« Iraqi refugees? Here? Forget it! | Main | Salon precinct reporting from Iowa »

Change, not fear: Obama takes Iowa

"This [is] the moment when it all began." Obama's victory speech:

I'm giddy.



Yeah, baby!

Man would I love to be a fly on the wall in the Clinton compound.

Lots of anger and blame flying around, I'm sure...

Obama may be a pretty face but he's said some pretty stupid things, whether fear mongering about the supposed social security insolvency or attacking an Iowa AFSCME local as a special interest for operating a 527 that ran ads supporting John Edwards. That'll be real awkward come November if Obama is the nominee because he will need the support of those "special interests" to get elected.

bipartisanship is impossible when moneyed corporate interests, who like talk of Social Security being insolvent, have rigged the political system. We don't need bipartisanship, we need confrontation. the golden age of bipartisanship only came about because FDR kicked ass and took names of the people whose ass he was going to kick the next week. Obama needs to grow up and listen to John Edwards.

Eh. Edwards just doesn't do anything for me. And Iowans seemed to agree - despite basically 3 years of constant campaigning there, all he could do was garner ~30% last night. Not a good showing.

And while I appreciate his anti-corporate stance, I also have trouble feeling much support for a man that has a 28,000 square foot home.

Obama can win. And make real change happen. FDR was definitely our greatest president - ever - and he did take names and kick ass. But he didn't start that until he was in the White House (except for kicking Hoover's ass all over the place in the election). I think Obama will do the same. You notice that he's not taking campaign donations from lobbyists?

And according to the Obama web site "Obama beat Edwards among voters in union households 30%-24%" in Iowa last night.

Listen to Edwards? Christ--not if I want to actually win a political campaign!

Unions aren't going to go for Obama in November? Dude, come on!

Obama has made some gaffes, but policy schmolicy. It's all about inspiration, looking like a winner.

When there's a mic and a camera in your face 24 hours a day for 18 months, everyone makes gaffes.

And Obama's not JUST hope, I think he's has the intellectual firepower to actually tackle big issues. When he speaks directly to policy issues, I like his approach. There's substance under that hype, yo.

ah yes, policy schmolicy and inspiration, that worked out real well for us with shrub. sorry folks, the fine print really does matter

and repeating the conventional DC wisdom that social security is facing insolvency is not a gaffe, more generally that's known as being stupid or being on the payroll of Wall Street investment banks

the problem with attacking unions as a special interest and then enjoying their support later on is that you look inconsistent and hypocritical

and most of all, Obama voted for that corporate handout, the bankruptcy "reform" bill. if that is what he thinks is reform and change, God help us all

one last comment, I guess it was easier for Edwards to campaign in Iowa in 2007 because it looks like he crashed at Obama's pad in Iowa


And a final word about Iowa's runnerup: According to a statistic that I read in this morning's Des Moines Register, Obama spent more days in the state this year than supposedly Iowa-centric Edwards.

I looked for the article in the register online but couldn't find it. I have no reason to doubt what Walter Shapiro says since he, you know, woke up in Iowa this morning whereas I woke up in California where Mother Nature, the great leveler, turned all of us this morning into los mojados

"ah yes, policy schmolicy and inspiration, that worked out real well for us with shrub. sorry folks, the fine print really does matter."

Sure, a little bit, but not really, especially in the primaries. It's "whose speeches am I gonna like more?" Shrub's not a good comparison. He wasn't inspiring; he simply showed up and didn't look quite as stupid as his opponents thought he did. (Then he went on to cock up the country pretty good, proving there IS a dime's worth of difference between dems and repubs).

"the problem with attacking unions as a special interest and then enjoying their support later on is that you look inconsistent and hypocritical."

So what? We're all hypocrites. Has a Republican ever not run on "smaller government," only to become Big Government?" Think the unions and trial lawyers are gonna go for the GOP instead since Obama hurt their feelings? Let those jackasses do what they will. Speaking against unions and trial lawyers is damn smart politicking.

...damn smart politicking for a democrat, I should say.

Remember the debate where an emotional and obviously pro life young woman asked John Kerry if there would be any federal funds used for abortions? Kerry gave a meandering (if heartfelt) answer about his moral justifications for his pro-choice stance.

What he should have said was "no," and should he have decided to fund it later, and been caled on it, THEN give the long, meandering justification.

That is the game. I know it sounds cynical, but Win first--THEN change the world.

Or don't. I might be about just as happy to see the Republicans stuck with Iraq for a few more years.

Post a comment

Get GLONO merch!