Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

FixCam: Three Questions for the Caucuses

Note: Please upgrade your Flash plug-in to view our enhanced content.

After months (ok, let's be honest, years) of waiting, we're now just 24 hours away from the first votes of the 2008 presidential race.

The dirty little secret of politics is that all any campaign can do this close to an election is execute their turnout plan and hope like crazy. Most of the ads have run, all the mail has been sent, just about all the stump speeches have been given. Now, we wait.

To make that wait a little more manageable, The Fix offers the three questions key to understanding who will win tomorrow night and why.

1. For Republicans: Can former Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) withstand the barrage of negative ads (and other attacks -- watch the video for more) over the final 24 hours of the campaign? Huckabee rejected running his own negative commercial earlier this week, a decision that left the chattering class and his own senior adviser baffled. There's no question that the weeks of televised attacks by former governor Mitt Romney (Mass.) have taken their toll on Huckabee. What once looked like a slam dunk for the former Arkansas governor has turned into a nail-biter. Huckabee is putting a lot of hope in the better angels of Republican caucus goers. Has he made the right decision?

2. For Democrats: Will women (finally) come home to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.)? Earlier in the year, the historic nature of Clinton's candidacy generated considerable excitement among women who helped establish her as the clear frontrunner in national polls. But, Iowa has always been a different story. In the most recent Des Moines Register poll, Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) were tied at 32 percent among women. In the Post's own recent Iowa poll, Clinton held a narrow 36 percent to 32 percent lead over Obama among women. Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised by Clinton's difficulty in coalescing Iowa women strongly behind her; the state's voters have never elected a woman to the House, Senate or the governorship.

3. Overall: Who votes? Temperatures in the teens and a hangover (figuratively and literally) from New Years Eve makes it tough to predict who will show up at their precincts tomorrow night. What we know for certain is that far more Democrats will show up for caucuses than will Republicans. (John Harris of Politico has an interesting piece on the importance of the energy deficit for Republicans as they look ahead to next November.)

The telling comparison then is not between Republicans and Democrats but rather between the 2004 Democratic turnout and the turnout tomorrow night. In 2004, 124,331 Democrats turned out for the caucuses -- almost 65,000 more people than did the same for the 2000 Iowa caucuses. If turnout more than doubles as it did between 2000 and 2004, that's good news for Obama. Anything north of 200,000 Democratic voters would seem to spell victory. If the growth is more linear than exponential, it should help Clinton and former senator John Edwards. Edwards, in particular, has concentrated heavily on turning out those who have previously participated in the caucuses. Clinton has done considerable outreach to try to bring new people to the process but her win strategy is less dependent on first-time caucus goers than is Obama's.

By Chris Cillizza  |  January 2, 2008; 6:41 PM ET
Categories:  FixCam  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: McCain To Begin Advertising in Michigan
Next: Iowa Caucuses -- Prediction Time!

Comments

2 for 2

Posted by: maureen_majury | January 9, 2008 1:03 AM | Report abuse

When bloggers attack 

I happened to look at Chris fix cam today and was surprised and amused at the many comments my humble opine engendered.

Now I will address a few, thank a few (JD and perhaps, although not intentional on his part, mark_in_austin), and add a few final thoughts:

1 Thanks for the compliment. I love Maureen Dowd. Let's hope there is a Pulitzer Prize ultimately waiting for me around the corner some day.
2. I could say to some, "That hurts my feelings", but I'd sound like a 13-year old. But, wait, Hillary said that last night at the ABC debate. If she was president and Putin disagreed with her on a foreign-policy issue, she'd say, "That hurts my feelings."? LOL
3. Lylepink's statement about 50% of a spouse committing adultery is too high, as adultery is difficult to accurately track as most spouses don't report their infidelity. But, it has been reported at around 17-20%. Your argument is specious. Because, (even if it were 50% of married couples where one partner cheated), doesn't make it right. Crime rates are high, but just because they are high doesn't make the crimes committed moral, just, or acceptable. You might recall there is something in marriage vows between two people they take, if religious, before God and all witnesses that they will remain faithful. To dismiss infidelity as something that is common place is ethically unacceptable. President Clinton, by cheating on his wife, and her willingness to accept it on more than one occasion, shows character flaws on both sides.
4) It would appear my theory has some validity. On the Democrat side Hillary only picked up 30% of the woman's vote, Obama and Edwards between them picked up 58%. Hillary did do the best though with woman older than 65 years old. I wonder what that means.
5) As for assuming I'm young, single, bitter, etc. who cares. What does that have to do with my opinion and anecdotal research, and then actual statistics from Iowa supporting it.

As we look to New Hampshire, in my small betting pool on both the Democrat and Republican side I'm 100% in my predictions (based on Iowa). That might change slightly, but I can be a dreamer.

Cheers!

Posted by: maureen_majury | January 6, 2008 5:56 PM | Report abuse

Thanks Mark. I'm a long-time lurker, used to post, infrequently, as malis. Have had a extra time over the holidays and has been fun. Things starting to back up though, going to have to get back to work which means not having the distraction of the Fix running all the time. Will stick around for New Hampshire before throttling back.

I agree with bsimon. I vote for either party (admittedly leaning Dem, because even the Ds here are conservative) and haven't considered it X-over. Point is, I think, I've always voted for whomever I considered the best candidate, not for a poor candidate in the primary to try to game the system for my favorite in the general. After all, what if that person won!

Posted by: malis | January 3, 2008 5:35 PM | Report abuse

bsimon, exactly.

I have been following the Wapo's money trail, btw, and the money I have given McC has not been recorded there. The money I have given JB has been. I do not understand this.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 3, 2008 5:15 PM | Report abuse

"I was actually quite surprised that there is a sense that x-over voting is dishonest."

Depends on the motivation, doesn't it? If a voter doesn't like what their party is offering, seems like fair game to jump ship. But if a voter is trying to skew the other side's process in order to further their own party (as lyle alleges), that's a bit more shady.

If you, as an independant voter, switch which party you contribute to in any given primary, that seems fair to me. Of course, that's what I do, so I may be biased...

Posted by: bsimon | January 3, 2008 5:10 PM | Report abuse

Spectator, I watched last night but totally missed that...I guess switching back and forth to the FB game will do that.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 3, 2008 5:02 PM | Report abuse

mlalliso, thanks for your reasoned additions to this thread, and to "the Fix".

As an experienced amateur x-over voter [all my votes are x-over, not having a "party"] I asked earlier about the peculiar MI Primary, as you know. I was actually quite surprised that there is a sense that x-over voting is dishonest. But that notion is beginning to sink in for me.

But in MI, where one party has "abandoned" its adherents, why would they not simply vote in the other primary, if for no other reason than to show their dissatisfaction with having been disenfranchised?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 3, 2008 5:00 PM | Report abuse

Sam Waterston got in a nice dig at Fred Thompson last night on Law and Order.

Waterston's character Jack McCoy, upon taking the DA's office from Thompson's character Arthur Branch, and hearing an underling comment on the shelves being occupied by law books instead of pictures and awards, said the office was now "a working office, not a showroom."

Branch, like Wattles Thompson, just doesn't go in for much heavy lifting.

Posted by: Spectator2 | January 3, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse

Lylepink, OK, the 'insult' comment was a little out of line...you never stated that (I should have said 'assuming' instead of 'stating'). Please do, though, reconsider your approach. Although I'm trying to resist, I swear I'm starting to think badly of HRC because of your posts.

I'm afraid I can't claim 60 years in politics. I cast my first vote in 1972 at age 18, for Richard Nixon, and I've been trying to make up for it ever since.

Posted by: malis | January 3, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

mlalliso

Great post, but I do not think lyle (whom I like and he is usually reasonable) is open to persuasion on this subject. He has been harping on the idea that hordes of Republicans are supporting Obama in order to produce a weaker Democratic nominee. I do accept the idea that some right wing millionaires might be sending Obama money. The notion that a statistically significant number of Republicans would vote in a Democratic primary to undermine Hillary Clinton because they believe Obama to be weaker nominee is divorced from reality.

Posted by: jimd52 | January 3, 2008 4:43 PM | Report abuse

mlalliso: I never intend to insult anyone unless they take the first shot. My experience of over 60 [sixty[ years in the political process gives me a little advantage over you younger folks. I can only base my opinion on "FACTS" I have gathered over the years. I stated early on Obama had ZERO chance of being elected in 08, and I am now more convinced that ever this is about as close to being 100% accurate as anything I have every seen in politics. There is something about Obama, I can't put my finger on, and many folks have this same feeling. I cannot explain this "Feeling" I have about this guy and others tell me the same thing before I even mention him. Some refers to it as ESP, but I don't buy that.

Posted by: lylepink | January 3, 2008 4:41 PM | Report abuse

mlalliso - good post.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | January 3, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

bsimon -- I am strongly afflicted with CDS.

I would not pass up an opportunity to vote in the R primary.

I sincerely doubt the extent of strategic crossover votes.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | January 3, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

lylepink said:
--------
...I have talked with well over a hundred folks, Dems and Repubs alike and not one thinks Obama has a chance in 08.
--------
OK Lyle, I think that's about the limit. I'm a centrist, leaning a little left (about as far, I think, as mark_in_austin leans right, and that's not very far). I live in a very conservative area and work with a lot of Evangelicals and ex-military who tend to the far right, among whom I'm considered as the token Flaming Liberal. At my wife's Unitarian-Universalist church (the island of Liberalism in Colo Springs) I'm viewed as a friendly but misguided Troglodyte Conservative. I travel extensively in my job and spend a lot of time in NY, LA, Atlanta, Seattle, Chicago, etc, plus 2-3 overseas trips per year (mostly Europe and Japan). I'm a politics junkie and a policy wonk.

I've discussed the 2008 Presidential election with several hundred folks of all political leanings, and only a limited obsessive few boldly state any of the leading candidates has no chance (exception...several say Huckabee has a ceiling and would have great difficulty breaking 40% in the general). I find no D support for your view that Obama=Defeat (and only little support for the opposite Rufas PoV, Clinton=Defeat). I don't recall a single rational Hillery supporter who says they would not vote Democratic if Obama is the D nominee in the general. I do run across a fair number of what I consider oddly obsessive Hillary-Haters, some Ds, who are firm "ABCs" (Anybody But Clinton)

Both Ds and Rs say this looks like a Democratic cycle, and think Rs have the weaker overall field. Ds tend to view McCain as the greatest R threat. Rs are more widely split, but view either Obama or Clinton as the threat.

As I've said before, I'd probably be able to vote, with enthusiasm for either Obama or Clinton (depending on the R, might or might not vote for Edwards). I don't think this is an unusual position. Folks who insist candidate XXXXX can never win the general election because of reason YYYYYY and only candidate ZZZZZ can, are generally not credible and do not reflect well on their preferred candidates.

Lylepink, in my view, you're either purposefully stating a position you don't actually believe in the misguided notion that this will help your candidate; or you've fallen into the not uncommon trap of seeing only the evidence that tends to support your already decided position (a common failing of "Intelligent Design" advocates).

Please make your choice based on your understanding of the ability, intelligence, views, positions, moral strength and, yes, electability of your favored candidate--but not on someone else's distortions. Please don't insult me by stating I'm not doing the same.

Posted by: malis | January 3, 2008 4:09 PM | Report abuse

lyle,

I think your sample is not statistically significant. All the major polls show both Edwards and Obama out-performing Hillary. I heard a panel of pollsters on XM radio, from both parties but not associated with any current candidate, discussing what the polls reveal about voter attitudes. They all stated that Obama was definitely electable. They also discussed a recent study that showed convincingly that the gap between African American candidates' polling results versus their actual vote results had disappeared. So there is no reason to discount poll results by a few percent as we did in the past. I think a lot of folks, particularly liberals, like to believe the country is a lot more racist than it actually is. The belief that Obama is unelectable is common among people who have that view of racism in America.

Posted by: jimd52 | January 3, 2008 3:54 PM | Report abuse

I get it - unfettered Free Speech, etc.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 3, 2008 3:14 PM | Report abuse

So, Heidi, who do you think should get the porn vote in IA?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 3, 2008 3:12 PM | Report abuse

paul's supporters are .... ummm, an interesting group.

Posted by: drindl | January 3, 2008 3:11 PM | Report abuse

I think that Obama will win or possibly Edwards.
I hope Ron Paul pulls a surprise and moves up!
I get to participate, so I am excited. This is my 4th caucus in Iowa and I am supporting Ron Paul.

__________________

I am heidi - A Sex Addict. American, very nice. All can view my hot photos by searching "xhot" at blackwhitekiss.com - it is a free web space to meet black
and white

Posted by: heidifields20 | January 3, 2008 2:44 PM | Report abuse

mlalliso, jimd52, & Blarg: The X-over vote came to my attention a few months ago when a good Repub friend told me about the Repub strategy of giving money to the Obama campaign and even going so far as to change their registration in an effort to stop Hillary from getting the Dem nomination. At that time, I was pretty sure any Dem would win in 08. Since then I have talked with well over a hundred folks, Dems and Repubs alike and not one thinks Obama has a chance in 08. By the same token, I have found only one that will not vote for Hillary. These folks i have talked with includes--Lawyers, Dr's, Teachers, Nurses, Electricians, Labors, Retired, Construction, Disabled, Black and White. For the life of me I cannot understand how the folks I talk with and overhear are that much different no matter what part of the country they are located.

Posted by: lylepink | January 3, 2008 2:35 PM | Report abuse

My predictions:

GOP
Huckabee
Romney
McCain (perhaps with a pickup in polling)
Thompson

Democrats:
Obama
Edwards
Clinton
Biden or Richardson

An intriguing aspect of the Democratic race will be the performance of the second-tier candidates. Biden has been drawing larger crowds of late, and it will be interesting to see if this translates into support at the caucuses (which I hope that it does). Clearly, the fourth place outcome is crucial, as the fourth place finisher will be included in the ABC New Hampshire debate on January 5. I would predict that Richardson or Biden will be the fourth place finisher in Iowa on the Democratic side.

Posted by: ANetliner | January 3, 2008 2:27 PM | Report abuse

mlalliso writes
"most partisan Rs I talk to think Obama is a stronger general election candidate than Hillary so, by lyle's theory, they'd X-over to vote for Clinton to damage Obama, not the other way around."

BUT. What if they fear/hate Hillary more than they fear/hate Dems? Would they, when faced with a weak GOP field, decide to support the 'lesser of two evils' and try to sabotage HRC in favor of BHO? It would, of course, take a truly strong case of CDS (Clinton Derangement Syndrome).

Posted by: bsimon | January 3, 2008 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Me:

Obama 29%
Clinton 24%
Edwards 23%
Biden 16%

Posted by: schencks84 | January 3, 2008 2:04 PM | Report abuse

mark_in_austin - "He is another classmate and friend, but I still cannot actually just go and ask him..."

Why, they've done it on Law and Order..:-)

Posted by: dave | January 3, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

...to be fair to lylepink, here's an anecdotal datapoint supporting his "X-over voter" view. This is from Mike Littwin's Rocky Mountain News column (Littwin writes a somewhat snarky politics column for the RMN, a Denver Daily, and is in Iowa this week)
********************
"I ran into Mary Ellen Stanfield at the McKoy house. When I asked if she was supporting Romney, she said, "I have a secret plan." It would have been a little more secret if she hadn't just spilled it to CNN, but I was still intrigued.

She had been a Giuliani supporter. But he barely showed up in Iowa, and so she dropped him. She likes McCain, but he didn't compete here either. And she's not so sure about Huckabee.

And Romney? She likes him, but apparently not enough to caucus for him. Instead, she says she's going to caucus as a Democrat and vote for Barack Obama. "To stop Hillary Clinton," she explains. "Then I'm voting in November for whichever Republican gets the nomination." "
**************

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jan/02/littwin-romney-planned-for-everything-except/

Don't get too excited lyle--anecdotal sample-of-one again. No real statistical meaning, but glad to help you out where I can! It's just as likely Mary Ellen was just tweaking the 400th reporter she'd spoken to that day, just to get a reaction.

Posted by: malis | January 3, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

drindl, the TX D Party required a loyalty oath following Big John and the stampede out.
Remember Phil Gramm? TX Ds were facing mass event extinction by disloyalty, rather than slow shrinkage.

Lee will rule that the parties are in charge of their own rules, I suspect. He is another classmate and friend, but I still cannot actually just go and ask him...

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 3, 2008 1:39 PM | Report abuse

mialliso

I certainly agree with you on crossover voting. It is even less likely that Republicans would forego voting in their own primary when the GOP race is so wide open. I think obsessing about startegic crossover voting is on a par with obsessing about Area 51 or black helicopters.

Posted by: jimd52 | January 3, 2008 1:34 PM | Report abuse

to address lyle's continuing obsession with X-over voting (voting for the other side's weakest candidate in the primary, to promote the weakest opponent in the general), couple of points.

First, it seems pretty much like an urban myth. It's hard enough to get people to come out and vote at all...much harder to get them to take a counterintuitive action like voting for someone they dislike. I'm sure it can happen (mostly in people that fall for conspiracy theories), but hard to believe it would happen in numbers large enough to mean anything. As mark_in_austin speculates, might have a greater likelihood in circumstances such as MI, where there will be an R, but no meaningful D primary.

Second point specifically applicable to lylepink's worry, most partisan Rs I talk to think Obama is a stronger general election candidate than Hillary (and they always refer to her only by first name) so, by lyle's theory, they'd X-over to vote for Clinton to damage Obama, not the other way around. I know this is only based on a sample of one (me), but it has at least as much validity as lyle's sample of one (himself).

Posted by: malis | January 3, 2008 1:29 PM | Report abuse

lylepink - you insist that Hillary is the only electable Democratic candidate. Why do Edwards and Obama consistently out-perform her in the head to head polling against potential Republican candidates?

Posted by: jimd52 | January 3, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse

interesting, mark. i guess it's to prevent 3rd party contests. Kucinich is the type who might try to run independently, not as vindictive as a spoiler like Nader--however if there is a 3rd party challenge I would guess it would be Paul. He's got quite a war chest and superhyped supporters. It's so under the radar, but it's a revolution to them.

for the record, I think xing over in primaries to create mischief is certainly destestable.

Posted by: drindl | January 3, 2008 1:18 PM | Report abuse

From the Austin paper [Selby]

"U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel of Austin said Thursday he would hold a hearing next week to hear presidential contender Dennis Kucinich's challenge to the Texas Democratic Party, which has refused to put his name on the March 4 primary ballot.

The argument stems from Kucinich's refusal to sign an oath pledging to "fully support" the eventual Democratic nominee for president. Because he refused to sign the oath, party officials would not accept his filing.

Yeakel said in a court hearing Thursday morning that he would hear arguments in the case on Jan. 11 and rule at that time.

"This is an important case that will have ramifications beyond this election, obviously," Yeakel said.

The Texas Democratic Party has required the loyalty oath since at least 1988."

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 3, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Lylepink: Now use your amazing mind-reading and predictive abilities to explain why Democrats like Obama. I'm curious to see just how deluded you are.

Posted by: Blarg | January 3, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

vbhoomes: Sure you Repubs like Obama, you can beat him but not Hillary. Most of the "Pindits" [New Name] do not like Hillary. I'M watching MSNBC and Fox and they are pushing Obama shamelessy.

Posted by: lylepink | January 3, 2008 12:55 PM | Report abuse

I spoke too soon. Eric Black of the MN Post wrote a piece today explaining how iowa became what it is:

http://www.minnpost.com/ericblack/2008/01/03/471/iowa_envy_how_did_an_undersized_atypical_farm_state_get_such_an_oversized_role

Posted by: bsimon | January 3, 2008 12:53 PM | Report abuse

I am a woman and I've always wanted to have a woman as President. But Hillary is not the woman. She is driven by her blind ambition for the position. She stayed in a marriage with a cheating husband so she could ride on his coat tails. She does not have the character and good judgement it takes to be President. If she had, she would have divorced Bill and forged her own record of accomplishments. She is using Bill to help her get elected, if elected she's not going to let him share in her spotlight, except when the spotlight doesn't make her shine, then she will put the blame on Bill. Hillary has too much baggage and is indebted to too many rich people to be for "all the people".

Obama has the character, judgement and integrity to be President.

Posted by: Nevadaandy | January 3, 2008 12:40 PM | Report abuse

blarg,
I second mark_in_austin's comment on your x-over thoughts. I'd have a hard time with the honesty of it, too.

Posted by: dave | January 3, 2008 12:39 PM | Report abuse

kurt evans "I'm currently supporting Governor Huckabee, but if he eventually turns out to be unable to win the nomination, I'd much prefer to have Governor Romney as the alternative rather than Senator McCain (*). "

Beautiful my friend.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | January 3, 2008 12:37 PM | Report abuse

Bokonon @ Jan. 2, 9:41 PM

Sorry to take so long to answer. The Dems race is too tight to call, the numbers say it is a draw between the three top candidates. There is no surging candidate.

So, what does my intuition tell me. I sense an Obama momentum that is not huge but consistent and holding. He can win today. Can't guarantee he will.

These two articles should put the fear of God into the Clintonista "most electable" mantra.

Novak sees Obama win, Clinton third place:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24241

Reuters reports on Jan 3 Obama four point lead, Clinton third place:

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN0264367920080103

Posted by: rfpiktor | January 3, 2008 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Drindl, are you aware that TSA agents can already force any traveler to undergo additional security checks? SPOT doesn't change that. It adds a methodology for agents to use when determining if people need additional checks. SPOT doesn't give TSA any new authority; it advises them how to use the authority they already have. If you're opposed to that, you need to base it on something more than your dislike of the Bush administration. Do you prefer racial profiling or random searches?

Posted by: Blarg | January 3, 2008 12:28 PM | Report abuse

I'll just sum it up real quick.

DEMOS
Iowa:
1. Obama
2. Edwards
3. Clinton

NH:
1. Obama
2. Clinton
3. Edwards

GOP
Iowa:
1. Huckabee
2. Romney
3. McCain

NH:
1. McCain
2. Romney
3. Giuliani

Obama and McCain will be the nominees with Obama taking more independents and therefore winning. BAM said and done.

Posted by: thecrisis | January 3, 2008 12:24 PM | Report abuse

Interesting discussion below about the caucuses. And a prediction that does not bode will for Clinton, though gives Romney a large advantage.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/12/27/DI2007122702055.html

Posted by: bsimon | January 3, 2008 12:23 PM | Report abuse

There is no trickery Lylepink; Republicans like Obama and hate Hillary. Brooks piece in NY Times reminds me why I do noy pay much attention to this paper. To say Romney loses without even knowing who the dem nominee is, is just asnine. Mitt would probably lose against Obama but would win huge against Hillary, plus we would pick up a group of congressional seats.

Posted by: vbhoomes | January 3, 2008 12:22 PM | Report abuse

What we should be worried about is republcains changing their registrations to cacues for hillary. then back again.

i wouldn't put it past them

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 3, 2008 12:18 PM | Report abuse

"My suspected X-over vote has been confirmed by no less than Fox News. Moments ago they reported many would be attending the Dem caucus and it appears that all they have to do is register. Something doesn't seem quite right about this to me, although I have known for some time this was planned to stop Hillary, but I did not think they could change their registration on the day of the caucus. Truth Hunter, Help us on this.

Posted by: lylepink | January 3, 2008 11:59 AM
"

aaawwww. pEOPLE ARE REGISTERING TO VOTE. aH. THE SHAME. :)

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 3, 2008 12:12 PM | Report abuse

drindl, on POTUS08 the IA R State Chair said he was thinking about recommending primary for 2012 and that the only reason to keep the caucus was it allowed IA to be first.

Blarg, I forget that perfectly sensible and rational people like you actually feel loyalty to a political party. I am not being sarcastic. You are as sensible a human from your posts as one could ask for - so is Boko. I'll bet he thinks its dishonest to x-over, too. It just never occurred to me.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 3, 2008 12:11 PM | Report abuse

"The more I read about the Iowa caucuses, the less sense it makes to me and certainly the less resemblance to democracy. It's loony... how did this weirdness come about?"

I don't know how it came about, but Eric Black, in yesterday's MN Post (mnpost.com), explained the Dem caucuses in detail. The rules are more cryptic than we've discussed here; for instance, a county's delegates are based on the level of Dem support in the prior election, so stong dem-leaning areas have more influence than swing areas.

Also, Broder writes today about how Iowa should be ignored, that NH is more predictive of how the general will turn out.

Posted by: bsimon | January 3, 2008 12:06 PM | Report abuse

'There are discrete affairs, but most of us have blabbermouth friends.'

If you knew your friend to be a blabbermouth, why would you tell them?

Yes, they can Jim, and I'm sure many do. I'm sure there are many toe-tappers out there...

Blarg, I worry about programs like SPOT because they are part of a process that will lead further, a very slippery slope. We accept it one step at a time until it's too late to stop it -- Boiling Frog Syndrome.

The more I read about the Iowa caucuses, the less sense it makes to me and certainly the less resemblance to democracy. It's loony... how did this weirdness come about?

I wonder if, considering how close this election is,, if it will get people to wondering if something should be changed in this process?

Posted by: drindl | January 3, 2008 12:01 PM | Report abuse

" an old Bloom County comic strip reference. His election strips were great."

I was just thinking about some of those. For instance:

Milo walks outside, sniffing the air. "Ahhh... I love the change of seasons!"

Opus asks "Spring?"

Milo responds "Politics!"

Posted by: bsimon | January 3, 2008 12:01 PM | Report abuse

Mark: I tried to make a post about the MI primary, but it was eaten. If I lived in MI, I'd stay out of it. I don't like any of the Republicans enough to make the effort of voting for them, and I don't dislike any enough to vote against them. I also can't get past the dishonesty of voting in the other party's primary. I assume that a fair number of MI Dems would agree with me.

Posted by: Blarg | January 3, 2008 11:59 AM | Report abuse

My suspected X-over vote has been confirmed by no less than Fox News. Moments ago they reported many would be attending the Dem caucus and it appears that all they have to do is register. Something doesn't seem quite right about this to me, although I have known for some time this was planned to stop Hillary, but I did not think they could change their registration on the day of the caucus. Truth Hunter, Help us on this.

Posted by: lylepink | January 3, 2008 11:59 AM | Report abuse

Drindl: So which alternative do you prefer? The TSA could perform detailed screenings based on racial profiling. That's bad news for anyone of Middle Eastern, African, American Indian, South American, etc. descent. And it's very easy for terrorist organizations to find people who don't fit the profile, such as Asian Muslims. Profiling is both racist and ineffective.

Then there's the random or semi-random screenings they do now. So anyone can be screened, whether or not they look like a threat. I'm sure the TSA screens people based on whether they look suspicious, but they don't have a formal method for deciding who's worthy of more scrutiny, so it's basically random. Again, not very effective, and extremely annoying.

And finally, there's SPOT. TSA agents are trained to observe characteristics of likely terrorists/criminals, and base their screenings on those characteristics. If SPOT is even 10% more reliable than random screenings, it's worth doing. Similar programs have been proven to work in areas with real terrorist problems where profiling is ineffective. (In Israel, they can't exactly screen all Arab-looking men.)

I personally think that there's too much of an emphasis on airline security. But it's not going away. And I'd rather have TSA screeners trained to do their jobs instead of relying on a skin color chart or scanning every 10th person or whatever they do now. Yes, this could be abused, but the current system can be abused also. How is this not an improvement?

Posted by: Blarg | January 3, 2008 11:56 AM | Report abuse

If Ds vote for the R they could live with, will that help McC, or RG, or RP, or MDH?

This is only two weeks away and if the Ds have no National Convention votes out of MI, they could all vote in the R primary, could they not?

Why wouldn't they?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 3, 2008 11:56 AM | Report abuse

JD - sorry, raucous caucus - an old Bloom County comic strip reference. His election strips were great.

Posted by: dave | January 3, 2008 11:52 AM | Report abuse

Does anyone think MI Ds will all go vote in the R Primary because the D primary will not count?

Will lyle's rule be invoked? Will D x-overs vote for Duncan Hunter to screw with the Rs or will they vote for the R they actually could live with as Prez?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 3, 2008 11:52 AM | Report abuse

To weigh in on the infidelity issue, I would think it is far easier to keep one-night stands secret than on-going affairs. People who travel frequently can arrange the one-nighters fairly easily.

Posted by: jimd52 | January 3, 2008 11:51 AM | Report abuse

I am with Blarg and dave on SPOT, but I will worry about abuse.

Thanks for the stat clarification, dave. And drindl, men who have friends do talk to them.

I have been informed that women who have friends do talk to them, as well.

There are discrete affairs, but most of us have blabbermouth friends.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 3, 2008 11:45 AM | Report abuse

One of the (many) reasons I really don't want Hillary to win the nomination is the prospect of another four or eight years of rampant pop psych moralizing -- from either Clinton apologists or those obsessed with the misadventures of the Clenis. It's over. Let's move on.

Posted by: novamatt | January 3, 2008 11:45 AM | Report abuse

lyle

Jeb Bush has encouraged his advisers to support Mitt. He is not, to my knowledge, actively supporting any candidate. They are friendly with each other from their days as governors. He has spoken quite favorably of Mitt.

Posted by: jimd52 | January 3, 2008 11:43 AM | Report abuse

Lie spin and discredit. Enjoy it. It's all you got left. You know I have to give you clowns something. Without what I give you, you have nothing.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 3, 2008 11:41 AM | Report abuse

claudialong, I would venture to say that most affairs do see the light of day eventually because people talk. I would think it rare for an affair to happen and none of the three (or any other witnesses) ever speak a word to anyone else about it.

Posted by: dave | January 3, 2008 11:40 AM | Report abuse

and nice to see that Rufus' shift as a CSR in a cube in Bangalore somewhere has started. Good thing the internet is there to help while away the time.

Posted by: JD | January 3, 2008 11:39 AM | Report abuse

raucous caucus?

Posted by: JD | January 3, 2008 11:38 AM | Report abuse

'Bush has 70% GOP support, ' and 24% of the country's support. If that translates to mitt, he can't win.

' Assuming they're used properly, I have no problem with SPOT'

considering the record of this administration, how could you possibly hope they would be? how could you possibly hope they won't be abused?

Posted by: drindl | January 3, 2008 11:37 AM | Report abuse

JD: For the record, I am Male. I think I posted some time ago that I had read or heard Jeb Bush is an advisor to Mitt. I am not sure of this though. vbhoomes should know, since he is a supporter of both.

Posted by: lylepink | January 3, 2008 11:37 AM | Report abuse

JD - Do you know if it is going to be raucous caucus party?!?

Posted by: dave | January 3, 2008 11:31 AM | Report abuse

rEMEMBER THE OCTOBER SURPRISE. rEMEMBER PAT TILLMAN. rEMEMEBER VALERIE PLAME,

remember 9/11.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 3, 2008 11:31 AM | Report abuse

bsimon, I COULD NOT AGREE WITH YOU MORE (with regard to gender- and race-blindness among supporters).

Amen. About time.

Posted by: JD | January 3, 2008 11:21 AM | Report abuse

iN TIMES OF CRIsis, it's never a bad idea to put the future in the hands of the american people. We have shown his time and time again. Our resilance. Our intuition.

Why? We were/are free. A free man with integrity and courage cannot be stopped. America is proof to this.

"When God is on your side who can be against you"? As they say.

Keep fear out of this election. This election, like everyone before it, is about the future. The future is now.

Do not fear. do not fear the terrorists. Do not fear the republcains , or what they will allow to happen. The only way why make the wrong decisions is when free men and women do not choose. Whether by fear, or lies, or misdirection, or criminality.

If the american people are giving the facts and choices, they will make the right choice ever single time. How long has that been, though? Without the above?

Good luck ladies and gentlemen. May your will be done. :)

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 3, 2008 11:21 AM | Report abuse

Chris -- long time reader, first time poster. Is it possible that Huckabee wanted to save his campaign some money (for future contests) and that's why he pulled the ad and still showed the media? Hoping to get free air time?

Also, do you want to offer any predictions for tonight?

Posted by: Jesse3581 | January 3, 2008 11:09 AM | Report abuse

Yes Claudia, the people who like Bush(me) also like Mitt, that's why he's going to win. Bush has 70% GOP support, he still has his base and its being transferred to Romney. We Bush voters have done well since 2000 and we will also give the Presidency to Mitt. Stop us if you can

Posted by: vbhoomes | January 3, 2008 11:08 AM | Report abuse

SPOT techniques are much more likely to catch suspicious individuals than random screenings, or profiling. Similar tactics have been used successfully in countries with actual terrorism problems, like Britain and Israel. Assuming they're used properly, I have no problem with SPOT. It's far better than the alternatives.

Posted by: Blarg | January 3, 2008 11:07 AM | Report abuse

'By in large, the people I am associated with and related to tend to be faithful in their relationships.'

dave, what makes you think someone you know who was unfaithful would tell you about it? Most people tend to try to keep it quiet, I would assume. I would bet money that a great many, if not most, marital infidelities pass and never come to light.

'HRC has a voracious appetite for power' --anyone running for President of this country does -- what else is new?

Posted by: drindl | January 3, 2008 11:05 AM | Report abuse

"There are consequences to choices; it would be ironic of turning off the womenfolk of Iowa were one of them."

Independant of their reasoning, it is reassuring to me that Sen Clinton does NOT get disproportionate support from women - and likewise Sen Obama does not seem to get the same from black voters. How refreshing that people seem to be selecting candidates for their positions rather than for their demographics.

Posted by: bsimon | January 3, 2008 11:05 AM | Report abuse

Oh yeah, for the 1% of you who are actually local to Wash DC, if you're an Obama fan, there's a caucus party in Ballston tonight

http://www.arlingtondemocrats.org/ht/d/Events/eventcat_id/35348/pid/1002277

This is actually only one block from work for me, maybe I'll check it out.

Posted by: JD | January 3, 2008 11:02 AM | Report abuse

drindl, that's disturbing news. Doubleplusungood.

Posted by: bokonon13 | January 3, 2008 11:02 AM | Report abuse

claudialong - "If that doesn't scare the hell out of you, you are not a true American. Imagne lving under the tyranny of fearing your own facial expressions."

We could go back to just scrutinizing people that look like those that want to kill us but people tell me profiling is wrong so, being the true American that I am, I have to disagree and tell you that it does not scare the hell out of me in the least.

Posted by: dave | January 3, 2008 11:02 AM | Report abuse

lylepink (and for the record, you're a girl, right?), my take is this: When a wife is evaluating whether they should stay in a marriage marred by a husband stepping out, they should ask themselves the simple question: are they better off with him, or without him.

Remember when the impeachment was going on? How many times did we hear Lieberman and other senators saying, 'it's grounds for divorce, but not grounds for impeachment'. Practically every Dem said that, as I can remember. And then Bubba, during a State of the Union, looks up at her in the balcony and says, "I honor you..." Talk about a slimy cringe moment. But I digress.

I take the simplest viewpoint: the most obvious answer is probably the true one. It's CW that HRC has a voracious appetite for power. Her actions have shown that. It's also clear that she has the best chance of satisfying that appetite if she's married to him. So if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc.

Note that I'm not really criticizing what she did/has done. She made her choices based on what she thought was the best for her (or her kid, as someone else pointed out) at the time. However... There are consequences to choices; it would be ironic of turning off the womenfolk of Iowa were one of them.

Posted by: JD | January 3, 2008 10:57 AM | Report abuse

Colin writes
"do you think RT would be viable statewide? I've got family in the twin cities and follow MN politics, but I don't have a sense of whether he would play outside of the population centers. Tim Waltz, if he was interested, would certainly seem like a stronger choice to me. That may just be wishful thinking on my part however, as I'm a big fan of Rep Waltz."

Rep Walz certainly has produced a lot of buzz. Keep in mind that, a year ago, he was a high school teacher; I think its still a big jump to go from there to the House for a couple years then the Governorship. I don't know if RT could win statewide, but I wouldn't be surprised to see him try.

Posted by: bsimon | January 3, 2008 10:57 AM | Report abuse

To clarify, as a percentage of all the relationships of friends and family that I know or have known (including but not limited to my marriage and prior relationships), maybe 20% have had an occurance where there has been unfaithfullness. By in large, the people I am associated with and related to tend to be faithful in their relationships. But don't tell my other 4 wives!

Posted by: dave | January 3, 2008 10:56 AM | Report abuse

Forgive this long post. I was just so shocked by this--I didn't think I could be shocked anymore--that I had to share. This is why you need to read 1984, Mark, to understand where we are headed. Now there are 'forbidden facial expressions.'

'Transportation Security Administration (TSA) screeners are learning to recognize a special set of forbidden facial expressions. If your face slips into one of these during a TSA inspection, you will be taken aside and given a more detailed screening:

Travelers at Sea-Tac and dozens of other major airports across America are being scrutinized by teams of TSA behavior-detection officers specially trained to discern the subtlest suspicious behaviors.

[....]

TSA officials will not reveal specific behaviors identified by the program--called SPOT (Screening Passengers by Observation Technique)--that are considered indicators of possible terrorist intent.

But a central task is to recognize microfacial expressions--a flash of feelings that in a fraction of a second reflects emotions such as fear, anger, surprise or contempt, said Carl Maccario, who helped start the program for TSA.

"In the SPOT program, we have a conversation with (passengers) and we ask them about their trip," said Maccario from his office in Boston. "When someone lies or tries to be deceptive, ... there are behavior cues that show it. ... A brief flash of fear."

....
Let me quote from George Orwell's, Nineteen Eighty-Four (Part 1, Chapter 5):

He did not know how long she had been looking at him, but perhaps for as much as five minutes, and it was possible that his features had not been perfectly under control. It was terribly dangerous to let your thoughts wander when you were in any public place or within range of a telescreen. The smallest thing could give you away. A nervous tic, an unconscious look of anxiety, a habit of muttering to yourself--anything that carried with it the suggestion of abnormality, of having something to hide. In any case, to wear an improper expression on your face (to look incredulous when a victory was announced, for example) was itself a punishable offence. There was even a word for it in Newspeak: facecrime, it was called.'

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/344868_airportprofiler26.html

If that doesn't scare the hell out of you, you are not a true American. Imagne lving under the tyranny of fearing your own facial expressions.

Now I must get some work done.

Posted by: drindl | January 3, 2008 10:54 AM | Report abuse

Drindl: 16 F (again!) as I type this. Not much snow today but I took a more well traveled route into work today figuring that the roads would be clearer. I'm perfectly fine today, Mark, thanks.

OK, now we have Hickabee, Huckaboom, Hickster, Huckabubble, Husker and Huckster (thanks Drindl and Mlalliso). We'll collect manglings of Obama's name if CC ever gets around to writing about him.

Posted by: judgeccrater | January 3, 2008 10:51 AM | Report abuse

"does Pawlenty have a background in communications-hitech? I take McCain at his word that he is going to find a VP who can both serve as Prez and who knows a lot about telecom/hitech."

He does not, to my knowledge. Was a State Rep before becoming Gov; I think an atty prior to politics. I don't know that he would be a running mate, but I do expect him to go nationwide by 2012, whether in a GOP admin or for the big dance, next time.

Posted by: bsimon | January 3, 2008 10:51 AM | Report abuse

dave, I sure hope you did not mean you only cheated on one of your five wives or that only one of your five wives cheated on you!

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 3, 2008 10:48 AM | Report abuse

bsimon -- Off topic, but do you think RT would be viable statewide? I've got family in the twin cities and follow MN politics, but I don't have a sense of whether he would play outside of the population centers. Tim Waltz, if he was interested, would certainly seem like a stronger choice to me. That may just be wishful thinking on my part however, as I'm a big fan of Rep Waltz.

On topic

I think Obama wins and Clinton finishes third, but with a relatively narrow spread between #1 and #3. Which will mean, on the Dem side, that NH is going to be bloody and likely decisive. For the GOP, I just have a feeling that Romney is going to end up edging out Huckabee. If that's true, then I think the GOP race likely comes down to McCain v. Romney in New Hampshire. I have zero idea who would win that race.

Hope everyone had a great holiday and new year. I'll be checking in occassionaly, but likely won't post much. Busy busy after the break.

Posted by: _Colin | January 3, 2008 10:46 AM | Report abuse

claudialong - "I've got some news for you ma'am--what happens inside anyone else's marriage is not your damn business. What constitutes a good marriage is not for you to decide. It is a private relationship between two people, and how they decide to conduct it is up to them."

Wrong. It matters when it comes to family and friends. It also matters when the people are running for elected positions, it goes to the definition of their character. It tells you more about a person than some campaign speech, their website or any opinion pieces or analysis articles on them. I don't quite know what to think of the Clintons. On one hand she is a self proclaimed "no Tammy Wynette Stand by your man kind of gal" but on the other hand she has demonstrated she, in fact, is. I have my own beliefs on why she decided to stay with Bill and it goes into my decision making process on who to vote for. And I find it LOL funny that someone that has constantly commented on Giuliani's family issues would make this comment in the first place.

lylepink, I have thought about your question and I put the number, at least for me, at 20%. Honestly.

Posted by: dave | January 3, 2008 10:43 AM | Report abuse

I wonder if most Mitt fans are Bush supporters? Because he thinks bush is doing a great job and I'm sure aspires to exactly the same kind of performance. He is, after all, running on precisely the same platform bush did -- CEO president:

'WEST DES MOINES, Iowa -- President Bush hasn't been getting a great deal of love on the campaign trail in recent months and years, even from Republicans, but former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) gave him some on the eve of Iowa's first-in-the nation caucuses.

He even used the L-word - "love."

In a riff on former Sen. John Edwards's (D-N.C.) "Two Americas" campaign speech Wednesday, Romney said the country is united where it counts and used the theme to praise Bush.

"We're a nation united that stands behind our fighting men and women." Romney said at a conference center here. "We love what they've done for us, and we also love a president who has kept us safe these last six years."

Posted by: drindl | January 3, 2008 10:42 AM | Report abuse

Really hope you are feeling well today, Judge.

[remainder of my previous post, that got lost in space, I guess...]

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 3, 2008 10:40 AM | Report abuse

"We don't need a shall we say, blow by blow, description of politician's infidelities."

drindl, that is one of the best lines I've ever read in here.

As for the citrus crop, I am about 200 miles north of citrus country in NE Florida. Our governor declared a state of emergency but I have yet to hear news reports evaluating the damage. This happens every few years and they do have ways of handling it. I actually saw ice this morning over roadside puddles as I took my granddaughter to school.

Posted by: jimd52 | January 3, 2008 10:40 AM | Report abuse

In the hour I was working, y'all were busy!

Drindl, my comparison of parental reactions was NOT a comparison of relative sins. It was an explanation of how normally rational me could get to be uncomfortable about somebody else's personal life because I was actively parenting at the time and the other person's life was nightly news.

bsimon, I am thinking about what you said. I knew nothing of RG's family issues until I read about them here. But I dismissed him because of Podhoretz and the whole neocon belligerence-as-foreign-policy speak-loudly-and-carry-a-wee-small-stick thing, so I never got to question whether his personal life was relevant, in my own head. It would be academic for me now. If he does a 180 on Podhoretz I will think about it. Also, does Pawlenty have a background in communications-hitech? I take McCain at his word that he is going to find a VP who can both serve as Prez and who knows a lot about telecom/hitech. I see no chance for McC - MDH, btw.

Judge, I agree with you about the welcome cleanliness of some possible matchups, including BHO - MDH.

Does anyone have an opinion about Ds crossing over to vote R in MI?

lyle, I meant to use my divorce lawyer friends as anecdotal support for the notion that infidelity may hover at the 30% level or so, but I take your distinction.
R

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 3, 2008 10:37 AM | Report abuse

BSimon, if this election were not being billed as a "return to the Clinton 90's," I would agree with you. Unfortunately, it has been with both Bill and his wife asking us to channel those times. It would be great to only focus on the "good" times. But, there were many bad times which is why I believe that what the Clinton's did in the past (including bill's sex life) is relevant.

Claudia, clearly you didn't fully digest my post. I said that americans should be concerned about "certain" aspects of a politicians personal life.

Due to partisanship, we are usually concerned about the personal lives of the opposite party and rarely our own.

If a leading republican was involved in an extra-marital affair or accused of being an alduterous womanizer like Clinton, democrats would be licking our chops.

Do I need to know that Monica Lewsinsky was under a table servicing a president or that she kept a semen-stained dress in the freezer? Of course not

Do I need to know that a sitting president was serviced by a young intern. You betcha!

Posted by: dcis1 | January 3, 2008 10:34 AM | Report abuse

Fired up! Ready to go! Git 'er done!

Posted by: optimyst | January 3, 2008 10:30 AM | Report abuse

Hey Judge -- what's like out there this morning? It's 10 degrees here -- ridiculously cold for this part of the country. The first 20 years I lived here it never dropped below 25... the last 10 it's been down to 0 at least once a winter. Don't know if I would have come if I'd known it was ever going to get this cold!

JimD- how's the citrus crop?

Posted by: drindl | January 3, 2008 10:28 AM | Report abuse

Judge, how about 'Huckster' ?? Seems to have a little more resonance than just Husker (at least until we all leave the Children of the Corn in Iowa)

Posted by: malis | January 3, 2008 10:18 AM | Report abuse

'Yes, america SHOULD care about certain aspects of a politicians personal life.

Oral sex from your non-wife is definately one of them.'

Umm, beg to differ. Way beg to differ. We don't need a shall we say, blow by blow, description of politician's infidelities. There are simply too many of them. No one would ever get elected. And as we say in the Clinton years, all business of government would grind to a halt so that the entire nation could indulge itself in an orgy of voyeurism. I don't want to know--and neither should you. it's an unhealthy obssession with other people's sex lives, something that seems to particularly affect certain republicans.

Judge -- I think 'Huckster' is the most apt. He isn't what he seems,although he sure is funny. However we are already seeing him and Mitt trying to outpreach each other, in quite devious and unChristian ways, and Mitt has thrown plenty of mud already.

Posted by: drindl | January 3, 2008 10:16 AM | Report abuse

A bit of a sidebar. Since we're looking ahead, two young MN politicians with wide-open futures are spending time in Iowa today. Minneapolis Mayor RT Ryback is knocking on doors for Sen Obama; State Gov Tim Pawlenty is working the stump for Sen McCain. Pawlenty has done many events in Iowa, New Hampshire and elsewhere on behalf of Sen McCain. He has long-denied rumors about aspirations of being on a national ticket, but it would be foolish to discount that likelihood - particularly if Sen McCain actually comes out of January with more delegates than expected. Ryback, meanwhile, is expected to run for Gov at the end of Pawlenty's current term, though he claims to be interested in nothing more than being Mayor of Minneapolis.

Posted by: bsimon | January 3, 2008 10:15 AM | Report abuse

"judge, the Obama Huckabee race would be the one that restores all the recollections of 7th grade name calling."

Granted, Mark, but aside from the personal obsessions inherent to smaller intellects the really interesting part would be watching the two of them try to "out preach" each other. Invisible halos and Bibles all around.

Would Obama's MLK-like rhythms inform Huckabee's style or would he resist?

We'd also probably see the smallest amount of political mud thrown in at least a generation.

Posted by: judgeccrater | January 3, 2008 9:59 AM | Report abuse

I'm not sure how much primary/caucus turnout correlates with general election turnout. My guess is that many Republicans just don't have a strong opinion about the race right now. There's no "perfect" candidate, and there's nobody so bad that they must unite to defeat him. So that's why fundraising and turnout are so weak.

But that won't last forever. After all, no matter how low turnout is, somebody has to win the nomination. And whoever the candidate is, he'll be the one person who can save the country from the evil communist Democrats. So loyal Republicans will send him money and vote for him. Especially if he's running against Hillary.

Enthusiasm will be a factor in the general election, and the Democrats are almost guaranteed to be more enthusiastic about their candidate. That translates into more volunteers, money, and turnout. But the enthusiasm difference won't be nearly as big in the general as it is now.

Posted by: Blarg | January 3, 2008 9:59 AM | Report abuse

"Yes, america SHOULD care about certain aspects of a politicians personal life."

In the context of this election, what Bill did isn't really the relevant bit of information. We have what Rudy did, and how Hillary reacted to what Bill did. As Maureen, above, notes, some people find Hillary's reaction to be difficult to understand; some go so far as to call it a character flaw. On that score I'm somewhat ambivalent, as I find enough other flaws in Senator Clinton that her personal decisions on that topic are irrelevant. For Giuliani, on the other hand, I find the casualness with which he treated his family - his wife and children - during his cheating years to be a disqualifier for higher office. In short, I don't trust him. I generally don't like his style anyway, which I think is inappropriate for what we need in a President right now.

Posted by: bsimon | January 3, 2008 9:59 AM | Report abuse

Bill did everything to keep "what" private? Certainly you are not talking about his numerous affairs. It is so partisan and typical to even suggest that a relentless quest by his opponents was responsible for it getting out.

NO!

Bill Clinton was the one who cheated and received oral sex from an intern while serving as POTUS. Thus, it came out as it should have.

Yes, america SHOULD care about certain aspects of a politicians personal life.

Oral sex from your non-wife is definately one of them.

Posted by: dcis1 | January 3, 2008 9:45 AM | Report abuse

"John Harris of Politico has an interesting piece on the importance of the energy deficit for Republicans as they look ahead to next November"

That is one of the more interesting aspects of the results, to me. Yes, I'm very eager to get the caucus results; but I'm equally interested in seeing the total counts for participation in each party's caucus. Harris says the GOP will probably have around 80,000, the Dems 150,000, possibly more. According to polls, there are roughly equal numbers of Rs & Ds in Iowa. I think that is extremely telling about each party's chances in Nov - and think its probably similar nationwide.

Posted by: bsimon | January 3, 2008 9:43 AM | Report abuse

judge, the Obama Huckabee race would be the one that restores all the recollections of 7th grade name calling. They better not wear their eyeglasses, lest we hear "4 eyes", and
any accessories that are not navy blue, white, grey, charcoal, or black will bring out the homophobic taunts.

Nothing is such ez prey for your 7th grader as a funny name.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 3, 2008 9:39 AM | Report abuse

Mark: I did not mean the reason for divorce. I meant the infidelity in all relationships, whether married or not.

Posted by: lylepink | January 3, 2008 9:37 AM | Report abuse

'What struck me was how she had taken out after Michelle Obama, as well. She is equal opportunity nasty.'

See, I consider Dowd to be rather the opposite of feminist. She is openly jealous of any woman who is more successful than she is, especially if they are married. Just old-fashioned cattiness. Sure, she can be funny, but most of the time she's just petty and nasty. I think giving her a Pulitzer for that devalued the whole idea of the Pulitzer institution.

You have framed it, Mark, between Clinton and RG. Bill did every thing he could to keep it quiet. It was only a relentless quest by those that wanted to destroy him that got it out. And the Starr report --that they would release such private details and that people would want to read it -- I never did. I was shocked people I knew did. It was a really low point in our nation's history. I can't imagine any other country that would have stooped to a drooling, leering, peeping-tom discussion like that.

Rudy, on the other hand, did everything he could to humiliate his wife and children--openly parading his various girlfriends and misstresses whle mayor, in between episodes of cross-dressing and being fondled by Donald Trump. Is this really what the country wants?

Posted by: drindl | January 3, 2008 9:37 AM | Report abuse

'Husker?' That's a new one, Lyle. I have seen Hickabee, Huckaboom, Hickster, Huckabubble. Any others out there?

Posted by: judgeccrater | January 3, 2008 9:34 AM | Report abuse

claudialong: You said it much better than I ever could, many stay together for different reasons, not among the least of these are where children are involved. Hey vbhoomes, your guy Mitt seems to be in a tad of trouble way out there in Iowa. Kinda looks like the Husker is going to give him a bit more competition than he expected.

Posted by: lylepink | January 3, 2008 9:26 AM | Report abuse

And lyle, you know that I have been critical of WJC and his zipper issues.

One of the ways I was not healthily detached was when I had a daughter in her mid twenties and one in her late teens watching the whole Lewinsky affair unfold, as it were. That was very painful.

Drindl has told of similar feelings about RG's public announcement that he was leaving his wife and having to explain those actions to her daughter.

Parenting seems to modify our ability to stay detached about public marital betrayals with children involved.

I would have better understood "maureen" if she had merely said that the discomfort of the Clintons' soap opera was too easily recalled.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 3, 2008 9:25 AM | Report abuse

WV U was terrific last night, lyle, we agree.

I am going to put the dalliance rate at closer to 30% than 50%. Infidelity, my divorce lawyer friends say, is not nearly the #1 complaint in divorce matters, but it is one of the big three in pain level. Or so I am told.

I have to agree with posters who think criticizing somebody else's marital choices is a petty exercise. But I cannot say I have never been critical, myself. I am not quite that healthily detached.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 3, 2008 9:18 AM | Report abuse

JD: I notice you have picked up on the opposition posed by maureen., so I will ask you and all the other posters the same question. I think most would agree my 50% guess is fairly close when you consider the divorce rate and many are because of infidelity. Women are more likely to stay in a relationship that has been marred by infidelity. Mark: WVU was fantastic last night and the interium coach is expected to be named head coach as early as today, not even waiting to announce it when the team gets home.

Posted by: lylepink | January 3, 2008 9:12 AM | Report abuse

drindl, Dowd won a Pulitzer for her biting gossip column style during the Lewinsky affair and she is to me not much more than a well written gossip columnist herself. Funniest columns for her are when she is able to write something like Lewinsky cornered her in a restaurant in DC, in tears, and asked her why she was so mean to Lewinsky. "Mean to you? You don't count. I am being mean to the President."

What struck me was how she had taken out after Michelle Obama, as well. She is equal opportunity nasty.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 3, 2008 9:08 AM | Report abuse

Andy, I half agree with you except of I believe Romney will place 1st and Thompson 3rd. If we all right about Hillary, please check on your friend Lylepink to make sure he's not suicidal.

Posted by: vbhoomes | January 3, 2008 9:04 AM | Report abuse

Blarg: you're right. I was looking at the national delegates as that's the animal I'm familiar with. AndyR may certainly be right as far as county delegates.

Posted by: judgeccrater | January 3, 2008 9:03 AM | Report abuse

I suspect Maureen has never been married. Perhaps she is young, or bitter. Sounds a lot like Maueen Dowd, actually. I've got some news for you ma'am--what happens inside anyone else's marriage is not your damn business. What constitutes a good marriage is not for you to decide. It is a private relationship between two people, and how they decide to conduct it is up to them.

Since you cannot read minds and it is unlikely you are a confidante of Clinton's, you have no idea why she made the decisions she did. There are a great many people [and certainly quite a few in politics] whose spouses have strayed and they have had the courage and compassion to stick it out and make it work. It's easier to just throw up your hands and give up.Marriage is about a whole lot more than sex. There are worse things than adultery.

And there's more to 'feminism' than pride, lady. There's also your humanity, your ability to forgive, and the welfare of your children, who almost always do better in an intact relationship. The 'feminist' movement was about giving women more choices--not dictating which choices they should make.

What if we knew that John McCain's wife had cheated on him and he forgave her? Would we say that he lacked self-respect, or that he was too ambitious? There are still deep gender biases in our culture, whether one likes to admit it or not.

Posted by: drindl | January 3, 2008 9:01 AM | Report abuse

bobtom posted this gem yesterday on the "McCain" thread:

"...with the Michigan Democratic primary being irrelevant ... Dems will vote in the Republican..."

The MI Ds officially say they are going to get back their delegates from the DNC, but if the Ds in MI do not believe that than perhaps they will vote R, if they are not precluded by declaration rules.

1] Does anyone know the MI declaration rules, or can people just "cross over?"

2] Do we think Ds would vote fo their fave R, or for the one they want to see lose [lylepink's theory of x-over voting]?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 3, 2008 8:56 AM | Report abuse

Judge, it depends whether you mean delegates to the county conventions or to the eventual national convention. The 15% threshold is on a per-precinct basis. If Biden gets more than 15% in some precincts, he should get some delegates to the county conventions. They might get weeded out later, so Iowa wouldn't really give any delegates to Biden. But I'd expect him to get more than zero delegates tonight.

Posted by: Blarg | January 3, 2008 8:55 AM | Report abuse

"Read my Top Ten List for why the Iowa Caucus sucks!"

1. Guiliani isn't going to win.
2. Guiliani isn't going to win.
3. Guiliani isn't going to win.
etc.

"Democrats- I see a huge turnout and Obama winning with 37%, and Edwards coming in second with 28%, and Hillary a disapointing third with 25%. Biden will take virtually the rest with 8%. After that Richardson, and Dodd will drop out."

Hope you're right, AndyR. BTW, according to info in the NYT we should convert your percentages into delegates.

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2008/01/03/us/politics/20080103_PROCESS_GRAPHIC.html

Looking at this, it isn't clear to me that any delegates will be awarded to someone with less than 15% (or so, the rules appear fuzzy). Biden, Richardson, Kucinich and Dodd may all end up with zero delegates.

Posted by: judgeccrater | January 3, 2008 8:46 AM | Report abuse

Well I think it is prediction time for all of us junkies, so here goes my predictions.

GOP- I see Huck pulling it out (35%) with Romney as a close second (32%), but the story will be McCain coming in with a strong third place maybe around 20%. Paul will have about 8-10% and Thompson will drop out after only registering 5%.

Democrats- I see a huge turnout and Obama winning with 37%, and Edwards coming in second with 28%, and Hillary a disapointing third with 25%. Biden will take virtually the rest with 8%. After that Richardson, and Dodd will drop out.

So throw it out there and we can see who is the closest by the end of the day

Posted by: AndyR3 | January 3, 2008 8:39 AM | Report abuse

History tells us that if Hickabee comes in 2nd tonight, Ed Rollins will go public with critizism of his Boss and say if the idiot would had listned to him he would had won. The fact that Hickabee would even hire this flake tells you he's not up to the job. The big part of being President is hiring the right people. Hickabee has already failed this test.

Posted by: vbhoomes | January 3, 2008 8:12 AM | Report abuse

maureen, if you're still reading this blog, thanks for your post. Being a guy, I've always suspected that that's the way chicks would feel about their own kind, mailing in her self-respect for the sake of future career. Truly a faustian bargain.

How ironic it would be if that proved to be her undoing in the end. And the part about her complaining about guys ganging up on her? Please. That makes about as much sense as telling a rape victim, 'she was asking for it'.

Posted by: JD | January 3, 2008 7:59 AM | Report abuse

Here are the Iowa Caucus results in advance, with what it means for the Nov election.

The leading "authenticity" candidates, Obama and Edwards, will win 2-1 over Clinton, who represents a clique of out-of-touch and beholden elected leaders in D politics. In the Iowa GOP straw vote, whatever McCain gets will slingshot him to a win in NH.

What D's should do, in a positive way, is decide in the next primaries whether the D ticket should be Obama-Edwards or Edwards-Obama.

There's no need here to analyze Edwards and Obama differences. We're talking about two candidates who have the same goals with paradoxical approaches: in this case, we're using "paradoxical" to mean that the two seem to have different approaches but really don't. Obama can be strong out of a conciliatory approach honed in successful community organizing; Edwards can be strong out of an adversary approach honed in successful trail work. Both find their ways to the table where solutions are negotiated and both can make good judgment calls to win for their clients.

What is more remarkable about both of them is the admiring acceptance of their messages among some R voters as well as a lot of independent voters. With 2/3 of D's having voted for them already, they'll have broad D support and pick up some independent and R votes.

On the other hand, Clinton, with only 1/3 of D support, despite the default vote of some older women, has alienated many R's due to her polarizing style and her husband's behavior. Where D's, R's, and I's take Obama and Edwards at face value, they still suspect Clinton whether she speaks like a policy wonk or in her just-released "nice" version.

As it appears that R's will opt for the authenticity of McCain after a nice show of support for the authenticity of Huckabee, let's look at a Nov match up between OE (or EO) and McCain, perhaps McCain-Huckabee. (This puts a Southerner populist on both tickets, the dynamics of which can be skipped here for brevity.)

Both tickets will get a good hearing from voters because voters will trust their words if not always agree with them. To appreciate the importance of trust in an election, contrast this race to a Clinton-Romney race.

OE (or EO) versus McCain (and Huckabee) will be an uplifting race. Imagine what a Clinton race against McCain would be. Based on what we saw with her versus Obama recently, it was a somewhat trash campaign, the same as Bush 43 had in his 2000 SC campaign against McCain. This country very much needs the fresh air of a positive campaign.

In sum, Iowa voters have told us by 2-1 that the old days are over. D's are seeing that only O or E, despite philosophical difference with R's, can still win some R votes. Clinton, while not rallying new D voters, will rally R's for McCain. Everyone from voters to consultants to donors can understand this.

Often overlooked is that the powerful R "establishment", more like a cabal, looks for a candidate with whom it can deal with a knowing nod and who can be under their collective thumbs. McCain has been too independent for them; the populist Huckabee hasn't been one of them in his politics. But they will have to settle for McCain, as the ones some of the cabal had hoped to find at the country club or corporate HQ deal tables - Giuliani, Romney, and Thompson - haven't panned out.

What about Bloomberg as an independent candidate? In a year of desperation, voters might look for a billionaire to buy them out of electoral misery, such as Bush 41 and Clinton were in '92 when Perot had his moment. I'm for independent efforts, but in an uplifting campaign with two good choices, voters will reasonably wonder why Bloomberg, if he and his backers thot he was so good, didn't put himself in front of the voters earlier instead of dashing in late for a coronation in our great democracy.

Posted by: diffenbach | January 3, 2008 7:52 AM | Report abuse

"...the state's voters have never elected a woman..."

Nissi's point, at 3:01A, does not seem overwrought to me after watching Yepsen on Charlie Rose last night.

Yepsen said that would be the spin of the HRC campaign if their finish were disappointing to them, and he used those words.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 3, 2008 7:50 AM | Report abuse

"Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised by Clinton's difficulty in coalescing Iowa women strongly behind her; the state's voters have never elected a woman to the House, Senate or the governorship."

Please Chris, this is a straight Clinton talking point and a bizarre one at that. Prove that female candidates have underperformed in the past in Iowa or forget it.

"n 2004, 124,331 Democrats turned out for the caucuses -- almost 65,000 more people than did the same for the 2000 Iowa caucuses. If the growth is more linear than exponential, it should help Clinton and former senator John Edwards"

Uh, Chris, a strictly linear increase would produce a turnout of 189,000. :) That would probably be pretty good news for Obama.

Posted by: Nissl | January 3, 2008 3:01 AM | Report abuse

three questions. I have a few more than three! Anyway, the Iowa Caucus is getting out of hand. Now I know the Fix has to cover it, but couldn't we see one story that it isn't the end all be all. I mean Giuliani is going to get buried here, but objectively only by a few real delegates.

This is why the Iowa Caucus needs to be moved back a few weeks. Read my Top Ten List for why the Iowa Caucus sucks!

http://vacollegerepublicans.blogspot.com/2008/01/top-ten-list-why-iowa-caucus-sucks.html

Posted by: rayjr1 | January 3, 2008 2:38 AM | Report abuse

maureen-majury: Your comment about why women will not vote for Hillary is a tad on the weird side. I will ask a simple question and you may choose to answer or not. Think of the couples you have know over a number of years, married or otherwise, in which you have pretty good knowledge or suspicions about their not being faithful during their entire relationship, this includes divorced as well. The questios is "What percentage would you guess that would fall into the category of being unfaithful at some time?" My guess is about 50%.

Posted by: lylepink | January 3, 2008 2:09 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 2, 2008 11:24 PM | Report abuse

Dem turnout prediction - 207,000. Obama wins!

Posted by: optimyst | January 2, 2008 11:22 PM | Report abuse

After Leno Tonight, Huckabee should consider a career in stand-up as Arkansas won't take him back!

After he released OVER ONE THOUSAND criminals without any legal education and poor decision making!!

In Arkansas Mike's decisions could not hurt us much, but if he were to lead our nation, no one knows the impact!

I recall the embarrasment when President did the same during his last days as President....he owed people favors and he set criminals free to settle the score!

I don't think Mike is funny.....I don't think he could lead our nation.....we will never know of course. If Huckabee wins nomination, it will be Clinton/Obama 2008 which may not be so bad.

Posted by: voiceoreason | January 2, 2008 11:17 PM | Report abuse

"Huckabee is putting a lot of hope in the better angels of Republican caucus goers. Has he made the right decision?"

Got me. Toss a bloody coin.

"Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised by Clinton's difficulty in coalescing Iowa women strongly behind her; the state's voters have never elected a woman to the House, Senate or the governorship."

You sell Iowa women short with this one, CC. Maybe they just don't like HRC as much as they like Obama.

"Who votes? Temperatures in the teens and a hangover (figuratively and literally) from New Years Eve makes it tough to predict who will show up at their precincts tomorrow night."

Tomorrow's Des Moines forecast: a high of 30 and a low of 20 F and sunny. A beautiful winter day for IA. Hardy Iowans should have shaken off their literal New Years Eve hangovers by tomorrow. My prediction: a record turnout of new caucusers.


Posted by: judgeccrater | January 2, 2008 11:14 PM | Report abuse

A recent NYTimes story suggests that Bloomberg would enter an Obama- Huckabee match up.

I doubt it.

Suppose Obama wins the democratic ticket. Since Obama's support comes partly from independents and moderate republicans (more here), Bloomberg would be facing a very tough contest against someone who would have the organization and momentum from the primaries (although beating the Clintons could take a crippling toll on Obama). Idealogically, Obama and Blomberg are pretty close (which has been driving many on the far left crazy).

If Bloomberg is really running to win (rather than the entertain his ego), an Obama democratic ticket would prevent him from running since Obama's message would leave little room for Bloomberg's pitch for a bi-partisan pragmatic approach to pressing problems.
--------------------------------------------------
Check out IndependentVox
An Independent Dartmouth Student Opines on the 08 Election
http://indvox.blogspot.com/

Posted by: indvox | January 2, 2008 11:09 PM | Report abuse

I respectfully disagree (with Chris, below) and let me share why women won't vote for Clinton, but they really don't want to say why....

"Clinton held a narrow 36 percent to 32 percent lead over Obama among women. Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised by Clinton's difficulty in coalescing Iowa women strongly behind her; the state's voters have never elected a woman to the House, Senate or the governorship."

Every woman I have spoken with has indicated the same concerns. And, please don't give me the separation of personal and professional. We all take the same personality traits we exhibit and display at home and bring them in a similar or modified version to work.

Hillary accepted a spouse cheating on her repeatedly, defended him publicly, and stayed with him and never once indicated she deserved better. She never once stood up and said, "For my own pride, my own sense of self; I need to sever this relationship". She instead chose to stay with her husband for the sake of ambition. She is a case study of domestic abuse; sending a message to every woman whose husband cheats on her, "stick it out; it doesn't matter if my self-worth goes down the drain, I have to stand by my man".

Thus, we come to the conundrum of her claiming she is being "picked on by the guys" at debates; having her husband say she's being picked on, which defies any claims of believing in gender equity and equality. She is a poor example for young woman wondering who they should be when they grow up --- answer, marry a man, put your career on hold, turn a blind eye to his adultery, stay in a marriage to realize your own delayed ambition, and then enable him by having him basically act as your running-mate on the campaign trail.

This is exactly why woman will not vote for Hillary Clinton and why they don't really want to admit the reason why. It is embarrassing that this woman is running for office when she is an embarrassment to the progress the woman of America have made and are trying continually trying to improve.

Posted by: maureen_majury | January 2, 2008 11:04 PM | Report abuse

If Senator Clinton gets a decisive victory tomorrow, New Hampshire independents will be more likely to vote in the Republican primary, which will probably help Senator McCain and hurt Governor Romney.

I'm currently supporting Governor Huckabee, but if he eventually turns out to be unable to win the nomination, I'd much prefer to have Governor Romney as the alternative rather than Senator McCain (*). So, in an unusual bit of inter-party triangulation (quadrangulation? quintangulation?), I'm pulling for Senator Obama.

(*) Senator McCain authored McCain-Feingold's immoral and blatantly unconstitutional restrictions on political free speech, as well as the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill for illegal aliens.

He supports embryonic stem cell research and opposes a Marriage Protection Amendment to prevent our most liberal states from establishing legal definitions of marriage that vary from the historical meaning of the word.

On the Don Imus show in 2006, Senator McCain said, "I would rather have a clean government than one where, quote, 'First Amendment rights' are being respected, that has become corrupt. If I had my choice, I'd rather have the clean government."

Senator McCain apparently believes it's possible for a government to forbid free speech and still be "clean"...

Posted by: Kurt_Evans | January 2, 2008 10:39 PM | Report abuse

If Edwards wins, Hillary would have completely failed to close the deal - she will be hurt in New Hampshire.


In that situation, Obama would certainly do very well in New Hampshire and win in South Carolina.


So where does that lead? It leads to Edwards being able to accumulate enough delegates to deadlock the nomination in the February primaries. Edwards gaining any kind of momentum into February 5 appears to ensure a deadlock - and thus block Hillary from gaining 51% and from the nomination. To put it in sports terms, it appears that any serious Edwards momentum will cause a mathematical deadlock in the delegate count - Any mathematical deadlock means Hillary has failed and she is out.


Obama, Hillary and Edwards would then be in some tangle.


If Hillary can not close the deal, she must drop out, it is that simple. The party must go through some soul searching to see if they want to go with Obama, Edwards or turn to Biden at that point.


Posted by: Miata7 | January 2, 2008 10:10 PM | Report abuse

so, rfplktor, who do you see pulling it off?

Posted by: bokonon13 | January 2, 2008 9:41 PM | Report abuse

To me, the real question is who has momentum.

Obama has it and McCain has it.

If Obama comes in first or second and repeats in N.H., Hillary is toast.

If McCain comes in third, his only rival will be Romney and if the money starts flowing McCain's way, Romney is toast.

The only one that can not come in third in Iowa is Edwards. If he does, he's toast.

If Obama does not win S. Carolina, he's toast.

Any more questions?

Posted by: rfpiktor | January 2, 2008 8:47 PM | Report abuse

Absolutely, Mark. And KU football games in January don't come too often, so I'm going to savor this one.

Posted by: novamatt | January 2, 2008 8:44 PM | Report abuse

I say when are americans, that consider themselves republcains, going to hold their own to account (bush, rush, fox, savage, ingram, malkin)?

Holding Bush, Rush Savage, et al accountable is what the 08 election is all about.

There is no reasoning with those people, they have repeatedly shown that they worship Mammon- that is to say they will sacrifice everything- integrity, country, party to their greed and lust for power.

Those of us outside the GOP faction that support them will do all in our legal power to remove them from their positions of influence and power.

We are fighting to determine whether America will be governed to protect the privileged and the wealthy, or whether it will be governed to serve the people.

Posted by: pach12 | January 2, 2008 8:34 PM | Report abuse

Rock chalk, novamatt?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 2, 2008 8:23 PM | Report abuse

I seem to remember results coming in by 11 Eastern in '04. Republican results should come in first just because their caucuses are simpler and because they're too damned organized.

C-SPAN has live hot caucus action tomorrow night if you want to watch the actual sausage-making, which is kind of fun. Des Moines Dems on the mothership, Carroll County Pubs on the Deuce. I'm actually going to have two teevees set up, one for the cauci, and one to watch my beloved Hawks tear up Va Tech.

Posted by: novamatt | January 2, 2008 8:13 PM | Report abuse

So when will results be available for the Caucus tomorrow? And where can the results be found?

Posted by: pspeaker | January 2, 2008 7:48 PM | Report abuse

"Rush: Huck 'not a conservative'


Rush Limbaugh devoted a large portion of his first show since the holidays to criticizing Mike Huckabee's candidacy and offering a disapproving bottom-line assessment of the former governor.
"

"When are moderate muslims going to turn on the terrorists?"


I say when are americans, that consider themselves republcains, going to hold their own to account (bush, rush, fox, savage, ingram, malkin)? Fight back Huck and Paul supporters. If you don't fight them, who will. The outside world can't get into these people's minds. Liberals/democrats can't. So who can?

If you will let these people represent you, that is your choice. Just know the costs to us all. We lost our freedom when we submit to the fascists. Stand up republcains. if you don't, nobody can. Remember what happened to the dixie chicks? Why can that not happen to all the fascist right-wing attack dogs? the street MUST run both ways in a free democratic society. Stand up gop. Fight the devil in hell. It's better to fight the terrorists on their homefront than ours :). Fight the people gutting this nation gop. Any non-gop cult slave is a partiasan. Only republcains are not partisan or have an agenda, therefore republcains only listen to republcains. Normal everyday (non-dittohead) americans know nothing, they think.

Fight back gop. If not for your party or you rpersonal identity and that of the nation, but for you rcountry.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 2, 2008 7:22 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company