more meaningful because of our superior beinghood and stuff. I wanted to hold a bake sale to raise money for raising consciousnesses, but Hillary says that bake sales are demeaning because we are now on the threshhold of real power and some new age like Aquarius, but she thinks that went away in the 60's. She says that men can hold the bake sales. A perfect world would be one where the Pentagon had to hold a bake sale to fund the military and where womyn are paid to make real decisions of import...whatever that means. I think it would be neat if the government would buy us all one of those pointy hats like priestesses of the mother goddess used to wear and would replace christian and other male dominated and enslaving religions with Wicca. That would bring on the age of peace and wisdom. We could feed the world, too, by banning the eating of meat. Sister Polosi says that a vegatarian diet, using tofu as the main source of protein, if forced upon men, would curb their violent nature. Well, dear diary, time to feed the cat and practice my yoga. Good night.

Posted by: Intouchwithyour femineside | October 3, 2007 1:22 AM | Report abuse

I pledge allegiance to the flag of energy independence and to the commitment for which it stands, using alternative fuels and alternative transportation for a cleaner, safer America!

Posted by: Pledge of Allegiance | October 3, 2007 1:20 AM | Report abuse

I pledge allegiance to the flag of energy independence and to the commitment for which it stands, using alternative fuels and alternative transportation for a cleaner, safer America!

Posted by: Pledge of Allegiance | October 3, 2007 1:19 AM | Report abuse

I pledge allegiance to the flag of energy independence and to the commitment for which it stands, using alternative fuels and alternative transportation for a cleaner, safer America!

Posted by: Pledge of Allegiance | October 3, 2007 1:18 AM | Report abuse

I pledge allegiance to the flag of energy independence and to the commitment for which it stands, using alternative fuels and alternative transportation for a cleaner, safer America!

Posted by: Pledge of Allegiance | October 3, 2007 1:16 AM | Report abuse

FemaleNick, I re-sent my message, this time from another silly address from another common provider. See if it comes thru now... I'm going to bed pretty soon.

Posted by: Bokonon | October 3, 2007 1:11 AM | Report abuse

FemaleNick, I will try again. I make no claims about my age - I am as old as I am, and at 1 a.m. it feels old enough.

Posted by: Bokonon | October 3, 2007 1:04 AM | Report abuse

Actually, make that 6 AM EDT...I was thinking of my time zone. I am assuming that the crazies will email me nasty remarks by then, and I will be in no mood.

I just love dummy email addresses.

Posted by: FemaleNick | October 3, 2007 12:55 AM | Report abuse

Bokonon, your email service provider isn't working...your email hasn't arrived, and as of 9 AM EDT, I will stop checking the phony email address I set up. Please resend...oh, btw - you're younger than I if you were born during JOhnson's presidency.

Posted by: FemaleNick | October 3, 2007 12:53 AM | Report abuse

FemaleNick, just sent you an email from one of my sillier addresses... please don't hold it against me. I am taking this seriously.

Posted by: Bokonon | October 3, 2007 12:36 AM | Report abuse

I would say Obama does not need to win Iowa, he just needs to not get left in the dust a la Howard Dean. He has the resources and campaign infrastructure to compete later as long as he does not get whipped. For these purposes, I would consider finishing 10 points or more behind the Iowa Winner as getting "whipped."

However, if Clinton wins Iowa by more than 1%, the race is over.

Posted by: Ogre Mage | October 3, 2007 12:22 AM | Report abuse

Bokonon, email me please in the next hour. See earlier posts. I've already exchanged emails with the Judge and Mark -- I'd like you to be included. But you must email me in the next 5 minutes.

Posted by: FemaleNick | October 3, 2007 12:21 AM | Report abuse

Roo, thanks for the tip on mailinator... new to me.

Posted by: Bokonon | October 3, 2007 12:16 AM | Report abuse

Roo, nice thought on the spelling, but I know way too many smart people who can't spell to save their lives. So I can't see myself agreeing to spelling being a criterion.

Posted by: FemaleNick | October 3, 2007 12:12 AM | Report abuse

Moderating a BBS is non-trivial but just a simple mandatory registration with a 5-minute delay before a challenge/response e-mail verification is a good speed bump to weed out many trouble posters.

Deleting posts is something I would not expect to see but the registration/user ID component would allow certain posts to be reported and the poster suspended for a time or completely banned.

This would likely lead to a tolerable level of clutter with little effort.

Maybe they could add mandatory spell-checking too :D

Posted by: roo | October 3, 2007 12:01 AM | Report abuse

My observation of the Iowa Obama campaign is that they're relying on folks who won the Gore campaign (Tewes) and the same folks who lost with Gephardt (Tewes). They're overjoyed at big crowds full of young people who don't vote (Dean). They've missed so many opportunities to pick up key endorsements and, in fact, Joe Biden has more significant endorsements than does Barack Obama in Iowa.

Your thread about the Iowa race is way off base. Get out of Washington and spend some time in Eastern Iowa.

Posted by: There you go again | October 2, 2007 11:59 PM | Report abuse

FemaleNick--Check out Good for low-security stuff.

Posted by: roo | October 2, 2007 11:48 PM | Report abuse

Mark, I just set up a hotmail address...send me an email in the next 5 minutes at this address:

After tomorrow at 9 AM, I will stop checking it.

Posted by: FemaleNick | October 2, 2007 11:45 PM | Report abuse

"And only if CC doesn't do something about the people who take up valuable space."

Don't be so pretentious FemaleNick, this is all free. You get what you pay for.

If you want to set-up an elitist Georgetown Salon group where you can regale the posters with the adventures of your DODDS group, feel free to do so. Otherwise, you'll just have to accept posting with those of us who comprise the Great Unwashed, the hoi polloi.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 2, 2007 11:44 PM | Report abuse

"Tomorrow night I'll submit a draft here and Blarg, Truth, Bokonon, FemaleNick, and Roo
can make suggestions."

I'm willing to devote what little attention span I can spare but I'm not sure if CC pays any attention to the comments. For example, he assigns someone else to develop the "Wag the Blog" feature. CC's primary job involves trudging through the well-worn halls of the Cannon House and other fun places in DC, looking for perspective from those who want to see their words in print for whatever reason. Shoe leather is his stock in trade; the decorum practiced on this blog is (based on the data available) of little interest to him. We might have better luck appealing to the WaPo itself.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | October 2, 2007 11:40 PM | Report abuse

P.S. -- for Blarg --

Yes, WaPo attracts a lot of traffic, but only a handful of people post comments on CC's blog. I suspect much of the traffic goes to the news articles.

Frankly, were I not a political junkie and were there not people like you & others on the site who actually post stuff that makes sense, I would never have bothered to read the comments beyond the first time. Do I read Chris's stuff? Yes...The question is -- do the comments have to be here? No.

All blogs point to the news (they are not reporters!). The difference is that when you run your blog, and if enough people are helping monitor it, you can "kill" the space wasters.

Posted by: FemaleNick | October 2, 2007 11:39 PM | Report abuse

Bokonon - The "ranking" vote could be accomplished in primaries. Primaries are not spoken to in the Constitution and are the domains of the parties.

FemaleNick, I have one rarely used email address. How would I get it to you other than posting it here? I could post it here and then discard it in a few days, of course.

Its 10:35P in Austin - if anyone has suggestions for the rules we want to see enforced, if any, in addition to the rules WaPo does not enforce now, please say so before tomorrow night. But now I am going to sleep. Thanks.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | October 2, 2007 11:39 PM | Report abuse

I agree. Obama wants to win Iowa, because it would help him a lot, but if Clinton wins Iowa, she's won a few states. It's not necessarily over for Obama after that, but I'm sure it would put a dent in his campaign if Clinton won Iowa. Obama and Clinton's supporters should be rooting for both of them to win Iowa, as it would help both of their campaigns greatly.

Posted by: colorado_skiier | October 2, 2007 11:37 PM | Report abuse

And I would be careful about asking for too many rules - FemaleNick, would it be possible to set up a system that would allow a certain person to post only a certain number of times within say, one hour? As far as language goes, I believe CC already has some sort of filter in place, and of course "abusive" and "threadjack" are a judgment call. I do think sth should be done, just not sure what we should ask for.

Posted by: Bokonon | October 2, 2007 11:30 PM | Report abuse

Mark in Austin, of course I would prefer that CC's staff did something so we don't have to leave. I much prefer this -- so much easier!

And Bokonon, though not an engineer, I know how to set things up online. I set up a blog for my DODSS alumni group three years ago because one of my clients at the time was a major blog company. And the company I founded and ran for nearly three years was in Internet company. Having been in the high tech industry for over two decades, half the people I know are engineers, so no task is too difficult to tackle. A phone call is all it takes to solve the problem.

And between me and Drindl, we can certainly work to promote the site. It sounds like Drindl, like me, makes his living promoting companies. In my case, that includes websites.

Mark in Austin, you can be totally cryptic -- set up a phony email address, and I'll know how to tell it's you. We can go from there....

And only if CC doesn't do something about the people who take up valuable space. (I would, however, love to meet you next time I'm in Austin -- though that's a separate discussion!).

And Truth Hunter, to address your Rufus issue of following us to - we get to zap him off and prevent him from ever posting unless he uses a different computer with a different IP address. What most people don't realize is that each of us can be identified -- even when you think you're being anonymous. Okay, it takes the cooperation of the service providers. In the meantime, however, the blog owners can block posters from certain IP addresses. Not something that WaPo will likely do -- imagine the censorship screams! They're too big and important a news organization!

Posted by: FemaleNick | October 2, 2007 11:25 PM | Report abuse

Bleeding Kansas, there is also the option of allowing voters to rank the candidates, so that second choices also get a degree of support... for example, in the primary: Obama, Biden, Hillary. All the first choices would get full credit, and scale it on down from there. I believe that's how it's done in several European countries... I'm sure someone else is more familiar and can tell us where and how it works. It's academic, though - Mark, tell me if I'm wrong, but I think something as fundamental as that might require a constitutional amendment -? I'm not really sure how the "open ballot" would help that much if it re-listed one of the alternatives already available...

and in re: this blog, yes, of course I would be willing to help put together a letter to CC.

Posted by: Bokonon | October 2, 2007 11:22 PM | Report abuse

I'm sure many of you are frustrated with the inability of the Democrats to change President Bush's Iraq policy. Believe me, I woleheartedly agree. It is important to remember that we must hold these candidates accountable for their actions or their inaction, in this case. Third-party candidates never amount to much, so I'm here tonight to inform all you that hope is not lost.
The Working Families Party
Open Ballot Voting - Our (not so) Secret Weapon
The vast majority of us share progressive values and want more affordable health care, a higher minimum wage, and better schools - but real change is hard to come by.
We've built a party for working people and their children. Many people think that building a new party is too hard, that their only real choice is for "the lesser of two evils."
Those concerns are right on target. Except in states like New York with open ballot voting.
New York is one of the only states in the nation in which minor parties play a major role. That's because it is one of two states in which "open ballot" voting is both legal and common.
If you ask people to vote for candidates with no chance of winning - and by definition third party candidates have almost no chance of winning - they will wonder if you think they are stupid. "You mean you want me to waste my vote on someone who, if they're lucky will get 2 or 3 percent just to make a point?" (The "Wasted Vote" problem). Or, "won't voting for that third party candidate, who is the best of the bunch, end up helping the candidate who is the worst of the bunch?" (The "Spoiler" problem). That's where open ballot voting comes in.
Open Ballot Voting Explained:
Open Ballot Voting, also called "cross-endorsement", allows two or more parties to nominate the same candidate on separate ballot lines.Candidates' vote totals on each ballot line are added together to determine the overall winner. Open ballot voting is our secret weapon - a key part of our strategy.
Once legal and commonly practiced in all states, open ballot voting is now legal only in New York, Connecticut, Delaware, South Carolina, Mississippi, South Dakota and Vermont. In other states, it was banned around the turn of the century after the Populists used the cross endorsement system to build a powerful alliance of small farmers and industrial workers. When we have a chance to run our own candidate and win, we do so. Races in which we're not strong enough to run one of our own, we look to support a good candidate of another party. That candidate will run on more than one ballot line and voters can choose to vote on the line that best representstheir views. Think of it as a "protest vote that counts." If the WFP gets a good percentage of votes on its line, it sends a strong message about the importance of our issues.

If this interests you or if you live in any of the seven aforementioned states and you're fed up with "politics as usual," then I strongly urge you to learn more about the WFP and Open Ballot Voting in general. Moreover, if you live in Massachussetts, California or Oregon, you should know that attempts are being made to get the Open Ballot Voting Initiative on your state ballots. So, call your elective officials or email them and demand they get it on their. It's the only way to really hold your politicians accountable. To learn more about the WFP's legislative successes, or Open Ballot Voting:

Posted by: Bleeding Kansas | October 2, 2007 11:02 PM | Report abuse

I know that FemaleNick and drindl can do this - my daughter in England moderates a web site for a pop icon there and she controls for abusive content.

I also hear Blarg and Truth: I would be glad to send CC a letter on my letterhead by email, if we think that would help. But I do not know exactly what I would ask.

Tomorrow night I'll submit a draft here and Blarg, Truth, Bokonon, FemaleNick, and Roo
can make suggestions. But first, FemaleNick, if you are up for the lobbying of CC before we abandon the site to Rufus, KOZ, che, and anonymous cut-and-paster, how does one control for abuse? Five posts per IP per thread? No unattributed cut-and-pastes? Filter for key words beside Anglo-Saxon words for bodily functions? Bokonon, you are an editor. bsimon and Blarg, you are tecchies. Maybe if we can address CC intelligently we can salvage this.

If not, I'll be glad to exchange bona fides with FemaleNick.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | October 2, 2007 11:02 PM | Report abuse

I agree, let's contact Cillizza. Failing that, I like your suggestion, FemaleNick, although I am not technically inclined myself... but it sounds like you are. Have any of your past on-line business ventures included blogging? I think you said yes, but I'm too tired to scroll through and look. Do you have any idea about publicizing and attracting visitors to a new site?

Posted by: Bokonon | October 2, 2007 10:35 PM | Report abuse

pacman: SC Rasmussen Reports has Hillary 43%--Obama 30%--Edwards 10%--.You can get daily polls from this site. Hope this helps.

Posted by: lylepink | October 2, 2007 10:12 PM | Report abuse

I'd much rather fix this blog than start another one. That's partially because some of the major blog sites are blocked by my company's web software. But it's also because this blog attracts a lot of traffic. A Blogspot site wouldn't be nearly as prominent; it would end up with just a small group of posters, which could get repetitive.

I'd rather go with Truth Hunter's idea of emailing the people responsible for this blog and tell them our concerns. The other blogs have a different posting system where registration is required; that alone would fix a lot of our problems. If this site would enforce its own rules, this would be a much better blog.

Posted by: Blarg | October 2, 2007 9:56 PM | Report abuse

"I am proposing a site where civil discourse can occur."


Posted by: mohammed | October 2, 2007 9:50 PM | Report abuse

Blarg, TruthHunter, Mark, Bokonon, Judge, bsimon, Spartan - (I know I missed some) -- I am really new to posting on this blog, though I was a lurker for at least a year.

The entrepreneur in me thinks that we, together, could start our own blog. CC does a fine job of posting topics, but I'm betting that you all are aware of the news he discusses even before he posts. My proposal is that we start our own blog -- one that's focus on seriously discussing the political news of the day -- taking turns presenting the topics. (Chris posts three per day.) I would elect to have Mark in Austin choose who should be writers, i.e., choose the topics for discussion - only because he's a fellow Longhorn, and his legal background has been quite helpful; I've been learning from his posts! (Others too, but Mark is a longhorn.)

So what does this have to do with being an entrepreneur? Because say there are 7-10 of us who become regular posters...then drindl, a fellow marketer/PR person, and I promote the site...we start to get a following...we start to attract advertisers, and we share the profits equally. (I didn't mention that I've been in high-tech for over two decades and have launched more companies than I can count...)

I even have an idea of how we can figure out who is whom. But I'll start with Mark because I know Austin & Texas culture well. It would be easier for me to ask him questions and figure out whether he's who he claims to be.

The good news about starting our own blog (and I believe we'd attract a lot of reasoned people) is that we would gain control. It's not about being anonymous -- it's about being thoughtful. Dumb or nasty remarks can be zapped and their IP address permanently banned. I know this because I do it often on a personal blog. It stops REALLY fast because they can't ever post again.

I don't need to agree with people -- I genuinely want to know, but I can't stand stupidity.

As a side note, Mark, the person I called after I left Sen. Feinstein's home is in your governor's administration. He is such a Republican that he'd never cast a vote for a Dem. Another friend, a former Republican mayor in Texas, called me last night to ask me of my impressions of Hillary.

The point is that it is possible for people's views to differ and to prefer different candidates and still be civil. I am proposing a site where civil discourse can occur. No such thing really exists at the moment -- at least I haven't found one.

Posted by: FemaleNick | October 2, 2007 9:35 PM | Report abuse

Eh, you can always just go to Blogspot or something and set up "The Crack" to mirror "The Fix" so you can continue to be, ah, inspired by Mr. Cilizza's sleuthing.

I am about done here, too, although I usually just read with the occasional incision practice.

Posted by: roo | October 2, 2007 8:50 PM | Report abuse

OK posters.... are you going to let Rufus drive us off? Why don't we all send Chris an email suggesting he have registration requirements and limits on the number of times (and length?) one can comment on each CC post. I would suggest no more than 3 or 4 times... we could then still have a dialogue but not be inundated with nonsense.

And, if you get the word out about a new, separate blog, don't you think Rufus will just jump on that one too....?


Posted by: Truth Hunter | October 2, 2007 8:48 PM | Report abuse

Thanks, Boko--me too! How could I not like someone who's into the Allman Bros and 'Whipping Post''?

Posted by: drindl | October 2, 2007 8:41 PM | Report abuse

I remembered that I wanted to read FemaleNick's Report on HRC. Thanks.

Spartan, I will look for news of your blog. Truth. I will look for your blog to become interactive. FemaleNick, I will watch for your blog. I have one email address I would be willing to give out when that time comes.

If the attack of the four continues to disrupt this blog, and all the many interested and interesting posters drop out, Chris will police his blog. CC offers much fodder for discussion and he should not "give up" just because I am about to!

I'll look in at y'all in the evening to see how its going and to get the news of alternative blogs. I do read the legal blog [Cohen] and I will fill my breakfast moments over there, where I will see some of you [bsimon, for sure].

Posted by: Mark in Austin | October 2, 2007 8:41 PM | Report abuse

'Thanks, drindl (and John). The overwhelming majority of my family and friends are Republicans -- some to the right of the ayatollah from my perspective -- and yet, I make it a point to figure out where they're coming from. It's in part why I came here in the first place - to see a more broad cross-section'

The majority of my family [on my parent's side] are evangelical christian. My husband's family is liberal Jewish. My friends tend to be -- all over the place, but mostly what you could call independents. So I like to look at all rational viewpoints.

I was interested in what you asked about immigration -- a subject I am also greatly conflicted on, for various economic and ethical questions.

Posted by: drindl | October 2, 2007 8:38 PM | Report abuse

spartan, good analysis. I agree.
FemaleNick, interesting about Hillary. What other topics did she cover?
And Mark, I hear you in re: the degenerating of this blog. I would hope that we could do sth about it, but I don't know... I don't know if banning anonymous posters is the answer - witness some valuable contributions by one of the |s this past week. But I agree, ignoring some of the main offenders doesn't seem to be enough any more. Spartan, I know you said you're not able to get your blog up yet -? Maybe someone else can - it would be too bad to miss the insight of you all, plus drindl, Judge Crater, blarg, Loudoun Voter, bsimon, JimD, lylepink, and all the rest of those who are not zouk. I would hope that some way can be found to continue our conversation - it would be a shame to have a good discussion drowned out by stupidity. I have grown to like most of the people who post here.

Posted by: Bokonon | October 2, 2007 8:35 PM | Report abuse

Thanks, drindl (and John). The overwhelming majority of my family and friends are Republicans -- some to the right of the ayatollah from my perspective -- and yet, I make it a point to figure out where they're coming from. It's in part why I came here in the first place - to see a more broad cross-section.

With our similar professional backgrounds, we could start a new blog and recruit Mark, the Judge, bsimon, and other thoughtful posters to contribute. I am interested in all points of view - provided they're thoughtful.

Posted by: FemaleNick | October 2, 2007 8:24 PM | Report abuse

Female Nick, Thanks for the thoughtful post. While Hillary can be very engaging when she "on" she has brought a few of her campaign workers to tears here in Iowa.

But then, as you point out, the pressures are tremendous.... and turning those pressures into votes is what the process is all about. And, she is very effective at doing that with many.

I find it interesting that "in touch with my femine side" is so threatened by a strong female. I think that may be the reason for a lot of her negatives although there are many confident men among her supporters.

Posted by: Truth Hunter | October 2, 2007 8:23 PM | Report abuse

mark in austin- i also agree with you with the tenor of this blog. it has its moments but its decending into 4chan level of insanity(google 4chan and prepare to be disgusted) normally i would just scroll past the che posts or occasionally yank zouks chain. but scrolling past the comments and missing the more important ones its getting annoying. yeah its time for that blog to get launched soon.

honestly cc or who ever is watching the blog cant you ban rufus, zouk and others or at least force registration in order to comment? i think the ny times does that to their political blogs.

back on point AGAIN, here's how i break down each canidates chances. hillary must win or at least come in first in iowa. 3 or worse and its game over for her. basically the inetiviblity meme is media forced and im pretty sure the nice folks down in iowa dont like her being shoved down their thoats.obama has place first or come in a strong second or 3rd but from what im hearing he's got a good ground game and plenty money to start airing ads now. edwards how ever is pretty much bleeding support right now. taking matching funds is the kiss of death right now. he drops out in december and throws his support to obama. the sleeper pick would be richardson right now.

ok chew on that for a while. laters

Posted by: spartan | October 2, 2007 8:19 PM | Report abuse

FemaleNick, you are not a brainless twit. It was the person who called you one who is the brainless twit. What a juvenile. Thanks for posting.

Posted by: John | October 2, 2007 8:17 PM | Report abuse

'They felt that engaging was important for historical reasons - and this coming from men and women alike.'

Thank you for that thoughtful report, Female Nick. Too bad there are so many people who come to this blog simply to express their hate and anger. But I keep coming here because there are several interesting folks with different backgrounds than mine, who are interested in actual discussion.

Posted by: drindl | October 2, 2007 8:12 PM | Report abuse

Dear Diary, I met with hillary! Oh, I cannot express the heart throb, the electricity that ran up and down my backbone, when our hands met, our eyes made contact. She is SUCH an example to all of us girls. Everything from her tender twitter, to the way she brays like some love sick donkey, makes my heart flutter. Oh, did I tell you? We went to sister Polosi's office and these dirty protestors were hanging around. Most were these icky men, but a few were sisters that we sought to enlighten. Womyn united, all having ungone the holy sacriment, are so much more evolved than the others. We will rule them, as womyn ought to rule, in justice, but showing no mercy for anyone who is not evolved enough to understand. Men are so superfulous anyways. What do we NEED them for? Certainly not for prodution, which is nothing more than the chains of slavery that men use to control us. Once the age of enlightenment is here and sister Hillary has been revealed as the annointed one, we will ban all things male as without worth or destructive and we will rule.....

"FemaleNick". You are a brainless twit.

Posted by: in touchwithmyfemine side | October 2, 2007 7:58 PM | Report abuse

Drindl, meeting Hillary was inspiring on so many levels.

1) Hillary was warm, has a nice laugh (not a cackle), very attentive to her surroundings, and very thoughtful. She took a couple of questions after a short speech. While answering the first person's question, I raised my hand rather tentatively as she was still speaking. I thought she caught my eye, but I couldn't be sure as I was standing against a wall behind some very tall people. (Everyone is taller than I.) But I was right - she did see me, so I was able to ask her about immigration about which I have very mixed feelings. She answered as best she could with the right amount of empathy for my personal family situation.

What struck me most here is how easy it is to vilify someone you've never met, how easily the media and the pundits can make a caricature of a real person.

2) Sen. Dianne Feinstein was gracious and equally warm. It was such a small group of people (less than 100) that it didn't seem odd to walk up to her to introduce myself. She, in turn, introduced me to her husband.

There were anti-war protesters that were literally outside her front door. (It seems that the area, though it looks like a patio or courtyard, was declared public property after the last major earthquake.

What struck me about this is how little thought I've given to what it means to be a public figure. You pretty much lose your privacy if you're playing at the natiional level, and there will always be people who will hate you for any number of reasons. Sure there's power, sometimes fame, and if you're a good speaker or writer, possibly money -- but for people like me, the privacy I'd lose would not be worth serving an oft ungrateful and all-too-critical public. It made me wonder why anyone would want to go into politics.

3) Finally, it struck me how important it is to be engaged in politics. Yes, I contributed the maximum (a first for me) to the campaign, but I was happy to be part of the process. The people who were there were friendly, thoughtful, serious, and who genuinely seemed to care about the outcome. Several I met were first time contributors. They felt that engaging was important for historical reasons - and this coming from men and women alike.

So that's as brief a report as I can give.

Posted by: FemaleNick | October 2, 2007 7:40 PM | Report abuse

Tue Oct 02 2007 18:49:38 ET

Washington, DC--Senate Democrats today sent the following letter to Mark P. Mays, CEO of Clear Channel Communications, calling on him to publicly repudiate Rush Limbaugh's characterization of troops who speak out against the Iraq war as "phony soldiers." Despite recent Republican comments condemning verbal attacks on our troops, when given the opportunity to join us in signing this letter, not a single one did so.

The text of the letter is below and attached:

October 2, 2007

Mr. Mark P. Mays
CEO, Clear Channel Communications Inc.
200 East Basse Road
San Antonio, TX 78209

Dear Mr. Mays,

At the time we sign this letter, 3,808 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq, and another 28,009 have been wounded. 160,000 others awoke this morning on foreign sand, far from home, to face the danger and uncertainty of another day at war.

Although Americans of goodwill debate the merits of this war, we can all agree that those who serve with such great courage deserve our deepest respect and gratitude. That is why Rush Limbaugh's recent characterization of troops who oppose the war as "phony soldiers" is such an outrage.

Our troops are fighting and dying to bring to others the freedoms that many take for granted. It is unconscionable that Mr. Limbaugh would criticize them for exercising the fundamentally American right to free speech. Mr. Limbaugh has made outrageous remarks before, but this affront to our soldiers is beyond the pale.

The military, like any community within the United States, includes members both for and against the war. Senior generals, such as General John Batiste and Paul Eaton, have come out against the war while others have publicly supported it. A December 2006 poll conducted by the Military Times found just 35 percent of service members approved of President Bush's handling of the war in Iraq, compared to 42 percent who disapproved. From this figure alone, it is clear that Mr. Limbaugh's insult is directed at thousands of American service members.

Active and retired members of our armed forces have a unique perspective on the war and offer a valuable contribution to our national debate. In August, seven soldiers wrote an op-ed expressing their concern with the current strategy in Iraq. Tragically, since then, two of those seven soldiers have made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq.

Thousands of active troops and veterans were subjected to Mr. Limbaugh's unpatriotic and indefensible comments on your broadcast. We trust you will agree that not a single one of our sons, daughters, neighbors and friends serving overseas is a "phony soldier." We call on you to publicly repudiate these comments that call into question their service and sacrifice and to ask Mr. Limbaugh to apologize for his comments.


Senator Harry Reid, Majority Leader
Senator Richard Durbin, Assistant Majority Leader
Senator Charles Schumer, Vice Chairman, Democratic Conference
Senator Patty Murray, Secretary, Democratic Conference
Senator Daniel Akaka
Senator Max Baucus
Senator Joseph Biden
Senator Barbara Boxer
Senator Sherrod Brown
Senator Robert Byrd
Senator Benjamin Cardin
Senator Tom Carper
Senator Bob Casey
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
Senator Kent Conrad
Senator Christopher Dodd
Senator Byron Dorgan
Senator Dianne Feinstein
Senator Tom Harkin
Senator Daniel Inouye
Senator Edward M. Kennedy
Senator John Kerry
Senator Amy Klobuchar
Senator Mary Landrieu
Senator Frank Lautenberg
Senator Patrick Leahy
Senator Carl Levin
Senator Blanche Lincoln
Senator Bob Menendez
Senator Barbara Mikulski
Senator Bill Nelson
Senator Barack Obama
Senator Jack Reed
Senator Jay Rockefeller
Senator Ken Salazar
Senator Bernie Sanders
Senator Debbie Stabenow
Senator Jon Tester
Senator Jim Webb
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse
Senator Ron Wyden"

Posted by: feel me now | October 2, 2007 7:40 PM | Report abuse

wow. and she's the gop women standard bearer? Wow. i feel bad for the women who are in gop families. REVOLT gop women. Your men are fascists holding you down:)

Posted by: rufus | October 2, 2007 7:39 PM | Report abuse

"What's good for the goose is good for the gander," Hoyer said, adding that everyone should try to show "restraint from condemning all that we disagree with.""

Sound slike me. Yeah

Posted by: rufus | October 2, 2007 7:35 PM | Report abuse

Hello bueler. bueler bueler.

hear me now


wa hooo

Posted by: rufus | October 2, 2007 7:33 PM | Report abuse

But I'm the bad guy for locking down a blog?

I say you people start thinking abou tthe big picture. Do something. Our country is being destoyed by the mark in austin and jd's of the world. And waht are we doing? going after anonymous posters and tivial nonsense

Posted by: rufus | October 2, 2007 7:27 PM | Report abuse

"Rev. Yearwood Refused Entry To Blackwater Hearing Until Maxine Waters Stepped In
By: Nicole Belle @ 3:15 PM - PDT Unbelievable. Is our Congress learning? Apparently not. Big cheers to Maxine Waters for remembering that the House is THE PEOPLE'S House and citizens have a right to be there.

Yesterday I announced that the US Attorney dropped the charges against me of assaulting a police officer.

Today, Tuesday Oct 2nd, I was in line for the Blackwater hearing on Capitol Hill at 9:15 in the morning. When I got to the front of the line at 11:30, Capitol Police stopped the line. I stood there for two hours while the same officers who leapt on me three weeks ago outside of the Petraeus hearing, pointed and stared at me. I stood there, humming "we shall overcome."

Congresswoman Maxine Waters showed up at 1:30 and saw me standing there. She demanded that I be let into the hearing. Cops were swarming the door, and the honorable Congresswoman from California escorted me into the hearing. Once I got in, three cops stood near me, so I would not forget that I was in their territory.

It is just incredible that as a peace activist, a former Chaplain candidate in the Air Force Reserve, and a Minister, I would be treated so disrespectfully in the halls of Congress.


Posted by: rufus | October 2, 2007 7:24 PM | Report abuse

get em clark

"Wesley Clark: "Take Rush Limbaugh Off Armed Forces Radio!"
By: John Amato @ 2:41 PM - PDT Wesley Clark wants Rush Limbaugh to get the boot on Armed Forces radio.

Last week, Rush Limbaugh labeled any American soldier who supports an end to the war in Iraq as "phony." We challenged Limbaugh through an email campaign to invite's Jon Soltz to his show and repeat these same insults to an Iraq war veteran's face. Over 10,000 people responded and emailed Rush -- but to our disappointment, he has refused to respond to our request.

It's time to put real pressure on Rush Limbaugh. His show is broadcast on Armed Forces Radio, and this time we are going to go straight to the lifeblood of Rush's show -- Congress. Congress has the power to remove Rush Limbaugh from Armed Forces Radio, and it won't be as easy for elected officials to ignore our call...

Click here to hold Rush Limbaugh accountable for his offensive and outrageous comments -- tell your members of Congress to take Rush off Armed Forces Radio today!

Jane Hamsher says that Harry Reid got a bunch of signatures, but as you may have guessed: Joe Lieberman isn't one of them. That's supporting the troops--Mr.CT Blue America candidate Eric Massa, a veteran is coming out against Limbaugh too. Let's go people!


Posted by: rufus | October 2, 2007 7:23 PM | Report abuse

I've read up the post. look at all the republcians whining.

Falls on deaf ears. Like me watching o'reilly daily. only makes me angry. Nothing construction comes from the zouks of the world. All republicans can do is sabotage. They are saboturs. Destroying and breaking is all they can do. i want to build. I want change. There are those preventing change and those fighting for it. Those fighting for are a lost cause. I had hoped once you realized you were getting lied to by your news you would be as angy as the left. Didn't happen that way did it. You people defend the lies, like the people your talking to don't know the score. HAHAHAHA

Funny to me. But if you looking for symphathy look in the dictionary between sh*t and syphilis

A christian, a real christain can never feel guilt. Guilt is God's punishment for defiance. A real chrsitian can never feel guilt. If God is with me, who can be against me?

God is Love. God is Hope. God is Guilt.

so God is in you . Listen to God gop. i'm just trying to tap into that. That pain you feel is guilt. Listen to it.

Posted by: rufus | October 2, 2007 7:21 PM | Report abuse

'(I make my living as a PR & marketing consultant, btw.)'

Hey FemaleNick -- so do I. Fellow traveler. Please tell us, what was it like meeting Hillary and Diane Feinstein? I am quite curious. Just scroll past the static...

Posted by: drindl | October 2, 2007 7:18 PM | Report abuse

I post as one post name, for the most part. i post my posts. What does the righ tdo, here. post as differant names. Lie spin discredit daily. I don't discredit you people, other than those that play those games.

I let you post and let independants make up their own mind. you people always got a wisecrack. I'm uspposed to pity you? Nope.

If you want me gone hold your own to account. Get rid of rush fox and hannity. Label zouk and thos elike him for what he is. In a nutshell pratice what you preach and stop being hypocrites. If you still want me gone, do the thing.

You complaints fall on deaf ears. Only cc can censure and silecne me. If that happens I expect the right will also start to be silenced across the country.

good. Maybe with peopel dividing us we can come together. but the rufus tag is a charater. Know that. Like the movies:)

doesn't mean I'm not posting truths. I got you by the Ba**s. The gop is done.


Falker out :)

Posted by: rufus | October 2, 2007 7:15 PM | Report abuse

"I actually started thinking the other day that those of us who enjoy thoughtful discussions could start our own blog. Bloggers, after all, simply discuss news. That's ultimately what you guys were trying to do anyway - albeit prompted by CC's entries. It's clear that you, the Judge, JimD, bsimon, and drindl and a handful of others whose posts aren't nonsensical already keep up with current events. I even have a name in mind. (I make my living as a PR & marketing consultant, btw.) "

aahhh poor republcians. you have it so rough. I feel so sorry for you. i care about you rfeelings as much as you care abou tliberals. What's good for the goose.

Stop being hypocrites. Stop destroying the coutnry for personal profit. Speak out agaisnt those destroying the country. Then we can have peace. Come in here defending the fascists daily and it's on. It's on. this is war. this is verbal comabt. I didn't start this war agaisnt america. I AM JUST DEFENDING HER FROM YOU PEOPLE. Help me help you. Hold your own accountable, rather than pointing the finger.

I don't think you will leave. Even so. I hope the same five people that come here daily are gone. You are lost causes. The more new people WE effect the better. Out wiht the old in with the new. If you want me gone you know what you have to do. I'm not sure you will get the same deal for the fascists destroyign this site.

Posted by: rufus | October 2, 2007 7:09 PM | Report abuse

pacman: The last poll I saw for SC had Hillary 45%-Obama 27%- the funny thing about it was Edwards or no other dem was mentioned. With the exception of Iowa, Hillary is ahead by double digits in most other states. TH: Thanks for caucaus info.

Posted by: lylepink | October 2, 2007 7:08 PM | Report abuse

"Too bad this site sucks now, thanks to the anon posters and others who just copy and paste, scream and rant, repeating mantras instead of debating the topic Chris chooses.

Might be time to check out other blogs...

MAybe so. It's hard for someone trying to lie spin and discredit isn't it JD? The internet did your party in, not me. Truth did your party in. Not those reporting the truth. Remember nixon? He had his share of enemies to poin the finger at. He called most americans (non-gopers) the enemy. not much has changed. I'll stand by martin luther king. I'll stand with lennon (imagine). I'll stand with dylan. Who do you people stand with? Rush? Coulter? Hannity? O'Reilly? Bush?

Good luck with that. Let's see who get's father in 08

Posted by: rufus | October 2, 2007 7:04 PM | Report abuse

Obama can have Iowa. History and conventional wisdom say that Hillary won't win every primary. I wish a more progressive candidate would have a better chance at winning the Dem. nomination, but it ain't so. Bill Clinton said it all. If he had run for president four years before he did, he wouldn't have the wealth of knowledge and experience that he did in '92. Obama talks a good game, but a rock star doesn't necessarily make a good president. Look at Bush Jr. With all of his $ and connections, his being grey matter-challenged has been gravely detrimental to America. Conservatives I can live with. Conservatives who spew rhetoric and don't make the tough decisions are another thing. Newt Gingrich and William Buckley aren't my favorite people in the world, but they think, and they express those thoughts coherently. Obama is good for politics and the Dem party, but he simply could not win a general election. Ditto for Edwards. Dem voters will think before pulling levers during primary season, but it's time that Dems start showing the will to win that Repubs have shown since '84 -- minus the voter intimidation, gerrymandering and cheating. After two terms of the Bush Jr. nightmare, most thinking people are ready for "anyone but Bush." Though Hillary has some inerhent traits working against her, she has the best chance at defeating an already weak Republican lineup. Even if she were to lose Iowa, once the ball gets rolling -- it'll be on to the general election for her.

Posted by: BlueDog | October 2, 2007 7:03 PM | Report abuse

This website is a republcian fishbowl to me. I play to the gop fears. I know what you people fear most. I give you that. I'm not as naive to believe all news I post is truth. But how does that differ from the news you watch on tv.

I just will not allow the gop to bury news unfavorable to them, here. I WILL get Rush and O'rEilly off the air. Hopefully sooner than later. But they are not immortal. Fox is doen also. Imagine my glee when it happens. Then what will you say?

time will show you that all I said is truth. The future is now. the gop has been done for a couple years now. You people gop'ers are just so out of touch with reality you don't see it.

Posted by: rufus | October 2, 2007 7:01 PM | Report abuse

I think the only one of the top three that could fall with a loss is Edwards. Edwards probably continues if he finishes second. Obama is not out by a second place finish, especially if it's close. He's got the money, but a win would help his candidacy considerably, as Chris says, by poking a hole in the nominee in waiting persona of Hillary.

If Hillary doesn't finish first, the impact depends partly on if she is second or third. A narrow second would not hurt her much. She has the money to continue and is still in a good position in New Hampshire. If she doesn't win New Hampshire, where the voters see plenty of her on New York TV stations, then the race is wide open.

Edwards may have a hard time after a poor showing in Iowa, but I think he at least is going to wait the results of the South Carolina primary. But I don't predict he will pull out anytime before February 5. But if he is skunked on delegates in the big one, what would be the point of continuing?

Posted by: alan in Missoula | October 2, 2007 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Mark in Austin.... Hope you reconsider. Always enjoy your thoughtful posts. We can scroll through the rest although I agree those hogging the site with juvenile comments discourage discourse.

Posted by: Truth Hunter | October 2, 2007 6:52 PM | Report abuse

Mark in Austin, amen to what you said.

I actually started thinking the other day that those of us who enjoy thoughtful discussions could start our own blog. Bloggers, after all, simply discuss news. That's ultimately what you guys were trying to do anyway - albeit prompted by CC's entries. It's clear that you, the Judge, JimD, bsimon, and drindl and a handful of others whose posts aren't nonsensical already keep up with current events. I even have a name in mind. (I make my living as a PR & marketing consultant, btw.)

The biggest challenge is in coordinating and making sure we have the real people behind the handles.

Posted by: FemaleNick | October 2, 2007 6:51 PM | Report abuse

No problem FemaleNick.

Too bad this site sucks now, thanks to the anon posters and others who just copy and paste, scream and rant, repeating mantras instead of debating the topic Chris chooses.

Might be time to check out other blogs...

Posted by: JD | October 2, 2007 6:51 PM | Report abuse

Go ahead peanut gallery. You can't comabt my posts. So play gams with yourselves .Your not playing with me. It's all in your heads. You all are zouk for all I care. I do me. I could care less about elementary school games.

"a rose by any other name."

Zouk can post as whatever she wants. I will combat his post if it is zouk ---- or pink. I don't care about the individual I care about the word. So me combating any of zouk's secret identities doesn't matter. I'm here to post and comabt fascist. All the fascists here probably are zouk. Their numbers are so low. The lunatic right wing fridge. Regardless I will post and comabt. The games you people play are with yourselves.

All indepednant thinkers read this blog and see what time it is. they see who is fixing the problems and who is adding to them. I have emore power than everyone on this blog combined. I'm just letting you people in on the secret. What you do with the information is up to you.

you can make wisecracks all day. Use my post name all day. But indepednant thinkers don't worry about the source. They worry about the word. So discreedit me. WHAT YOU CAN'T DO IS WIN. And you know if. So continue the wisecracks and peanut gallery comments. YOU FASCISTS ARE DONE. RUSH .... IS DONE. O'REILLY? DONE

What will you do without your avatars fascist?

Posted by: rufus | October 2, 2007 6:47 PM | Report abuse

Thanks, Truth. The D caucuses in TX work the same way. The primary does not elect all the delegates to the County Conventions and Precinct Conventions are held to fill the at large seats at 7P when the polls close.

The Rules you describe are the "McGovern Rules" written by a team of lawyers in 1972 led by Will Davis, then a young lawyer, of Austin. You could look it up...

The Rs' rules are different in that they allow states to opt for "winner-take-all" as KOZ has noted.

bsimon, thanks for responding.
If Rufus and che and anonymous cut-and-paster and KOZ when he is acting like the others continue as they have for two days, this blog, a blog that had been welcoming to information sharing among people with differing views, will hold no further attraction for me. Everyone on the political spectrum who has patiently engaged about issues and the mechanics of
electoral politics, all of you from proud to cassandra, all of you brother and sister 'Horns, all of you who I always agree with [JimD], all of you who seem to me to have special insights based on your own experiences that are different experiences from my own - I will miss you. I will never have that political philosophy session over a drink or a meal with JasonL. I will not know when any of you come to Austin.

Blarg, thanks for trying to get through to the self absorbed young father.

Gotta go.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | October 2, 2007 6:43 PM | Report abuse

"Is Kim your imaginary girlfriend?

Posted by: | October 2, 2007 05:59 PM

Nah. Kim is zouk's mother's name :)

I take out my zouk agression on her

Posted by: rufus | October 2, 2007 6:40 PM | Report abuse

JD - your link made me smile. Okay - granted I didn't see it to its conclusion - so maybe it might have ultimately annoyed me. What I saw was amusing.

The only other thing I have to say to this post is that all the nonsensical posts that litter this page today make me wish that there was some way to limit the number of times one individual can post per topic per day.

Posted by: FemaleNick | October 2, 2007 6:24 PM | Report abuse

Janet, Well.... I believe Edwards supporters would splinter. Some (especially Elizabeth admirers) might gravitate to Hillary, others to Richardson and I agree many would go to Obama.

Again, the electability issue is important, and the question of Hillary's negatives will definitely play a roll.

Throw a dart....

Posted by: Truth Hunter | October 2, 2007 6:23 PM | Report abuse

gee, janet spells 'cackeling, phony Clinton.' it just like zouk...

Posted by: Anonymous | October 2, 2007 6:22 PM | Report abuse

If John Edwards drops out of the race, would the majority of his supporters go into the Obama camp, and vice versa if Obama drops out? I don't think any of Edwards or Obamas' supporters would line up behind the cackeling, phony Clinton.
I think there are more Democrats against her nomination then there are for her nomination.

Posted by: Janet | October 2, 2007 6:15 PM | Report abuse

This is a little off-topic, but when are we going to see more Endorsement Elites? Those were really interesting, I'd like to see more.

Posted by: Brendan | October 2, 2007 6:13 PM | Report abuse

Ignorant coward - you have sunk to a new low, tormenting poor stupid Rufas. Although it is tempting to pick on those less fortunate and less intelligent than you, and I understand there are few, you should not confuse pre-confused souls. He relied upon you to be his friend, through stupidity, ignorance, and imbecility, together. you were the perfect partner for this journey, and now you mock him. If he goes postal it will be on your head.

you can see that he has confounded all enemies into the zouk monster, including you now. and we all know how that works, at least you certainly do. Help your fellow moonbat come to see the world for what it is. He has enough demons without you piling on. Are you taking time off from drowning kittens to do this now? Next thing you know you'll be insulting drindl, cassandra, loud and dumb and the rest of the loons. Are you that much of a Lib that you have no set morals and will insult at will, regardless of stance (and we know you like them wide).

you are simply an offensive mental midget with no redeeming social value.

but continue to post under everyone else's name if it amuses you. little things for little minds.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 2, 2007 6:11 PM | Report abuse

This is partly to answer questions from a few posts ago about the mood in Iowa, and partly to explain why it is so hard to really get a handle on the real picture here.

There are 1748 precincts in Iowa, and each party holds a caucus in each precinct.

On caucus night, Iowans gather by party preference to elect delegates to the 99 county conventions

Presidential preference on the Republican side is done with a straw vote of those attending the caucus. This vote is sometimes done by a show of hands or by dividing themselves into groups according to candidate. In precincts that elect only 1 delegate they choose the delegate by majority vote and it must be a paper ballot.

Democratic candidates must receive at least 15 percent of the votes in that precinct to move on to the county convention. If a candidate receives less than 15 percent of the votes, supporters of non-viable candidates have the option to join a viable candidate group, join another non-viable candidate group to become viable, join other groups to form an uncommitted group or chose to go nowhere and not be counted. Non-viable groups have up to 30 minutes to realign.

And this is really the important time for the Democratic candidates.... the realignment. In other words, let's say neither Dodd, Biden or Richardson have a minimum of 15% of votes in the caucus. Their supporters must then find another candidate to join, or basically they won't be voting. Who is representing each candidate in the caucus room at this time, and how persuasive they are (there are short speeches of support) may well decide which candidate these voters join.

In the caucus I attended in 2004, Kerry had a very persuasive representative.... with the "electable" pitch.... and many of the less-than-15%, or non-viabale voters, joined his supporters.

So.... unless it is a landslide, both the undecideds (of which there are usually very few, most make up their minds before time) and the voters supporting a candidate who doesn't meet the 15% threshhold can well actually decide who gets the majority of the state convention delegates from that precinct.

That said.... Obama definitely has growing support. The electability issue, however, may hurt both Obama and Hillary, a perfect situation for a minority candidate to emerge. That is probably what Edwards is banking on. Or even Richardson. Or, as a long shot Biden.

More likely the Dodd, Biden, Richardson, Kuchinch caucus voters have to join another group. I remember this happened to Kuchinch supporters last time but they opted not to support anyone else, for example. But that was the only non-participating group, a very small number of people.

My caucus usually has about 200-300 attendees depending on the weather which can be nasty in January.

Hope this isn't more info than you wanted. But as you can see, calling the outcome of the caucus vote is really very difficult.

On the Republican side, Romney is virtually living here. The Register prints the schedule of all candidates daily, and lately Romney has been doing 3 to 4 rallies a day all over the state. Definitely the most active.

On the Democratic side, it seems to be a toss-up. Both Obama and Hillary have pretty good organizations although I sense Hillary has the edge.

Hope this helps.

Posted by: Truth Hunter | October 2, 2007 6:06 PM | Report abuse

I wish zouk was my girlfriend

Posted by: rufus | October 2, 2007 6:04 PM | Report abuse

Blow up doll?

Posted by: Anonymous | October 2, 2007 6:02 PM | Report abuse

Is Kim your imaginary girlfriend?

Posted by: Anonymous | October 2, 2007 5:59 PM | Report abuse

Pete in NYC, Obama never said that he'd bomb Pakistan. He said that if there's evidence that Bin Laden is in Pakistan, and the Pakistani government doesn't go get him, then the US will have to do it. Do you disagree? This is a common foreign policy position. Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton have supported it also. Are they also dangerously naive?

Posted by: Blarg | October 2, 2007 5:59 PM | Report abuse

Rufas - are you so stupid you don't even recognize your old friend ignorant coward? He is the only one here that posts under others' names. He has nothing of substance to offer. what do you expect?"

the ghost writer? No. Not the ghost writer. If the ghost writer is zouk why does he paly both sides? no. not anon.

Zouk likes to make you people think this. not my boy ghost writer. Not my wingman. :)

Posted by: rufus | October 2, 2007 5:58 PM | Report abuse

"Romney and Giuliani Defend Tax Records - The FixFrom the opening line of his statement yesterday, the King of Zouk was in trouble. "Thank you all very much for coming out today," he began.

"The King of Zouk
released: 2002

Under the somewhat presumptuous title of The King of Zouk, Luc Leandry, one of the Debs' studio regulars, delivers one of his strongest albums. It is chock-full of poker-hot zouk and will not... More[+] "

OOOHHH. how scary. just for that I'm taking it out on Kim, zouk.

Posted by: rufus | October 2, 2007 5:56 PM | Report abuse

I am a christian man, but on Friday night's I'm a wild woman

Posted by: rufus | October 2, 2007 5:55 PM | Report abuse

Rufas - are you so stupid you don't even recognize your old friend ignorant coward? He is the only one here that posts under others' names. He has nothing of substance to offer. what do you expect?

not that you are such a gem either. In fact, when IC and Rufas go missing, this blogs roars back to intellectual life quite nicely. hint, hint

Posted by: Anonymous | October 2, 2007 5:55 PM | Report abuse

check out the cartoon at the bottom mike b

It's funny. The justice department is a elephant. They got the nazi barracks. Teh supreame court is a W. HAHAHA funny.

Posted by: rufus | October 2, 2007 5:54 PM | Report abuse

facists facists everywhere

I'm meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelting.

Posted by: rufus | October 2, 2007 5:52 PM | Report abuse

Most unfortunate choice of Senate Leaders moonbats. Maybe he got boxed in the head one too many times during his "official" investigations. doesn't he have some crooked land deal to monitor or some zoning commission to influence?

Posted by: Anonymous | October 2, 2007 5:51 PM | Report abuse

He's posting as me mikeb. Many of the posts today are not even me. But I don't ahte zouk. I am a christian man. All I can do is try and save him. All I can do is try and show him how he's wrong. But I don't want him to ruin my good name here either :)

Posted by: rufus | October 2, 2007 5:50 PM | Report abuse

Obama is a nice guy. Yes, he needs to win Iowa. Edwards can win Iowa and he still will lose the nomination because he is as fake as they come. Obama is real.

That said, Obama is also dangerously naive (and I use that word to be kind) and he will never be elected President of the United States and I think it is time for this fantasy to be put to bed. He might be a VP, but I doubt even that.

He has, perhaps innocently, made comments that make his ignorance of foreign policy, international affairs and the world at large painfully obvious. The bombing of Pakistan comment was one and now the comment on nuclear weapons. Why doesn't he just say that he will call for everyone to do away with their military? Both sound nice if you are kid and nonsensical when you are trying to be president in THIS world.

Posted by: Pete in NYC | October 2, 2007 5:50 PM | Report abuse

But if I post as JKRish does he look like a moron? The only power you have zouk is the power I give you. You are a joke. a laughig stock. You are not playing games with me fascist coward. The games are in your head. I got you thought. You keep talking I keep winning, in the real world. I'll take that trade. Why aren't you serving if you rsuch a believer? If you wern't such a hypocrite you would fight for what you believe.

Posted by: rufus | October 2, 2007 5:47 PM | Report abuse

rufus, from looking at the wording and syntax, I think you have a problem with people who think of themselves as liberals and with others, likely KOZ, that is conservative. Both apparently are pining away for high school, where in their delussional world, they were once upon a time accepted and "popular". Pity them, they are pathetic loosers, insignificant bits of semi-aware life forms using up valuable oxygen, and Darwin will soon rid us of them.

Posted by: MikeB | October 2, 2007 5:47 PM | Report abuse

I'm not sure what a zouk is, it might be like phlegm

Posted by: rufus | October 2, 2007 5:47 PM | Report abuse

it's what he has resorted to. if all else fails, right coward?

Posted by: rufus | October 2, 2007 5:45 PM | Report abuse

don't tase me bro!

Posted by: rufus | October 2, 2007 5:45 PM | Report abuse

zouk is posting as me.

Posted by: rufus | October 2, 2007 5:44 PM | Report abuse

zouks zouks everywhere

Posted by: rufus | October 2, 2007 5:43 PM | Report abuse

gop, the party of accountability. The law and order party. What have you people taken responsibility for? All you people do is point the finger

Posted by: rufus | October 2, 2007 5:43 PM | Report abuse

my mother always told me I was special

Posted by: rufus | October 2, 2007 5:42 PM | Report abuse

Rufas, since we have been so cordial all this time with you can you do us the favor of warning us exactly which post office you are about to shoot up? It seems clear you are on the verge of making a political statement and it won't be on this blog.

Have you thought about talking to a professional. doesn't the VA cover that sort of thing? does anyone in TRW see this coming?

Posted by: Anonymous | October 2, 2007 5:42 PM | Report abuse

oooooooooooooo. Thsi guy is a tough guy. Just like you zouk


RUSH: Here's Harry Reid on the floor of the Senate yesterday, an expert on patriotism, by the way, calling me unpatriotic.

REID: Rush Limbaugh went way over the line, way over the line. While I respect his right to say anything he likes, his unpatriotic comments I cannot ignore. During his show last Wednesday, Limbaugh was engaged in one of his typical rants. This one was unremarkable, indistinguishable from his usually drivel which has been steadily losing listeners for years, [sic] until he crossed that line by calling on men and women in uniform who oppose the war in Iraq, and I quote, "phony soldiers." [sic] This comment was so beyond the pale of decency, and we can't leave it alone.

RUSH: Except it wasn't made; it wasn't in the middle of a rant; it was two words thrown away in a conversation with a phone caller. I think tit-for-tat's in order here. If Harry Reid is going to call me unpatriotic, then, Senator Reid, you may qualify as a phony patriot. Trying to all of a sudden position yourself now as a supporter of the troops? Can we go back and listen to some previous Harry Reid sound bites? He wants everybody to believe he's such a supporter, has such love and adoration for the troops. Here is Harry Reid in April of 2007 about the surge and the war in Iraq.

REID: This war is lost and that the surge is not accomplishing anything.

RUSH: Yeah, that's really inspiring, Senator Reid, that's really patriotic, that's really motivational, that ought to get the morale of the troops up. That night he repeated the same smear from the Senate floor.

REID: As long as we follow the president's path in Iraq, the war is lost.

RUSH: December 16th, 2006, Harry Reid celebrating when he thought Democrats had killed the Patriot Act.

REID: Think of what happened 20 minutes ago in the United States Senate. We killed the Patriot Act. (Applause.)

RUSH: Here is Harry Reid September 7th of this year talking about General Petraeus.

REID: He made a number of statements over the years that have not proven to be factual. It is now not his report; it's President Bush's report.

RUSH: So attack General Petraeus, attack the troops, tell 'em they can't win, the war is already lost, and now today and yesterday, try to make himself out to be a super patriot. It's not flying, senator.


RUSH: And let's not forget these other two things about Senator Harry Reid. He told school children in Nevada that George Bush, the commander-in-chief, was a loser. He essentially called Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas illiterate. He was asked what he thought about Thomas, (paraphrasing) "He's not very good; his opinions don't make any sense; they're not written very well," Harry Reid said. This is a party which cannot survive on the basis of its ideas, the Democrat Party. Liberalism cannot triumph openly in the arena of ideas. It can only triumph by destroying, via character assassination and other things, its opponents. They don't dare come join us in the arena of ideas for open debate on issues. And if they do, it will soon descend into personal assaults and attacks, as evidenced by Senator Harkin on the floor of the Senate saying things about me that he couldn't say about any other senator, nor could I say to a senator were I appearing before some committee testifying about something or other, which, by the way, I would love to see.


Posted by: Anonymous | October 2, 2007 5:41 PM | Report abuse

I am deeply deeply haunted by fascists and staple guns

Posted by: rufus | October 2, 2007 5:37 PM | Report abuse

""I hate all Iranians"
By: Nicole Belle @ 10:15 AM - PDT This is the kind of diplomacy that only the Bush adminstration is qualified to do. Obviously, she's from the John Bolton school of statesmanship.

Sadly, No!

British MPs visiting the Pentagon to discuss America's stance on Iran and Iraq were shocked to be told by one of President Bush's senior women officials: "I hate all Iranians."

And she also accused Britain of "dismantling" the Anglo-US-led coalition in Iraq by pulling troops out of Basra too soon.

The all-party group of MPs say Debra Cagan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Coalition Affairs to Defence Secretary Robert Gates, made the comments this month.

Now, my mother always told me that it's not nice to make fun of people whose faculties are clearly impaired, but seriously, why does she have to make it so hard? I mean, who wears German crosses as a fashion statement? Is it me, or is the Bush Administration just begging for the Godwin allusions now?


Posted by: rufus | October 2, 2007 5:37 PM | Report abuse

zouk has his party on this site. Lying spinning and discreditting is fun to him ,as it is to coulter hannity and rush. This is a big game. The differance between zouk and them. They all make millions lying ot the elery for profit. What does zouk get. Sastisfaction? Seek counselling tough guy. Taht or join the military. Eitehr way, work out your issues.

Posted by: rufus | October 2, 2007 5:36 PM | Report abuse

"Zouk is a style of rhythmic music originating from Guadeloupe and Martinique. It has its roots in kompa music from Haiti, cadence music from Dominica, as popularised by Grammacks and Exile One. Zouk means "party" in the local creole of French with English and African influences, all three of which contribute the sound. In Europe it is particularly popular in France, while on the African islands of Cape Verde they have developed their own type of zouk."

HAHAHAH. Waht a joke he is. And he doesn't even know his party is about to be gutted. poor fella

Posted by: rufus | October 2, 2007 5:34 PM | Report abuse

"Limbaugh expands group of "phony soldiers" to include Vietnam veteran Murtha
Summary: On his radio show, Rush Limbaugh defended his statement characterizing service members who advocate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq as "phony soldiers" and expanded the group of "phony soldiers" to include Vietnam veteran Rep. John P. Murtha.

zouk is a coward. Leave zouk. Give me my site back :)

you got nothing. You can never win combatting truths with smears and lies. Be gone foul creature be gone hahahaha

Posted by: rufus 0 | October 2, 2007 5:32 PM | Report abuse

now that my entire brain is gone, I keep getting this image of a word I don't understand. Perhaps you other moonbats can help me. What is a zouk? why do I see it evertime I blink? why is it haunting me? why do I feel the urge to post stupid kindergarten insults aimed at him? when I had a brain, I never even heard of a zouk, now I am obsessed with it.

Help me! I thought removing my brain would allow me to become a true beleiving Democrat, I was told you have to have no brain to be a true Dem. now instead of socialist messages, I keep wanting to insult people. and whatever O'Reilly says, I shout and throw things at my TV? My new world is confusing. will it always be this way? whenever I see a uniform, my arms shoot up in the air. when ever I see money, I must instantly spend it. I heard hillary will give me more so I'm not so worried. but the desire for fat girls who look like men is troubling.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 2, 2007 5:31 PM | Report abuse

"Limbaugh's Armed Forces Network audience has heard only misrepresentations of his "phony soldiers" comment on his show
During the first hour of his October 1 broadcast, in response to criticism of his recent description of service members who advocate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq as "phony soldiers," Rush Limbaugh said: "I want to apologize to all of the members of the United States military, both in uniform and out, active duty and retired, for Media Matters for America." Limbaugh continued: "They will not apologize to you, and they will not apologize to me. I want to apologize to you on behalf of them." Limbaugh has misrepresented his "phony soldiers" comments; indeed, listeners to Armed Forces Network, which broadcasts only the first hour of his show, heard only a spliced version of his remarks in which he edited out 1 minute and 35 seconds of discussion, while falsely claiming that he was providing the "entire transcript." Read More


Posted by: rufus | October 2, 2007 5:31 PM | Report abuse


Zouk ruined the blog today. Wa wa

What am I to do? CC, can you please do something HAHAHAHAHAHA.

You people are a riot.

Posted by: rufus | October 2, 2007 5:30 PM | Report abuse

rufus had nice shoes

Posted by: zouk | October 2, 2007 5:30 PM | Report abuse

Kim differs. To bad I punk her worse than I puck you AHAHHAHAHAHA

Posted by: rufus | October 2, 2007 5:26 PM | Report abuse

someone call elias. Zouk is losing it. He's on suicide watch. :). Goo d. do the word a favor tough guy. The less dittoheads the better place the world is

Posted by: rufus | October 2, 2007 5:25 PM | Report abuse

fascists fascists everywhere

Posted by: rufus | October 2, 2007 5:24 PM | Report abuse

i like zouk, we were at the minneapolis airport and rubbed shoes

Posted by: rufus | October 2, 2007 5:23 PM | Report abuse

OK, I had the rest of my brain removed so I can now be the ultimate ignorant moonbat. Only one problem, I forgot my sign-in name. I will just leave it blank.

Watch for my entertaining but loopy posts coming soon.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 2, 2007 5:23 PM | Report abuse

How Delegates are Awarded
The Democratic and Republican parties use different methods for determining how many delegates are awarded to, or "pledged" to vote for the various candidates at their national conventions.

Democrats use a proportional method. Each candidate is awarded a number of delegates in proportion to their support in the state caucuses or the number of primary votes they won.

For example, consider a state with 20 delegates at a democratic convention with three candidates. If candidate "A" received 70% of all caucus and primary votes, candidate "B" 20% and candidate "C" 10%, candidate "A" would get 14 delegates, candidate "B" would get 4 delegates and candidate "C" would get 2 delegates.

In the Republican Party, each state chooses either the proportional method or a "winner-take-all" method of awarding delegates. Under the winner-take-all method, the candidate getting the most votes from a state's caucus or primary, gets all of that state's delegates at the national convention.

For a detailed, and much more technical explanation of the primary-caucus-convention system, see:

Primary/Caucus/Convention Glossary (from

Posted by: Anonymous | October 2, 2007 5:20 PM | Report abuse

"im bad with math

Posted by: rufus | October 2, 2007 05:12 PM

Why do I scare you so much, coward. I know you goper's are scared of your shadow. I'm on a blog. Words can not hurt you zouk. Don't be such a coward. Join the Army infantry 11B, tough guy. They will show you pain and fear don't really exist. Don't attack everybody else in the world. Work your demons out. Your a funny fascist zouk. I can't wait until I can gloat, liek after the 06 elections

Posted by: rufus | October 2, 2007 5:18 PM | Report abuse

"Actually, the early primaries are split with the delgates. It is not until florida where it is winner take all."

You talkin' GOP, Dem or both?

Posted by: bsimon | October 2, 2007 5:15 PM | Report abuse

"I want to be a moonbat too. I had half my brain removed."

Clearly the wrong half.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 2, 2007 5:13 PM | Report abuse

im bad with math

Posted by: rufus | October 2, 2007 5:12 PM | Report abuse

Actually, the early primaries are split with the delgates. It is not until florida where it is winner take all. a shaky candidate could hang in there with a few delgates until the big winner-take-all states hit, after which a clear victor will emerge. this is a state decision and varies from place to place.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 2, 2007 5:12 PM | Report abuse

Word is born mikeb. I was watching hannity and colmes last night. they are labeling her as a socialist. I should be for her and jumping for joy. I'm not.

Nothing changes. Hillary is a slave to the same people bush is. Everything is not bush's fault. He was just to dumb to know he was the fall guy. The same master stays in control if hildog is elected.

But what do I know. I thought it was impossible for bush to win his second term.

Posted by: rufus | October 2, 2007 5:05 PM | Report abuse

Mark in Austin writes
"I did not understand your post re "all the talk about racking up delegates." If you get a chance in the next two hours, help me out with an explanation - you are welcome to assume that I start with zero knowledge."

I have seen it posted elsewhere, though I forget where, that an important factor of Dem primaries is that candidates get delegates based on the proportion of the vote they receive (GOP is winner-takes-all). So, theoretically, even without winning many states a candidate could amass enough delegates to win the nomination. This, of course, ignores the liklihood that early primary winners will skate to victories in subsequent events.

Where this could get interesting is if the polls don't change much - i.e. Iowa splits with Obama, Edwards & Clinton each getting 20-25%, etc.

Posted by: bsimon | October 2, 2007 5:05 PM | Report abuse

if her name is not kim, then what are you so mad about.

Posted by: rufus | October 2, 2007 5:02 PM | Report abuse

No! And, Clinton is not our inevitable President either. This cackling hen has been allowed to play the morons in the MSM like the idiots they are. Anyone with any degree of genuine politcial sensabilities will have watched the Daily Show where Jon Stewart featured a montage of Ms. Clinton's forced laughs, giggles, belly busters, chuckles, accompanied by close ups of her face during same. Here we see a candidate so scripted, so phony, such a cardboard cutout, that only someone overly enamored of Hollywood would believe her. You know, the sort of duffus that mails wedding gifts to their favorite soap opera couple when they are married....

God, we had better hope that Obama is real. His candidacy is starting to turn me into a believer. I'm thinking of getting on my knees every night and praying that he becomes president.

Posted by: MikeB | October 2, 2007 5:01 PM | Report abuse

"moonbats are fascists

Posted by: rufus | October 2, 2007 04:54 PM

wHAT? wAS IT THAT kIM COMMENT? Is your mom's name really kim? If so you should not be attacking me. You should fear me as a child of light. :[

Posted by: rufus | October 2, 2007 5:00 PM | Report abuse

moonbats are fascists

Posted by: rufus | October 2, 2007 4:54 PM | Report abuse

I think Iowa is crucial to Edwards' viability, in fact he has spent so much time there he's probably eligible to vote in Iowa.

If Clinton is second to him there, she's still in charge. If Obama is either first or second there and Clinton finishes third, she'll be wounded and definitely need to win in NH. I don't know how important Nevada will be (except for Richardson to stay in it), but then we come to South Carolina--about which I haven't seen many polls.

Posted by: pacman | October 2, 2007 4:54 PM | Report abuse

Iowa should go to Edwards, but from polling over the past month or so, have shown him losing support there as well as acrooss the country. Obama must win to stay in competition. Should Hillary win, it is all but over. She will have it rapped up in early February, if things continue on the present course.

Posted by: lylepink | October 2, 2007 4:51 PM | Report abuse

"It mattered little that Panama is a tiny country with a military that was an absurd shadow of U.S. military might"

Elaborate ghost writer. Noreaga?

What about iran-contra?

The gop has been waging this war agsisnt AMERICA for decades. Since the red scare of the fifties. First "war on drugs" while the cia brought in the drugs. Now the "war on terror" and their bringing the terror to us. The only power they have is the power we give them

Posted by: rufus | October 2, 2007 4:51 PM | Report abuse

I want to be a moonbat too. I had half my brain removed. do you think that is enough? I now support hillary clinton but was told to be a total moonbat I would need to go past that outpost, have 3/4 of my brain removed and proclaim fealty to surrender and stupidity - in short - become Harry reid.

I am afraid though. I see how litle reality intrudes into the senses of the moonbats on this site. how do they cope with reality? why don't thay have jobs or friends? why won't their families talk to them? how come they never have anything intelligent to say? Is it related to having only 1/4 of a brain?

I no longer understand facts so I know I am most of the way there. I think Olberman is swell and Madia matters is truth so I know I have left the orbit around normal.

Can you other moonbats tell me how to cope with my new found ignorance and stupidity? you have so much experience at foolishness.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 2, 2007 4:50 PM | Report abuse

hillary is the neocon;s candidate. Check out headline on drudge.


As a headline. So much for hillary bashing. What did I tell you people?

Posted by: rufus | October 2, 2007 4:49 PM | Report abuse

"fascists fascists everywhere

Posted by: rufus | October 2, 2007 04:45 PM

I know kim is sore.. not my fault buddy. She is a free woman :)


Posted by: rufus 0 | October 2, 2007 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Who are you che. what side are you on? Elaborate please. Who is your candidate. You come out of nowhere with on point posts a few months ago. Now you are zouk's bed buddy. What time is time che? Enlighen me

Posted by: rufus | October 2, 2007 4:45 PM | Report abuse

fascists fascists everywhere

Posted by: rufus | October 2, 2007 4:45 PM | Report abuse


Posted by: rufus | October 2, 2007 04:33 PM

Not me. zouk is a coward


Posted by: rufus ( | October 2, 2007 4:43 PM | Report abuse

This is the first article I have seen giving a good picture of Obama's strength in the early states. Also, I am glad to see someone finally begin to analyze how the independents are going to break in New Hampshire.

Posted by: Paul | October 2, 2007 4:43 PM | Report abuse

"i want to be the first to leave an irrelevant comment

Posted by: rufus | October 2, 2007 03:52 PM

Not me. Zouk is a coward and a fascist. Why do I scare yoou zouk. If I was crazy as your avatars claim, why do you spend all day lyin gspinning and discredit. How's kim?

Posted by: rufus | October 2, 2007 4:42 PM | Report abuse


Posted by: rufus | October 2, 2007 4:33 PM | Report abuse

Would some of our IA folks please sign in here?

Truth, what does it look like to you?

I am going back to work and hope that when I scroll through the nonsense later that IA people have responded.

bsimon, I did not understand your post re "all the talk about racking up delegates." If you get a chance in the next two hours, help me out with an explanation - you are welcome to assume that I start with zero knowledge.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | October 2, 2007 4:31 PM | Report abuse

around here, shouldn't that be "back in your ass"

Posted by: che | October 2, 2007 4:25 PM | Report abuse

"for uncensored news please put your head in your ass"

that is recycled news

Posted by: Anonymous | October 2, 2007 4:21 PM | Report abuse

'for uncensored news please put your head in your ass'

Posted by: best post today | October 2, 2007 4:17 PM | Report abuse

Bombing and killing Muslims is the only path for avoiding the humiliating scenarios which our nation's war cheerleaders carry around obsessively in their heads, and which are currently filling my inbox. They're not going to be the ones on their knees, begging. They're not going to be the "f*ggots." Instead, they are going to send others off to fight and bomb and occupy and kill and thereby show who is strong and tough and feel protected.

In his excellent and well-documented book "The Wimp Factor," Psychology Professor Stephen Ducat reviews clinical studies which demonstrate that many men "are more likely to experience a vicarious boost in their own sense of power and potency when American military forces attack, and especially when they defeat, an enemy." Neoconservative war tracts almost invariably are suffuse with explicit warnings about submission and humiliation.

Posted by: zouk syndrome | October 2, 2007 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Here's one for all you HRC haters--

you mean, vicitms of Hillay Derangement Syndrome?

Posted by: Anonymous | October 2, 2007 4:15 PM | Report abuse

for uncensored news please put your head in your ass

Posted by: Anonymous | October 2, 2007 4:14 PM | Report abuse

For uncensored news please go to:

A CounterPunch Special Investigation
Why the Problems with Clinton Inc. Could Sink the Democrats in 2008
The Clinton Campaign's Reckless Race for Big Money Donors


The $850,000 that conman Norman Hsu bundled for Senator Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign are the gifts that Clinton will have to keep giving back, harming her presidential hopes not just monetarily, but also morally and politically.

Hsu's upcoming court hearings together with a newly filed civil suit in California, plus the criminal (and likely civil) complaints pending against him in New York, will soon blast in stereo from the media capitals of both coasts. The courtroom fireworks will take away a considerable amount of the message control that the Clinton campaign has, until now, been able to deploy.

It's a story with sizzle and steak. Major media organizations including The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and Newsweek have put many of their top investigative reporters on the trail through which a fugitive from justice rose to become one of the Clinton campaign's top 15 fundraisers. With each new report, new lines of investigation open; the story has so many legs it's a caterpillar. Although very potentially harmful to Clinton's ambitions, the increasing scrutiny on those that provide and raise the millions required to win election to national office is long overdue and should be cleansing for democracy.

Last May, The Nation's Ari Berman filed an important story about the Clinton campaign's ties to corporate America, "Hillary, Inc." It captured the contradictions inherent in a candidate who speechifies against an economy that skews toward "the privileged and the powerful at the expense of everybody else" while playing footsie under the table with those same interests. Yet the focus on the corporate nature of Clinton, Inc. isn't entirely negative for the senator's campaign: it can also imply--to voters made cynical by the constraints capitalism imposes on democracy--a level of businesslike competence in the rough and tumble realities of electoral campaigns.

The Hsu case is more dangerous for Clinton's aspirations because it shows the incompetent underside of the Clinton organization; a sloppy and careless venture that back in the era of "1990s values," was sufficient to help it politically survive its own self-inflicted wounds. But in this higher tech, faster information-flow, closer scrutiny 21st century that is upon us, the trademark recklessness that got the Clinton organization through eight years in power now veers toward disaster.

For the rest please go to:

Posted by: che | October 2, 2007 4:12 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: JD | October 2, 2007 4:10 PM | Report abuse

I wanrt to be the first to remove all doubt that I am a complete idiot.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 2, 2007 4:08 PM | Report abuse

saw this on another blog comment section. after the intro is the text of Obama's speech at DePauw. It is long, but worth reading.

Posted by: Jo | October 2, 2007 4:00 PM | Report abuse

damn, missed it by a minute

Posted by: rufus | October 2, 2007 3:53 PM | Report abuse

i want to be the first to leave an irrelevant comment

Posted by: rufus | October 2, 2007 3:52 PM | Report abuse

It mattered little that Panama is a tiny country with a military that was an absurd shadow of U.S. military might, a country that could never remotely threaten the United States. What mattered was the display of strength that, in American political culture, comes from war, no matter how senseless the war is, no matter how weak the enemy. That need among those who feel a lacking of power and strength -- to send others off to fight wars so that they can feel powerful -- is insatiable and far more potent than any rational arguments about "national interest" and "just wars."
That is a major reason why -- despite the endless debates and overwhelming public sentiment -- we stay in Iraq (because to leave would be to "lose," to suffer a "humiliating defeat" at the hands of a laughing Al Qaeda), and it is why war with Iran is so appetizing for so many -- we need to show the world who is boss. It is warped psychology masquerading as political belief. And that is why nothing triggers hysteria of the sort in the above-excerpted post more than challenging the notion that it may not actually be necessary to wage Permanent and Endless War on Muslims. Arguing that is virtually tantamount to advocating that our nation's vicarious war cheerleaders be deprived of food, water and oxygen.

Posted by: zouk syndrome | October 2, 2007 3:51 PM | Report abuse

I think that Obama doesn't need Iowa as much as Edwards does. If Edwards loses Iowa, he's finished. It's the only state where he's doing well, and he's a pretty precarious third anyway. Obama might be able to pull out New Hampshire if he does well enough in Iowa, even if he doesn't win. And Clinton will need to lose a couple early primaries before she's in any real danger, though even one loss will slow her down significantly.

So, basically, I think I agree with CC.

Posted by: Blarg | October 2, 2007 3:41 PM | Report abuse

Clinton can NOT aford to lose any of the early primaries, because a large portion of her support is based on fear. If she is vulnerable, she does not have personal warmth or an emotional connection with Dem voters, indeed she has a high personal repugnance factor even with Dems.

Also, note that her campaign contributions are always disclosed AFTER Obamas.

Is there any penalty for OVERSTATING campaign contributions?

Posted by: JaxMax | October 2, 2007 3:35 PM | Report abuse

What happened to all the talk about racking up delegates?

Posted by: bsimon | October 2, 2007 3:27 PM | Report abuse

does Obama need to win iowa to stay in the race?


Obama-Gore 08

Posted by: rufus | October 2, 2007 3:17 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company