8 Days And Counting - The 14 Speeches of the Obama Campaign: #8, The Iowa Caucus

January 3, 2008 - The Iowa Caucus.
The night many of us never ever thought they would see in America.

9 Days And Counting - The 14 Speeches of the Obama Campaign: #9, The Iowa JJ Dinner

The beginning of the turning point for Barack Obama: his speech at the Iowa Jefferson -Jackson Dinner (November 2007).

January 3, 2008 - A Dream Forms Real Roots

A snowy night in Iowa.

That is when it began.

When a First Term Senator from the State of Illinois shocked America by winning, convincingly, the Iowa Caucus.

I spent the night fielding calls from friends and family. Short calls that didn't amount to much more than " HE WON.......I'll call you back!"

As an African-American, even though I had been donating money, volunteering, even going to Iowa to canvass, seeing him on that stage, in victory, was surreal.

For my mother, born in the Jim Crow South, seeing Obama on stage in 90+% White Iowa, a clear winner was something she never thought she'd see in her lifetime. For my teenaged nephew, all he knew was that his first political exercise of his franchisement would be for Barack Obama.

Admit it....Iowa made you shake your head.

What else do you you remember about that night?

A Look At the Media's Coverage of The Primaries- John Edwards Blackout Confirmed

The On The Media program ran a segment on the media's coverage of the race for President so far. They confirmed the media's virtual Blackout of John Edwards.

*********************
From the Program

Journalists covering the 2008 presidential race have spent the past year-and-a-half obsessing over every incremental development. But after Thursday's caucus in Iowa they can finally respond to actual voting. Mark Jurkowitz of the Project for Excellence in Journalism took a look at some of the coverage.



________________________________

See more on the media blackout of John Edwards, including the numbers.


Americans vote how they are told to vote.
The media sets the agenda.... not the people.
And the media decided months ago that John Edwards would not be President.
Obama and Clinton are the only two choices for Democrats.
Being the obedient sheep that they are known to be, Americans will vote as the media has instructed them to.

It's not a issue of Edwards being done. It's an issue of Edwards never being allowed in the game in the first place.

This is why we need fundamental changes in our electoral system....to allow candidates equal time and unbiased coverage (by law).
Other countries already do this.

The U.S. needs a strong independent election authority and new laws/policies so that the corporate media cannot hijack the process.
The media's motive here is ratings... They set the stage with the Obama/Clinton Show because it was the biggest ratings draw....not because they were the most electable candidates or the best candidates in the race.
And with so little time between Iowa and New Hampshire...and with the continuing media blackout... Edwards doesn't stand much of a chance to make up any ground. He was doomed from the start.
The media sets the agenda in this Country and has a greater role in choosing Presidents than voters do.

This is one of the big reasons why American elections are a complete farce.

Media Blackout Continues for John Edwards

There has clearly been a concerted effort on the part of the major media to take John Edwards out of the Presidential race. This has been going on for more than a year. They have successfully moved Edwards out of the way by sinking his campaign; allowing them to get the matchup that they want no matter what. And with so little time between Iowa and the New Hampshire Primary, Edwards has little chance of making up any ground.

All along, the networks wanted to see a matchup between Obama and Clinton because it would be the biggest ratings draw. Therefore, the networks proceeded to set the stage & set the agenda for what THEY wanted....(not what the people wanted), by giving disproportionate wall-to-wall coverage to the Obama and Clinton campaigns. In doing so, they set the agenda for voters...and established who the "favorites" were going to be...in order to get the matchup that they wanted.

Without the media hype, the Obama & Clinton campaigns would have gone nowhere... because neither candidate is the best that the Democrats had to offer, and neither candidate is the most electable.

What we are witnessing with John Edwards is one of the biggest travesties in American electoral history. And no one will do anything about it.... because there is no election authority in this Country that can regulate, enforce laws, recommend changes, or correct these kinds of injustices.

This is why fundamental electoral reform is so desperately needed...including the regulation of media coverage. Other Countries already regulate media coverage and public polling during campaigns.


Here are the latest examples of the media's Blackout effort against John Edwards... But this nonsense has been going on everyday for over a year.





Example with additional video



_____________________

Related Links

The Blackout of John Edwards and the Aftermath of Iowa

Other Candidates Banned from Participating in New Hampshire Debate

Iowa - A Test For American Democracy

Last Night, America Showed Its Best Face

What Last Night Meant To Me

I am writing too, about last night, because, it's one of those times, when I am completely proud to be an American. I try not to get too hokey, but every once in awhile, the stars align, and America lives up to its promise.

I want to thank the people of Iowa. I want to thank them for actually LISTENING to Barack Obama, and judging him by ' the content of his character'. I would like to thank everyone who went out to caucus - to see participation in the democratic process is a beautiful thing.

When I watched Obama, I saw him come into his own. For me, the 2004 Speech was good, but I never 'felt it like that'. He was skilled; I saw the possibility of an ' IT' factor, but something was missing for me.

It was not missing last night. Last night, as I wrote before, I saw the man, with every word he spoke, grow into that speech. He was taking himself to another plain, and asked the American people to come with him. When he pointed to Michelle and said ' You..You..', had there ever been such an honoring of the Black woman than in that moment?

I am proud of Iowa today not only because of Obama's win, but of also the choices on the Republican side.

Mitt Romney is about the most dishonest piece of plastic I've ever seen come down the pike in politics, and considering that I've been a political junkie for 25 years, that's saying something. He believed that he could literally buy the GOP nomination in Iowa.

Then here comes this Baptist minister, being outspent 20-1. But, Huckabee touched something in those Republican voters, who also participated in higher levels than 2004. Not like the Democrats, but more of them came out too. Huckabee won every group except for those making 75k and over. He's speaking to something that touches the GOP voter. From where I sit, he's speaking to the economic anxiety of the ' What's the Matter With Kansas?' voter. In case you don't know that book, the basic premise is that the GOP has been able to get those working class, lower middle-class voters by appealing to their CULTURAL values, and they've been willing to overlook that the GOP has actually worked against their ECONOMIC values. And, it's been a pretty good deal for the GOP - until now. Until now, these GOP caucus voters has a man who is speaking to BOTH the economic AND cultural issues that concern these voters. Add in that Huckabee has the most congenial personality of anyone running in the GOP field, and this is the secret to his success.

I am also thrilled that the GOP came back to John McCain and gave him a third place showing. Considering McCain's principled, but considered Iowa Suicide stance of ' No to Ethanol Subsidies', it says a lot that they would give this man his props.

Authencity and Integrity ruled the day over being told who to be for, from the top -down.

Anyway you look at it, BOTH of the Iowa Caucus results were BOTTOM-UP results.

And, if you believe in participatory democracy...if you believe in THE PEOPLE speaking up and taking the time out to think and vote..

Then how could it be anything else BUT a good day in America.

The Aftermath of the Iowa Caucus - Americas Broken System

I see the Obama win in Iowa as the Democrats worst nightmare coming true. A Trainwreck in the making.

The corporate media will still act as if Edwards doesn't exist. He will continue to face a media Blackout. The networks will continue to spin the election as a Obama/Clinton contest. Why? Because it is good for their ratings. That has been one of the motivations behind the whole Obama/Clinton nonsense all along. This has been a media driven election for Obama and Clinton. Neither candidate belongs anywhere near the top tier. But they were placed there by corporations who decided that this was what the political landscape should look like.

The fact is... Obama & Clinton are 2 of the least electable candidates that Democrats have to offer (among the serious candidates/not counting Gravel or Kucinich).

Who owns the big media? The same kinds of corporations that John Edwards says he wants to stand up to. So that is another factor in this race.

There is no way that Obama can match a top Republican in a General election. He is not the best Democrat for winning Purple States. And he will get nothing in the South. Yes, he won in Iowa...but that does not translate into victory in a General Election where there will be 50 separate and unequal contests taking place. And keep in mind, this will be after the Republican political/media machine gets done with him.

In fact, Obama would struggle just to hold on to States that Democrats won in the last 2 elections...such as Pennsylvania.

In short, the Democrats are once again headed for a Trainwreck.... with either Obama or Clinton.

It's sad to see this happening to Edwards...who would make a great President. Edwards may be finished soon, because so much was riding on Iowa. His campaign may have been doomed before it had a chance to get started, because the media made a concerted effort to take him out of the mix from the beginning. He never got a fair shot. This fundamentally flawed American election system needs to be overhauled. The allocation of media time to candidates, etc all must be regulated if this Country wants to have anything resembling free and fair elections. Media steering should be stopped and public polling before elections should be regulated or eliminated altogether.

It is a miracle that this man was able to come in second place with 30% under the circumstances....with no media coverage to speak of (until very late), and without the big money. Such a good showing under those conditions is an sign of his strength.

But because of the media blackout, he will probably not be able to rise in the polls in New Hampshire in such a short period of time, at least not enough to be competitive there. This is why equal & balanced media coverage is so important for candidates.

This just reaffirms my disgust and disinchantment with the American election process.... the structure of the political system itself is undemocratic at its core.
And this also reaffirms my long held belief that the media is the most powerful institution in the Country and plays too large a role in influencing American Elections. For one thing, the media sets the agenda for the people, and frames the debate. It's supposed to be the other way around... the people are supposed to set the agenda and frame the debate in an election year. But in this Country the media decides these things. And it also decides who the favorite candidates are going to be (by favoring certain candidates over others)...steering Americans like sheep (because intellectually lazy Americans allow this to happen).

This is why I don't bother participating. I have always hated this undemocratic system of politics. The American Election system & political system itself are so fundamentally broken.

Obama's "victory" doesn't give me "hope" at all... It actually does a lot to confirm my beliefs about the flawed electoral system in this country. And it doesn't make me excited at all about ever participating in the American system. My cynicism & skepticism about American politics has only increased....not decreased. I see more of our so-called Democracy slipping away with each election cycle.

Until there is a serious move towards election reform- which will never happen in this Country- I will never be excited about American politics. I have never been inclined to even register to vote, let alone take part in the actual ceremony. The motivation is just not there. And this current election cycle is an example of why I don't participate. And I hate when imbeciles try to tell me to vote for the sake of voting, that I should vote because i'm Black and that I need to exercise the right....EXERCISE THE RIGHT TO DO WHAT??????? The "Black" reasoning is the dumbest of all... it usually makes me want to scream. Voting in this Country has become ceremonial. Because the system that people are voting in IS NOT Democratic. That's like telling a person in Russia or Pakistan that they should go and vote so that they can exercise their right to do so. That logic has never made sense to me and it never will.

I won't spend much time or effort covering the rest of the 2008 election ceremony.... I will only make a half-assed effort. Because the election is a farce (as usual). But I will cover it for info-tainment purposes.

__________________________

A Daily Kos Entry That Sums Up My View

Karl Rove Is Laughing His Ass Off Right Now

Previous Post

Iowa- A Test For American Democracy

Huckabee/Obama - WINNERS OF IOWA CAUCUS

Gov. Mike Huckabee and Senator Barack Obama have been declared the Projected Winners of the Iowa Caucus.

Democrats:

With 94% Precincts reporting:

Obama -38%

Caucus Participants - 234,000!!!

I am stunned by that number...I want to thank all the Iowans who came out to be counted.

Edwards came in second.

Clinton - THIRD.

Republicans

Huckabee - 34%
Romney -25%
MCCAIN-13%

I am thrilled by Huckabee's win. Thrilled because Flipping Mitt tried to BUY the Iowa Caucus. He outspent Huckabee 20 -to-1.

20-to-1.

And couldn't seal the deal.

John McCain - a man who wouldn't pander and has kept his stance AGAINST Ethanol Subsidies - came in THIRD.

Come on, Senator McCain. Kick Flipping Mitt while he's down...win New Hampshire!

*************

I liked Huckabee's speech. Ok, I'll admit it: I like Huckabee. I know people will post here talking about his policies, but I just like Huckabee. And, if the GOP Establishment thinks that he's going away, they have another thing coming.

Huckabee has the common touch.


**********************************************************

Obama's Speech:

"They said this day would never come. They said our sights were set too high. They said this country was too divided; too disillusioned to ever come together around a common purpose.

But on this January night – at this defining moment in history – you have done what the cynics said we couldn’t do; what the state of New Hampshire can do in five days; what America can do in this New Year. In schools and churches; small towns and big cities; you came together as Democrats, Republicans and Independents to stand up and say that we are one nation; we are one people; and our time for change has come.

You said the time has come to move beyond the bitterness and pettiness and anger that’s consumed Washington; to end the political strategy that’s been all about division and make it about addition – to build a coalition for change that stretches through Red States and Blue States. Because that’s how we’ll win in November, and that’s how we’ll finally meet the challenges we face.

The time has come to tell the lobbyists who think their money and their influence speak louder than our voices that they don’t own this government, we do; and we’re here to take it back.

The time has come for a President who’ll be honest about the choices and the challenges we face; who’ll listen to you even when we disagree; who won’t just tell you what you want to hear, but what you need to know. And New Hampshire, if you give me the same chance that Iowa did tonight, I will be that President for America."

The speech, as prepared for deliver, appears in full after the jump.

They said this day would never come.

They said our sights were set too high.

They said this country was too divided; too disillusioned to ever come together around a common purpose.

But on this January night – at this defining moment in history – you have done what the cynics said we couldn’t do; what the state of New Hampshire can do in five days; what America can do in this New Year. In schools and churches; small towns and big cities; you came together as Democrats, Republicans and Independents to stand up and say that we are one nation; we are one people; and our time for change has come.

You said the time has come to move beyond the bitterness and pettiness and anger that’s consumed Washington; to end the political strategy that’s been all about division and make it about addition – to build a coalition for change that stretches through Red States and Blue States. Because that’s how we’ll win in November, and that’s how we’ll finally meet the challenges we face.

The time has come to tell the lobbyists who think their money and their influence speak louder than our voices that they don’t own this government, we do; and we’re here to take it back.

The time has come for a President who’ll be honest about the choices and the challenges we face; who’ll listen to you even when we disagree; who won’t just tell you what you want to hear, but what you need to know. And New Hampshire, if you give me the same chance that Iowa did tonight, I will be that President for America.

I’ll be a President who finally makes health care affordable and available to every single American the same way I expanded health care in Illinois – by bringing Democrats and Republicans together to get the job done

I’ll be a President who ends the tax breaks for corporations who ship our jobs overseas and puts a middle-class tax cut into the pockets of the working Americans who deserve it.

I’ll be a President who harnesses the ingenuity of farmers and scientists and entrepreneurs to free this nation from the tyranny of oil once and for all.

And I’ll be a President who brings our troops home from Iraq; restores our moral standing; and understands that 9/11 is not a way to scare up votes, but a challenge that should unite America and the world against the common threats of the twenty-first century: terrorism and nuclear weapons; climate change and poverty; genocide and disease.

Tonight, we are one step closer to that vision of America because of what you did here in Iowa. And I’d like to take a minute to thank the organizers and precinct captains; the volunteers and staff who made this all possible.

I know you didn’t do this just for me. You did this because you believed deeply in the most American of ideas – that in the face of impossible odds, people who love this country can change it.

I know this because while I may be standing here tonight, I’ll never forget that my journey began on the streets of Chicago doing what so many of you have done for this campaign and all the campaigns here in Iowa – organizing, and working, and fighting to make people’s lives just a little bit better.

I know how hard it is. It comes with little sleep, little pay, and a lot of sacrifice. There are days of disappointment, but sometimes, just sometimes, there are nights like this – a night that, years from now, when we’ve made the changes we believe in; when more families can afford to see a doctor; when our children inherit a planet that’s a little cleaner and safer; when the world sees America differently, and America sees itself as a nation less divided and more united; you’ll be able look back with pride and say that this was the moment when it all began.

This was the moment when the improbable beat what Washington always said was inevitable.

This was the moment when we tore down barriers that have divided us for far too long – when we rallied people of all parties and ages to a common cause; when we finally gave Americans who’d never participated in politics a reason to stand up and do so.

This was the moment when we finally beat back the politics of fear, and doubt, and cynicism; the politics where we tear each other down instead of lifting this country up.

Years from now, you’ll look back and say that this was the moment – this was the place – where America remembered what it means to hope.

For many months, we’ve been teased and even derided for talking about hope.

But we always knew that hope is not blind optimism. It’s not ignoring the enormity of the task ahead or the roadblocks that stand in our path. It’s not sitting on the sidelines or shrinking from a fight. Hope is that thing inside us that insists, despite all evidence to the contrary, that something better awaits us if we have the courage to reach for it, and work for it, and fight for it.

Hope is what I saw in the eyes of the young woman in Cedar rapids who works the night shift after a full day of college and still can’t afford health care for a sister who’s ill; a young woman who still believes that this country will give her the chance to live out her dreams.

Hope is what I heard in the voice of the New Hampshire woman who told me that she hasn’t been able to breathe since her nephew left for Iraq; who still goes to bed each night praying for a safe return.

Hope is what led a band of colonists to rise up against an Empire; what led the greatest of generations to free a continent and heal a nation; what led young men and women to sit at lunch counters and brave fire hoses and march through Selma and Montgomery for freedom’s cause.

Hope is what led me here today – with a father from Kenya; a mother from Kansas; and a story that could only happen in the United States of America. It is the bedrock of this nation; the belief that our destiny will not be written for us, but by us; by all those men and women who are not content to settle for the world as it is; who have the courage to remake the world as it should be.

That is what we started here in Iowa, and that is the message we now carry to New Hampshire and beyond; the same message we had when we were up and when we were down; the one that can change this country brick by brick, block by block, calloused hand by calloused hand – that together, ordinary people can do extraordinary things; because we are not a collection of Red States and Blue States, we are the United States of America; and at this moment, in this election, we are ready to believe again.

Analysis of the Race In Iowa

Hear one last discussion & analysis of the Republican and Democratic races in Iowa, courtesy of OnPointRadio. This was a very good discussion that got heated a couple of times.

LISTEN HERE

Barack Obama for President

Barack Obama for President

When Barack Obama first announced that he was running for President, I had my doubts. I had my doubts that he could seriously take on the most powerful Democratic Machine in a quarter century and give it a good fight.

I understood his reasoning for running for President NOW. In fact, I thought it was a smart strategic move on his part in this sweepstakes known as The First Black President.

I cheered him on because I thought it was time that places who had never seen a Black candidate up close and personal in this country, would get that opportunity. I wanted for the country to see that a Black Man could run a credible, serious campaign for President and the republic would not fall apart. I had wanted to see that with Colin Powell, but I didn't get it with him.

The initial question was: was it the ' right time'?

I had to laugh at that one, because nobody ever uses ' Black' and ' the right time' in the same sentence. You take the time given to you and you run like hell with it. Obama understood that the door opens rarely like this, so you have to step up or let it pass you by. I would like to take this opportunity to thank George W. Bush, for if he hadn't of been such an utter failure on so many levels, then the country wouldn't remotely be open to the 'possibility' of a Black man as President.


The "Experience" Question

Hillary Clinton is a One Term Senator. Period. THAT is the extent of her experience. Don't give me the swill of her being someone's wife equals solid professional experience. If that's the case, then sign me up for the Laura Bush for Governor of Texas Exploratory Committee.

John Edwards is a One Term Senator. Period.

So, Barack Obama is a First Term Senator. It's about even for me there.

The Question of Ideology

Obama is by far the most consistent Progressive, according to those who do the evaluations on that sort of thing. It's not that Clinton and Edwards are far far to the right, it's just that Obama is to the left. So, let's leave it at that.

The Question of Electability

I have written many times that those who argue about electability better be arguing for John Edwards. If you bring up the fact, that in the history of this country, only a White male has been elected, and thus, this is why they support Edwards, I wouldn't have to like it, but I could accept it.

I will never accept an Electability argument for Clinton over Obama. You have polls that BEGAN with Clinton at 45% of the electorate saying that they will NEVER vote for her. The latest one, a year out, before any real attacks on her, have HALF OF THIS COUNTRY saying that they will NEVER vote for her. HALF before a single GOP commercial being run against her. Don't talk to me about electability with her. She gets Democrats. Period. She doesn't get Independents and she doesn't get Republicans. Basically, her strategy is 50%+1, and haven't we 'been there and done that' already?

The recent polls have shown that Obama is strong in General Election polls. In REAL polls versus REAL GOP Candidates, Obama is winning in every single contest by wider margins than Clinton. Here's the latest Electability Guide from Newsweek.

I am NOT naive. I am NOT delusional. I understand race in America as well as any Black person that has grown up in this country. I know that Obama could be subject to a Bradley Effect. But, the truth is, there are times when you have to choose optimism over pessimism. You don't have to be Pollyanna, but you fight, you push forward, and you hope. If you're ultimately disappointed, oh well, but it won't destroy you.

I have written plenty of times that I DO NOT KNOW if White people will, when push comes to shove, vote for a Black man.

I only want THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION.

I believe it's time for that answer.

Obama's Campaign Approach

It has been disheartening to read 'Progressive' after 'Progressive' deride Barack Obama because they don't believe he'll be an attack dog like Hillary Clinton or Edwards. I don't know why it took me so long to vocalize this, but it came to me:

Barack Obama and no other Black candidate would EVER

and I mean EVER

campaign on a theme of 'attack dog', or anything remotely dealing with 'attacking' the opposition.

THEY WON'T GET ELECTED.

This doesn't mean that they roll over and play dead with the opposition. They will debate on the issues. They will be strong against their opponent. Being forceful without seeming nasty. They could never be the nasty, vengeful attack dog that Progressives seem to want. There is NO Black candidate that can to into an election with the strategy of "50%+1". It might TURN OUT that way, but there is no way that they can go into an election with that kind of strategy. Just won't work for them.

Look at the campaigns of Black candidates who have gone after something larger than a safe gerrymandered Congressional seat...what is their campaign focused around?
Reaching out to the ENTIRE community.

They have to, because they are Black. And, the ONLY way that, as a Black candidate, you will be able to WIN, is to appeal to a broad constituency. It's the ONLY way.

Barack Obama does it. (he won the Senate)
Harold Ford did it. (he lost the Senate)
Deval Patrick did it. (he won)
Adrian Fenty did it. (he won)
Douglas Wilder did it.(he won)
Tom Bradley did it. (he lost)
David Dinkins did it. (he won)
Harvey Gantt did it (he lost)
Roland Burris (Illinois) and Carl McCall (New York) did it. (both lost)
In the midst of one of the most racially polarizing campaigns in the history of this country, Harold Washington did it.

The MINUTE Barack Obama turns into that 'attack dog' that the Progressives are clamoring for, what will happen?

He will become THE ANGRY BLACK MAN.

He knows it.

I know it.

And, then, THERE will be ANOTHER excuse as to why they can't vote for Obama.

Obama understands that and is NOT going to fall into THAT trap.

That mode of campaign doesn't work with Black candidates. It's not an option for a Black candidate - not if they want to WIN. And make no mistake, Barack is running to WIN.

My Bottom Line

If forced to, I would have to say that the two things that Barack Obama can offer me, as a voter are:

1. The Disposal of the Imperial Presidency.

Of all the things that George Bush has done that are detrimental to this country, none of have more potentially long lasting implications than his shredding of The Constitution with The Imperial Presidency. The respect for The Constitution should be above all else, considering that you swear and oath to it. My stance could be called ' hokey', or ' are you for real?', and yes, I am. I am an AMERICAN of AFRICAN descent, and I respect both. The Constitution, IMO, is probably the greatest modern document ever written. It's brilliance is that it lives and adapts, but the dedication to the rule of law is what I believe. Without it, and believing that all its citizens, no matter how rich or powerful, are subject to it, is a fundamental for me. To have it trampled on, as Bush & Co. have done, is so offensive, it brings with it a deep sense of rage.

The Imperial Presidency isn't wrong because BUSH is doing it. It would be EQUALLY wrong if a Democrat were doing it too. What's best for the country is to be rid of it- PERIOD.

I believe Barack Obama would rectify that. I believe he would respect and honor the Constitution. I don't have any reason to believe that John Edwards wouldn't also get rid of the Imperial Presidency. But, I don't believe for one minute that Clinton would get rid of it.

2. The Election of the First Black President
The symbolism of it. Don't short shrift symbols. They are very powerful, and very meaningful. There is a Black kid somewhere, and his parent, grandparent, teacher, is telling him/her that they can be anything that they want to be. You have to tell kids that, because you can't begin them with the obstacles that would be placed in their way. You teach them later, as they age, about how to deal with the obstacles. To be able to point to PRESIDENT Barack Obama as an example of success - through education, hard work, and skill - that you can use your mind and achieve unimaginable success- yes, that's a powerful symbol.

I don't now, nor have I ever seen Barack Obama as some sort of 'Black Messiah'; I have Jesus, don't need another Messiah. I have seen him as an example of what is possible. He wasn't born to money; he wasn't born to power. Nobody handed him anything; not his Illinois State Senate Seat, nor his Illinois Senate Seat. Each time he worked hard, starting at the bottom and working, from the bottom up, to find those voters who would listen to his message. And, the pattern has been repeated here, with this election cycle. He began, ten months ago, with nothing. Brick by brick, he did the hard work, the grunt work, building, from the ground up, a political apparatus that, 48 hours before the Iowa Caucus, is poised to take on the most serious Democratic Machine in a quarter century. By lasting this long, Obama has stunned many skeptics and pessimists. None of what he has done was supposed to happen, but it has.

So, for me, Barack Obama is:
Qualified
Progressive
Electable
My best chance to rid this country of the Imperial Presidency
Would be the First Black President

Add all these together, and it's the sum total of why I support Barack Obama and wish him well tomorrow in Iowa.



Related Articles:

Boston Globe Endorsement

Nashua Telegraph Endorsement

Sioux City Journal Endorsement

Ottumwa Courier Endorsement

Iowa City Press-Citizen Endorsement

America has a clear-cut choice: the candidates of hope or fear

The Iowa Caucus: A Test For American Democracy

....Well, a test of what little Democracy that this Country has left


When I think of U.S. Democracy and our system of voting, the concept of free and fair elections doesn’t come to mind. The fundamentally flawed U.S. political system with its 2 dominant parties limiting voter choice (often between bad and worse), and its culture of facilitating corruption, doesn’t inspire much confidence that the politicians will really be accountable to the people they are supposed to serve. We live in a political system where the corporate media often chooses the next President; playing the same role that State-Run media plays in less than Democratic regimes overseas. Even a former U.S. President has admitted that the U.S. voting system does not meet basic international standards for free and fair elections. Elections in this Country have been flawed, and heavily influenced by corporate interests for the last several decades.

But recently, the corruption of U.S. elections seems to have gotten worse.
Today, we are seeing the same fundamentally flawed election system at work- a system where a candidate can buy their way into the White House. A system where the major corporate media outlets attempt to choose the next President by directly and indirectly telling Americans who they should vote for, or at the very least, they suggest as much with their excessive coverage of one or two candidates while giving little if any coverage to other viable candidates. Today, politicians don’t even make an effort to hide the fact that they have been bought. And the big media outlets make it pretty plain to see that they are favoring one candidate over another, and it shows in their unbalanced coverage.

A free and fair election system would have all viable candidates receiving equal time. But unfortunately this is not a part of the U.S. system. The media has gotten so good at influencing the American electorate that people are willing to vote against their own best interests, time and time again.

Combine a flawed, often undemocratic election system, a corrupt 2 Party monopoly, a corporate media allied with the corrupt political establishment, and a citizenry that- for the most part- is not politically engaged, and you end up with the situation we have today. A political system where politicians are not accountable, and election victories depend more on how much money a candidate has than on the substance of a candidates platform, plan, message and track record.

We are once again seeing the same dynamics in the current Presidential campaign. The corporate media has not only framed the debate- determining what issues are important for the voters- but it is also attempting to tell Americans who to vote for. On the Republican side, Mitt Romney & Rudy Giuliani are the media’s chosen favorites. While on the Democratic side, the media’s chosen candidates are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama- motivated by the ratings that a white woman vs. a Black man would create for the networks. Clinton and Obama have dominated T.V. coverage, despite the fact that neither would represent the best candidate that the Democratic Party could bring forth for a General Election. Hillary Clinton is not the most electable candidate for a General Election contest. We have argued the case on this to exhaustion… But the facts are clear on that point. Hillary also does not represent the “change” that Democrats, and American voters as a whole, say that they want in a candidate. She represents the old Washington establishment.

If you want more of the same Washington politics, the same elitism, the same corruption, the same foreign policy wrapped in a different package, the same corporate stranglehold on the political leadership, a healthcare system that leaves the insurance companies and drug companies in charge, the same atmosphere where voters have no access to their elected officials (unless they can afford a $3500.00 per plate dinner), and if you want a candidate who will struggle to win moderates and independents in a General Election, then by all means, vote for Hillary.

Barack Obama? Obama would also be very vulnerable in a General Election. As great as Obama is and as good as his message might be, he cannot generate the broad support needed in a General Election to win (and flip) purple States over a wide geographical area. The Democrats must be able to win purple States like Missouri, Ohio, Arkansas, New Mexico, Florida, North Carolina, Tennessee & others. Obama is not the best candidate to get it done, especially against a well oiled, tested and proven Republican machine, that is licking its chops, hoping for an Obama nomination. The Republican machine would destroy Obama in a General Election, making the dismantling of John Kerry look like childs play by comparison.

But there is a Democrat who could get it done - John Edwards. But if you watch the news coverage, it is almost as if Edwards is not even running for President. I have been watching for Edwards coverage closely, especially over the last several weeks. Each night, Chris Matthews has talked about the matchup between Clinton & Obama, and has hardly mentioned John Edwards. The few times when Edwards has been mentioned, it has always been in the context of “Oh yeah…that guy… the loser”. There has clearly been an effort to take John Edwards out of the mix. There also seems to be a push to get Democrats to nominate an unelectable or less electable candidate. The Republicans would welcome (and greatly appreciate) Clinton or Obama as an opponent. There is no greater rallying tool for Republicans than a Clinton nomination. That would certainly stir the Republican grassroots, as Republican strategists have admitted themselves. In fact, Republican cheerleaders would not have to work nearly as hard to motivate the troops with Clinton as an opponent. Democrats would be doing the work for the Republicans with a Clinton nomination. But the Republicans fear John Edwards.

The Iowa Caucus will be the perfect test of the U.S. election process. The results will either be further confirmation of the broken & corrupt system, or a sign that Americans really do want change. Will Iowa Caucus goers choose the candidate who they have been told to choose by the media over the past several months, or will they make a choice based on their own best interests? Will Caucus goers choose the candidate who they have been told to choose by the media, or will they choose the candidate with the best chance to win the General Election? Will Caucus goers confirm the idea that a politician can buy his or her way into the White House or will they send the message that Iowans can't be bought? Will Caucus goers confirm that American media and corporate interests control the debate & the ballot box rather than the American people? Will Caucus goers confirm the worst about the American system or will they provide a flicker of hope that something different is possible?

All of these questions will be answered on January 3, 2008. I fully expect my view of American politics to be confirmed, but I am having a little prayer vigil in the back of my mind, hoping that I am wrong. I am hoping that Iowa Caucus goers will disappoint me in a good way and put some doubt in my theory. I hope they prove me very wrong.

But the Iowa Caucus is not free of flaws. There is the issue of Republicans possibly impacting the vote, since non-Democrats can participate. Could Republicans help to orchestrate a Clinton or Obama victory in order to boost Republican chances in a General Election? I wouldn't doubt that this might be a plan for Republican strategists. We've seen just about everything else from Republican strategists before....so this is not so far fetched.

But even with an Edwards win, the system has been rigged in such a way that a big money candidate can win the nomination on the “Super Tuesday“, when a huge number of States are decided at once. Once upon a time in this Country, before Democracy faded into almost complete obscurity, a candidate had to work at a more steady pace to win. Now it can all be decided in a very short amount of time… With the recent changes in the process, Iowa just doesn’t count like it used to.

The Errington Thompson Show - Interview With Senatorial Candidate Jim Neal

Hear 2 great episodes of the Errington Thompson Show. The first, from December 15th, includes an interview with Jim Neal, a candidate for U.S. Senate -North Carolina.

And hear another great episode from December 22nd. In this program, Doc talks about phony Mitt Romney, and the lies about his father marching with MLK; and he also covers the Presidential campaign & the upcoming contests in Iowa.

John Edwards On NPR

John Edwards takes part in a radio discussion about his campaign and the issues facing voters. Listen Here

The program (onpoint) unfortunately devotes the first 15-20 minutes to pundits, clearly attempting to shape the discussion. They should have spent the entire hour speaking with the candidate. There are enough pundits on CNN and FOX distorting his message. But there seems to be filters and pundits everywhere these days.

Meanwhile, Clinton and Obama continue to get all of the attention.....(especially Clinton... the corporate media is clearly attempting to tell voters who to support).

17 Year Old Girl Dies After Insurance Company Interferes With Doctors Care

Another Story of Legal Murder By An American Corporation

This comes just after Bush vetoed an expansion of S-Chip (twice).

This also comes at a time when Americans are close to crowning Hillary Clinton as their next leader...even though she is one of the top recipients of corrupt Lobbying money from the health insurance industry and the drug companies. And she is supposed to reform healthcare? She is supposed to be the "change" candidate?

This is why I believe American voters are politically/intellectually lazy. It's much easier for Americans to be told how to vote (by the Corporate media) than to do their homework and vote for their best interests. This kind of laziness is the reason why the Country is in the hole that it's in now. And with Clinton, the hole will only get deeper. She will sell you out to the Corporations completely....and send you right down the river with no paddle and no life jacket...

I just hope that the people of Iowa are paying attention....

Saturday December 22, 2007
The Guardian

The family of a California teenager plan to sue her health insurer which refused to pay for a liver transplant until hours before and she died on Thursday night.
Her family's lawyer, Mark Geragos, will ask the Los Angeles district attorney to press murder or manslaughter charges against Cigna HealthCare, arguing that the firm "maliciously killed" Nataline Sarkisyan by its reluctance to pay for her treatment. The company reversed its stance after protesters called for a rethink, but the decision came too late.

The 17-year-old from Glendale, California, had been in a coma for weeks after complications following a bone marrow transplant to counter leukaemia.
After the operation, her liver failed and doctors referred her for an emergency transplant. Although she was fully insured and had a matching donor, Cigna refused to pay on the grounds that her healthcare plan "does not cover experimental, investigational and unproven services".

Cigna's rejection on December 11 led Sarkisyan's doctors at UCLA medical centre, including the head of its transplant unit, to write a letter to protest that the treatment which they proposed was neither experimental nor unproven. They called on the firm to urgently review its decision.

In the absence of a response from Cigna, doctors told the Sarkisyan family that the only alternative would be for the family to pay. But they could not afford the immediate down payment of $75,000 (£38,000).

The family, backed by nurses, relatives and Sarkisyan's friends, mounted a protest of 150 people outside Cigna's Glendale offices. "Cigna cannot decide who is going to live and who is going to die," the teenager's mother, Hilda Sarkisyan, told the crowd.

The demo was amplified by an internet campaign orchestrated by the liberal Daily Kos website and other blogs that bombarded Cigna's HQ in Philadephia. In the middle of the rally, a note was handed to Mrs Sarkisyan saying that Cigna had decided to reverse its decision.

"Cigna HealthCare has decided to make an exception in this rare and unusual case and we will provide coverage should she proceed with the requested liver transplant," it said in a statement.
The news drew cheers from the crowd, but they quickly grew sombre when they heard Sarkisyan's condition had deteriorated. A few hours later, her life support was switched off.

"She passed away, and the insurance [company] is responsible for this," Mrs Sarkisyan told the Los Angeles Daily News.

"Why did it take public humiliation for a multibillion-dollar insurance company to force them to provide appropriate medical care?" asked Charles Idelson of the California Nurses Association.

"This is what's wrong with our health system - insurers decide treatment, not doctors."

The protests over Sarkisyan's case point to growing public disenchantment with the healthcare system in America.

Politicians vying to be the Democratic candidate for the presidential race next year have prepared plans for reform to bring the 47 million uninsured Americans into the healthcare net, and to improve terms for those already insured like Sarkisyan.

The subject was given an added boost this summer by Michael Moore's documentary on the state of the American health service, Sicko.

Moore refers to the case of Sarkisyan on his website, under the simple banner: "Justice delayed is justice denied."

Following the teenager's death, Cigna issued another statement yesterday.

"Their loss is immeasurable, and our thoughts and prayers are with them," it said. "We deeply hope that the outpouring of concern, care and love that are being expressed for Nataline's family help them at this time."

The company recently posted figures for its third-quarter performance this year, which showed profits up 22%. Next year it expects to earn an income of up to $1.2bn.

____________________________

Also See Coverage from Rawstory

Nurses Association Says Cigna Should Have Listened To Her Doctors and Approved The Transplant

Support For Edwards Growing In Iowa

This supports what I have been saying all along. Now that we are getting close to Caucus night, Iowans are giving Edwards a closer look.

He now leads in the State according to a Poll released today.... although, as I stated, Polls don't mean much. However, it means a little more for Edwards, because he is the most viable candidate of the top three. The survey also indicates that he leads among "second choices".

Read more here.

John Edwards Is In A Good Position To Take Iowa

You read it here first :)

Expanding on an earlier post...

I am glad Iowa is first in the election (or coronation) process.

I don't have much confidence in Iowa's voters necessarily.... American voters as a whole are a little lazy when it comes to politics, being aware of the actual issues, and when it comes to why they support certain candidates. I saw one e-mail that someone sent to CNN a few days ago which stated that they were supporting Hillary Clinton because they loved the Bill Clinton years. NOT because of her policy positions, actual experience, platform, campaigning, background, track record, honesty, etc. Go figure! I think I mentioned this idiocy before...about Americans having a habit of voting for symbols & last names instead of Candidates & policies. This is how we ended up with George W... people thought they were voting for George H.W. These are two different men, supported by different cadres of people, with different views of the world, and are men with VERY different experience levels. Talk about novice vs. Powerful Statesman/Master Politician.

In fact, I don't have much of a reason to feel confident about anything related to the corrupt and undemocratic American political system. Based on the facts about America's broken political system and all the nonsense that I have seen, I probably should not have any hope when it comes to John Edwards. But it is Iowa's system that gives me a little more confidence about Edwards's chances there. I don't like making predictions, but for months now I have been saying that Iowa was an opportunity for Edwards to make a good showing. Although, he believes that he is lagging and that he is not where he had planned to be in Iowa at this point. A guy named Obama ruined the show. But Edwards will probably be able to weather the challenge from Obama.

Why is Edwards still in the race? Because Polls mean little in the Iowa Caucus process. Throw the Polls out of the window.

I hate to use wikipedia for anything, but it provided the clearest, most succinct description of the Caucus process that I have found online. I was going to explain it myself, but I started to develop a headache about halfway through. So just how does the Iowa Caucus process work?

"The Iowa caucus operates very differently from the more common primary election used by most other states. The caucus is generally defined as a "gathering of neighbors." Rather than going to polls and casting ballots, Iowans gather at a set location in each of Iowa's 1784 precincts. Typically, these meetings occur in schools, churches, or public libraries. The caucuses are held every two years, but the ones that receive national attention are the presidential preference caucuses held every four years. In addition to the voting, caucus attendees propose planks for their party's platform, select members of the county committees, and discuss issues important to their local organizations.

Unlike the first-in-the-nation New Hampshire primary, the Iowa caucus does not result directly in national delegates for each candidate. Instead, caucus-goers elect delegates to county conventions, who elect delegates to district and state conventions where the national convention delegates are selected.

The Republicans and Democrats each hold their own set of caucuses subject to their own particular rules that change from time to time. Participants in each party's caucuses must be registered with that party. Participants can change their registration at the caucus location. Additionally, 17-year-olds can participate, as long as they will be 18 years old by the date of the general election. Observers are allowed to attend, as long as they do not become actively involved in the debate and voting process.

The process used by the Democrats is more complicated than the Republican Party caucus process. Each precinct divides its delegate seats among the candidates in proportion to caucus goers' votes.

Participants indicate their support for a particular candidate by standing in a designated area of the caucus site (forming a "preference group"). An area may also be designated for undecided participants. Then, for roughly 30 minutes, participants try to convince their neighbors to support their candidates. Each preference group might informally deputize a few members to recruit supporters from the other groups and, in particular, from among those undecided. Undecided participants might visit each preference group to ask its members about their candidate.

After 30 minutes, the electioneering is temporarily halted and the supporters for each candidate are counted. At this point, the caucus officials determine which candidates are "viable". Depending on the number of county delegates to be elected, the "viability threshold" can be anywhere from 15% to 25% of attendees. For a candidate to receive any delegates from a particular precinct, he or she must have the support of at least that many caucus participants in that precinct. Once viability is determined, participants have roughly another 30 minutes to "realign": the supporters of inviable candidates may find a viable candidate to support, join together with supporters of another inviable candidate to secure a delegate for one of the two, or choose to abstain. This "realignment" is a crucial distinction of caucuses in that (unlike a primary) being a voter's "second candidate of choice" can help a candidate.

When the voting is closed, a final head count is conducted, and each precinct apportions delegates to the county convention. These numbers are reported to the state party, which counts the total number of delegates for each candidate and reports the results to the media. Most of the participants go home, leaving a few to finish the business of the caucus: each preference group elects its delegates, and then the groups reconvene to elect local party officers and discuss the platform.

The delegates chosen by the precinct then go to a later caucus, the county convention, to choose delegates to the district convention and state convention. Most of the delegates to the Democratic National Convention are selected at the district convention, with the remaining ones selected at the state convention. Delegates to each level of convention are initially bound to support their chosen candidate but can later switch in a process very similar to what goes on at the precinct level; however, as major shifts in delegate support are rare, the media declares the candidate with the most delegates on the precinct caucus night the winner, and relatively little attention is paid to the later caucuses."

Here is a similar explanation from IowaCaucus.org

The Iowa Caucus is not a vote like you would see in a typical primary. The Caucus is a deliberative process that is very fluid. The January Caucus will probably be one of the most contentious Caucuses in years.

There are several things about the Caucus process that are in Edwards's favor:

#1. 17 year olds can participate (as long as they will be 18 by election time). Edwards has a strong following from young Iowans.... just like Obama. The media has counted on new, young Iowans to stay home. This is a mistake in my opinion. This Caucus will be different. A new generation is coming into its own. The war in Iraq, Climate change, and other issues have awaken young people. Young folks are now taking matters into their own hands. Edwards connected with young people early in his campaign. Edwards also has an impressive plan for dealing with Climate change. His advocacy for the poor and middle class is also appealing. Young people don't have the same connection to Clinton. She represents the "business as usual", "old guard" to many teens and 20 somethings. I believe young folks will shock the nation come Caucus night.

#2. In more ways than one, Iowans use "viability" as part of their process. From a technical point of view, each candidates group will have to garner at least 15% in the first round of the Caucus process in order to remain viable. This will almost surely make this a 3 way race early. Edwards has a chance to pick up support from the unviable groups... Richardson is close to the Clintons and may give his support to Hillary. But the others may go for Edwards. In addition to that support, he may also get support from undecideds.... which could be 10% or more of the total participants. When you add support from the undecided's and from the other candidates who didn't make the cut, Edwards could have enough to win.

Also, there is another viability test that is important to Iowans. That viability test has to do with who would be the strongest candidate in a general election. Hillary has too many negatives. And Obama....as great as he is, may be too vulnerable as a general election candidate. Although I would love to see him as a VP. The Republicans (and even some Democrats) are already starting to use dirty tricks against Obama. And the colorline is still very present in America....as much as some people would like to ignore it, or wish it away. Could Obama generate the kind of wide geographical support needed for a General election? Probably not. Iowans will figure this out very quickly and will go to an alternate choice. Many Obama supporters will likely switch to Edwards before the end of the night. They certainly won't support Hillary.

Edwards may not only win Iowa...but he may win in convincing fashion.

#3. From what I have read/heard, Edwards has a broader distribution of support throughout the State than the other candidates, especially from rural areas. Obama has support from more isolated pockets. Broad distribution of support is more important in the Caucus process than concentrated areas of support. Edward's campaigning in 2003 and 2004, as well as his early campaigning in 2007 may have paid off.

#4. Clinton is an establishment figure. I believe the people of Iowa are seeking a break from the establishment. They want a "change" candidate. Edwards and Obama are both stronger than Clinton when it comes to who represents change. Plus her support is moving down at the wrong time right time :)..., and her campaign has turned ugly in recent weeks. She had a few incidents that hurt her in Iowa.... her scolding of an Iowa voter who asked her a question was a bad move. Iowans don't like being lectured to from outsiders. They also probably didn't care for the planted questions from her staff.

#5. Edwards is polling strong against potential Republican opponents.

#6. Edwards may do better with independents in a general election... a crucial point that Iowans will be looking at. Independents are important for a Democratic victory.

#7. Edwards may be able to carry more purple States....or at least as many as Clinton could carry. Being able to carry purple States, like my home State of Missouri, will be crucial for Democrats. They have to flip (and are poised to flip) at least 3-4 States that they didn't flip in 2004. Democrats cannot afford to have another close election like 2000, and 2004. Missouri, Ohio, Florida, Tennessee, Nevada, New Mexico (and a few others) could go to the Democrats. Edwards may be the best candidate to do it.

I'm just afraid that during the deliberations... the other establishment candidates will throw their support behind the chosen "establishment" front-runner, Hillary Clinton...in order to make sure power stays in the hands of the establishment camp. In other words, Richardson, Dodd, & Biden may encourage their supporters to go for Clinton. But if Edwards and Obama put their heads together.... they can team up to prevent this from happening or at least prevent Clinton from winning if this does happen. I hope Obama will be willing to swallow his pride and take one for the people.... and that goes for Edwards as well if Iowans choose Obama as the strongest candidate...although I don't really see that happening.

Here is a video from the Edwards camp that explains the process.

Additional Reading About the Caucus Process

Final Democratic Debate In Iowa

The Democratic candidates squared off in Iowa for the last time last night.

I was a little disappointed about Dennis Kucinich not being there. It seems as though they designed the rules to specifically exclude certain people.... Kucinich had a tendancy to tell the truth about the other candidates (something that the powers that be in the DNC probably didn't want in the final Debate).
See Review of debate from Congressional Quarterly

Winners/Losers From the Washington Post

Clinton Money Man In Trouble With the Feds

I guess this is the change that Democrats are hoping for with their support of Hillary Clinton. It's just more proof that Hillary represents business as usual... the same corrupt political machine. She is just the other side of the same coin. She's the status quo.... nothing even close to any kind of meaningful change. She is attached at the hip to the Washington D.C. establishment... Hillary Clinton personifies "establishment" or status quo politics more than just about any other candidate.

Hillary's coronation isn't even over yet, and we have already seen one scandal after another in this campaign cycle. First it was Norman Hsu...the fugitive donor... or "Our Friend Norman", as they like to call him.
Then she lies about what she would do regarding Iraq. Then her campaign is caught planting questions at events, and now there is Mr. Vin Gupta, another rich donor.

Her allies in the corporate media have done a good job so far in terms of playing down the stumbles and the skeletons that keep coming to light.

Hillary Clinton: Big In Name, Little In Substance

Why Is Hillary Afraid of A Real Debate On The Issues? Just Who Is Really Slinging the Mud? [2]

As I watch the campaign season continue to unfold I get the feeling that I am witnessing a giant coronation ceremony. It’s a feeling that I generally get every 4 years. This election year is no exception. This time the media’s chosen candidate is Hillary Clinton.

After watching last weeks Democratic Debate in Las Vegas, I was left with a feeling of dread for the future of Democracy in this Country, particularly as it relates to Presidential Elections. What we have today certainly doesn’t fit the definition of true Democracy. Few Countries seem to make a mockery of Democracy the way that the United States does. In fact, the U.S. ranked 17th in the index of the World's Democracies (a list of the most Democratic nations). Video

After the Debate in Las Vegas, I watched all of the annoying commentators talk about how great Hillary was, and how she really came out swinging. She restored her rightful place as the “front-runner”. I particularly recall sitting through a few segments of Hardball with Chris Matthews. Matthews talked about Hillary Clinton as if she had already won the Democratic nomination, when the voting process has not begun. He made the comment “How is Rudy (Giuliani) going to beat Hillary in the General Election. It was as if the half dozen other Democratic candidates did not even exist. It seems as though most of the polls that I see are Clinton Vs. Giuliani Polls. There is this assumption that Hillary has already won, before the voters have weighed in.

This is part of a clear pattern on the part of the media to coronate a winner before the Primary process has even started. There is an attempt to tell voters who to support in the Iowa Caucus and in the Primary States.

I was also annoyed by Hillary’s comments at the Vegas debate. She labeled opposition from other candidates as Mudslinging. I have not seen any evidence that backs up her statement. And of course the mainstream media pundits (those who have coronated her as the Democratic Nominee) never challenged her on her mudslinging comment. Since when does one candidate challenging another on principles, policy positions, behavior, voting record, work history, etc equate to mudslinging? Her claim was nonsense. Most of the criticism that I have seen regarding Clinton has been based on her policy positions and voting record. The criticisms have been based on facts. Her mudslinging claim seemed to be more of an attempt to distract voters from the real issues and the policy differences between the candidates, for which John Edwards has been attempting to highlight.

1. She voted for the war in Iraq. This is a fact.

2. She voted to provide the Bush Administration with backdoor authorization to start a war with Iran. This is a fact. She is a pro-war Democrat who has indicated that she would launch a war with Iran.

3. She does not represent change…she represents the Status quo in Washington D.C., where corporate lobbyists have enormous influence on our government. She has taken more lobbying money than any other candidate (from either party)… This is a fact.

4. As Michael Moore pointed out in Sicko, Clinton pretended to be in favor of healthcare reform, but allowed herself to be bought by the same drug and insurance lobby that she was supposed to be fighting against, eventually becoming one of the biggest recipients of their money. Meanwhile, her healthcare proposals went nowhere. This is a fact. But she walks around as if she really accomplished something regarding healthcare. This is one of the biggest myths in the whole campaign.

5. The fact that she flip flops on issues, such as the issue of ID cards for illegal immigrants. First she came out in favor of the idea, but she turned right around less than 2 weeks later and decided to oppose it, after a public outcry. This is a fact.

6. She has stated publicly (early on) that she would end the war in Iraq and bring the troops home, but was heard stating off the record that she would keep troops in Iraq through her second term- This is a fact.

7. Her campaign has planted questions at rallies, reminiscent of Bush Administration tactics, in an attempt to stage her events- then she tried to lie about it. This is a fact.

This isn’t mudslinging, this is an effort by opponents to distinguish themselves from Clinton so that voters will have clearer choices.

Another myth is her claim that she is the most experienced candidate and can get the ball rolling from day one. Again, the mainstream corporate media refuses to challenge Clinton on these outrageous claims and comments. She has only been an office holder for 6 full years. And she has no experience running a major office or running a government. People (especially in the media) try to give her too much credit for her time as first lady, etc. Although much of that time was spent traveling and going to the typical events that first ladies attend. If she were going for a job as the CEO of a PR firm…her experience as first lady would be great. But it doesn’t count much for the most important job in the nation.

The only major project that she took on as first lady was Healthcare and, as I mentioned, that ended with her being bought by the Insurance industry. Healthcare reform failed miserably. I wish the media would stop the nonsense about her extensive experience for the job. She has not run a major government office, and has only been an elected official for one term.

She also mentioned during the Las Vegas debate that her opponents were not attacking her because she is a woman… but because she is ahead. But who put her ahead? It’s the media that put her ahead. She isn’t ahead because her policy positions are better than the other candidates. Not because her plans are better. Not because she is principled. Not because she is going to stand up for working people. She is ahead because the media chose her as the favorite early on…and she has received a disproportionate amount of airtime. We have hardly heard from the other candidates. And the few times when they do allow us to see the other candidates, it’s often part of some kind of political attack against them… such as John Edwards’s hair. And to see just one example of what I am telling you, take a look at a debate clock courtesy of the Dodd campaign. Dodd’s folks have been keeping up with talk time at the various debates. Hillary typically ends up at or very near the top. Some of the other candidates hardly get to speak, and when they do speak, they are often cut off by rude moderators like Wolf Blitzer.

Unfortunately, the American public often doesn’t vote for the most experienced candidate. Nor do they vote on the issues. They are some of the most disengaged and least informed voters of any major so called “Democracy”. The truth is, Americans tend to vote for the familiar… for people whom they feel comfortable with. And after 8 years of Bush-Cheney, people are willing to go back to the Clinton brand. Never mind the fact that doing so would not represent the change that so many people want. Clinton is certainly not the change candidate. But she is familiar to the American voter. Many of these voters probably believe that they are voting for Bill Clinton. This is how we ended up with George W. Bush… people were voting for a name. They thought that they were voting for George H.W. Bush…. someone familiar. With few exceptions, the average American typically votes the way they are told to vote, either by the media, their political party leaders, or by their religious leaders. If they do decide for themselves, they often make the choice based on who looks best in a Cowboy hat, who they feel “comfortable” with, who can give the best soundbite answer, or based on some other trivial matter. Americans are once again repeating the same pattern of not paying attention to what is going on. I just heard about a new Poll in my State of Missouri that indicated that Hillary Clinton would do better than Rudy Giuliani in the State in a General Election (once again, there was the assumption in the Poll that Hillary would be the nominee before anyone has voted). But another part of that poll indicated that the people of my State wanted a change candidate. This is where the disconnect is evident. They don’t seem to understand that Clinton would be business as usual.

Let’s be honest… if Hillary were not a former first lady of a popular President…if her name was not Clinton… would she be a serious candidate? No she wouldn’t. If she were running as Hillary Rodham and if she were not the wife of Bill Clinton, but had similar work experience, no one would be paying her any attention. She would be near the bottom of the pack, and that’s if she could have garnered enough financial support to begin with.

I am just hoping that the people of Iowa are more attentive to what is going on this time around and vote for plans, policies, issues and principles instead of just a name. Iowans typically are a little more astute than voters nationwide, because of the States unique position. I am hoping that they are not falling for the Hillary fluff. As Dr. Cornel West would say, I am hopeful, but not optimistic. Polls are showing pretty strong support for Hillary in Iowa, despite strong polling early on by Edwards. I think this could be attributed to the fact that there was a media blitz over the Summer in favor of Clinton, at the expense of the other candidates.

The Race For Iowa

Obama has (briefly) taken the lead in Iowa. [2]. The races in Iowa and New Hampshire seem to be tightening, as voters are starting to pay attention. Unfortunately it might be too late, at least on the Democratic side, because the media has already programmed the minds of so many Americans to vote for Hillary.

On the Republican side, it looks like we may not have to worry about Giuliani for much longer (keeping my fingers crossed). The media has been trying to convince us that Giuliani is the man to beat among Republicans, but over the past several weeks, the front-runner in the early Republican contests has been Mitt Romney.... NOT Giuliani. Romney has good leads in Iowa and New Hampshire. In fact, Giuliani has been polling in 3rd place in Iowa behind Huckabee.

Meanwhile, the New Hampshire Attorney General is investigating underhanded campaign practices that are targeted against Mitt Romney.