The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

Complaints, concern, apprehension expressed in previous comments about Obama's inexperience are typical reactions garnered by "outsider" candidates who dare to enter national politics without completing the inside-the-beltway hazing required to cut the true passion out of otherwise viable candidates for true change.

That's what happened to the passion John Kerry had when he fought to end the slaughter of American soldiers lives in Vietnam. He started out with a passionate voice for change and his position on the issue was dead right. But then a funny thing happened on his way to running for political office. He realized that to win he would have to change his rhetoric, personality, tone down the passion, accept that change is made in baby-steps to appease the establishment grandfathers/lack-luster-thinkers/fat-cats/sit-on-your-fat-butts-and-do-nothing-washington-insiders who run for office in perpetuity for the perks from lobbyists and lifelong governmental employee benefits that most Americans could never conceive of receiving from the corporate employers they slave for years to help make executives richer and richer. The end result? A failed presidential campaign that lacked the passion required to garner support from the American electorate in a time of an idiotic, disastrous Bush presidency.

The same complaints of inexperience were made about Bill Clinton during his first run for office and he turned out to be one of the most talented politicians we have ever had in office. He and Al Gore had new ideas that the establishment of the time would never have pushed to implement and the result was incredible growth in industry that made America the envy of the world. I believe Obama has the same kind of "vision" for change that could take us to the next level.

We have been stunted for the last 8 years by a president that comes from the "old school" of thinking that "war" is the best means of political survival for a presidential second term, and that "war" is a means of economical growth for your fat-cat corporate friends in the business of defense contracting and oil production. Can we get out of the "war" mentality as a means of political and economic sustainability? It hasn't worked. It has brought economic devastation in terms of a national deficit that has doubled over the last 8 years and our respect in the world is in the toilet. Thanks G.W !

Hillary is more of the same regarding wartime politics. She has consistently supported Bush's hawkishness on the war with her voting record. What vision does she have beyond healthcare? War with Iran? She voted for it. What is her plan to restore America's respect to our international friends and foes. Her voting record will not garner concessions from our enemies or support from our teetering friendships with European nations. Even her rhetoric around "we can't give a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq because it will embolden the terrorists" is straight from Bush's playbook.

All that said, I do think Hillary performs better in the debates than Obama and I think she is immensely qualified to be president. I just think with her sheepish follow-Bush's-lead-on-wartime-rhetoric she has caused me to lose some respect for her as a politician. If you disagree with decisions made by Bush and you are as strong a politician as you say you are, then stand up strong and at least vote against the decision to declare the Iranian national guard a terrorist organization, which was just another vote to give Bush the authority to slump us into more war minutia. An independent thinking, qualified politician with 35 years of experience should have had the "judgment" to see through the fakery of that resolution and vote it down faster than her finger could hit the "No" button. Say what you want about experience but Obama's stance on this Iraqi mess was dead right from the beginning and it was right and contrary to popular opinion of the time. Yet he went with his best judgment and he is the better for it at this point in this race.

But let's not forget Hillary's attacks on Obama's "experience" regarding his statements that he would meet with friends and foes (i.e. dictators). Then she had to retract that rhetoric with statements that talking to our enemies is necessary sometimes when a real life situation presented itself a few months after her unfounded attacks on Obama's "inexperience" turned out to be incorrect. Obama's judgment in foreign policy diplomacy proved right, YET AGAIN! Don't you get it?! She could learn from him, if she could get off her high horse and listen with an intent for REAL CHANGE. Her attacks came from the same old school thinking that Bush follows in that "we do not talk to our enemies." So stupid! Come on Hillary! Public opinion does not want more anger, disrespect in the world due to our unilateral cowboy international tactics. Stop reading Bush's playbook on international diplomacy and look at the reality of the world through your own unfiltered eyes. Obama has gotten that right twice now in his short tenure in office. HELLO??!!!! I'm willing to vote for you Hillary, but I don't want more G. W. Bush ignorance on any scale, domestically or internationally!!!! OK??!!!

Experience is not the issue here. It's vision. It's judgment.

Obama seems to have enough "experience" to understand that you have to work within the systems of government and corporate influence to affect change and that blasting your position loudly and being un-presidential will not get you the movement required on these complicated issues. For all of Edwards' rhetoric to beat the corporations, we must remember that corporations provide real jobs to Americans, even with the dwindling landscape of jobs going overseas. What we need is to enact policies that provide incentives to keep those jobs here. We want and need our corporations to be successful, but that success needs to be achieved with responsible American interests in mind and with an eye towards relative independence from foreign interests. Our time in history is seeing the world increasingly become a global community and international cooperation is inevitable for any successful nation; but our elected officials must understand that they are elected to represent "American" interests "first" within that global change.

Within the global context, we must also remember that there are bad things happening around the world and if we can restore our respect in the world we can affect change in areas of political unrest (i.e. Darfur and Kenya) without a single American soldier having to put their lives on the line. Respect means that other countries will start to listen and act when America weighs in on international issues. We had that kind of power and we can have it again with the right president.

If Hillary is the nominee, I will of course support her because I feel she can do this job well. If Obama is the nominee, I will be thrilled to support his candidacy and subsequent presidency because he has a vision for where this country and the world needs to go that should have been the natural progression after the Clinton/Gore years in office. We were broadsided and derailed from our 90's forward momentum by ignorance and shortsightedness in G.W.'s administration. He took us back to old, stale "wartime" politics as usual where the top 1-2% benefit and the middle-class works harder for less, but we have a chance with Obama to correct that path and get back on track. Hillary will be an effective president as well, but I don't believe we will move as quickly to a new frontier in our history with her at the helm because her vision is too limited. She is practical and old-school. I believe we need a broader vision to shoot for with the kind of wisdom required to realize that vision within the framework available for real change.

dyck21005:

You claim that Obama has not yet been vetted.

Hillary did a pretty good job in Iowa. She called him inexperienced, naive, a coward, a drug dealer and a terrorist. She manufactured quotes from his kindergarten teacher, and dug up documents from his Senate position. She even tried to scare the constinuency, implying unknown horrible things could happen (we know the horrible things that will happen with the Clintons).

Obama stood up to it all.

It is actually Hillary who has not been vetted since 1996, Bill's last presidential election. Her run for the US Senate was basically uncontested after Giuliani dropped out. Her second term faced an underfunded opponent.

The press, and other Democratic candidates, have actually been very kind to the Clintons, not having brought up most of the issues in his presidency. The bloggers have called her out, though. It will actually be very easy to undermine Hillary. The Republican's are just waiting for her nomination. The Democrats have been too polite.

One more "spin" that she tells, she is not electable. She started out the campaign with 51% of the people vowing to vote against her. That should be even higher now after people have watched her nasty campaign tricks in Iowa. Perhaps they haven't been watching. But, I was, and I'm not in Iowa. I will not vote for her. I have just registered as a Democrat so that I can cast my vote for Obama.

Wow, Clinton supporters are out like never before! I this what Penn meant when things would get nasty? Such shallow talking points Clinton supporters have. Wish you would start talking about Hillary's much touted experience. But, when she's asked about the legigislation she's produced to effect a real change, she just comments that "my supporters know what my contributions are".

Supporters, care to elaborate? I've been reading the blogs since October, and not ONE comment or article has articulated a good piece of legislation that Hillary has sponsored. It isn't clear on her web site.

Guess you guys are trying to spin new clothes for the Empress exposed in Iowa.

I had hoped to be able to post on this article, but I have been distracted.

"ITS IOWA, people. I doubt most of the people in Iowa can read. The GOP wants Hillary to win, thats you need to know.

Posted by: Italiaxxx | January 4, 2008 01:13 PM "

Excuse me? Actually, I read rather well, and have always scored at the 99th percentile in national tests-that means compared to others in the nation. When I applied to graduate school for my first Master's Degree, I scored 790/800 on the GRE. In fact, Iowans have done an exceptionally good job of reading now for years. We tend to have fairly high academic standards.

Bottom line, like it or not, Iowa chose well in spite of our limited ability to read. The alarmists from the Republican party will have little to say about Senator Obama without pushing several of 'their own' away, as well as the masses of Independents they've relied upon for years now. But I didn't read that.

I agree with Hillary Clinton that Obama is inexperienced and there is a concern there. My obversations of Obama: I had started supporting Obama in 2004! in Texas, and did alot to talk him up here and at the University of Texas. I had photographed him 3 times in close quarters. I had made contributions to him the first 2 quarters of this year. I was not the only one who put in ALOT of work to help him. Has his campaign found ways to get us involved or showed appreciation for our efforts? NO! His support in Austin has eroded in large areas, and his last rally here was MUCH smaller than the large Feb. 07 rally. His only contact with those of us, like myself who wanted to support him - has been "give me money" email and "hey come out to my rally!" email.

I agree with Hillary Clinton that Obama is inexperienced and there is a concern there.

My obversations of Obama: I had started supporting Obama in 2004! in Texas, and did alot to talk him up here and at the University of Texas. I had photographed him 3 times in close quarters, and talked to him directly for a few minutes at one. I had made contributions to him the first 2 quarters of 2007. I was not the only one who put in ALOT of work to help him. Has his campaign found ways to get us involved or showed appreciation for our efforts? NO! His support in Austin has eroded in large areas, and his last rally here was MUCH smaller than the large Feb. 07 rally, that drew 20,000 people. His only contact with those of us, like myself who wanted to support him - has been "give me money" email and "hey come out to my rally!" email.

When I tried to give my concerns to the Obama people repeatedly!! by email and by phone, it was largely disregarded. When my concerns to a phone solicitor hit home at the time, and she gave me the national phone number, that national person's attitude was "hey there are too many people for us to follow up with" and we are focusing on the first 3 states. There was a strong arrogance with the person, as if Obama knows all and doesn't need any input on things from anyone. Is this giving a voice to those who are not lobbyists? Granted, the top person can't hear from everyone (despite Obama's rhetoric), but most campaigns understand that you need levels of leadership in a campaign to fully engage people nationally. This same mechanism is also required as President - since you need more than a podium and TV to truly engage people. While Obama gives lip service to this notion, his action and follow through are horribly lacking afterwards. Obama's is so restricted at the national level, they don't even engage voluntary groups like "Texans for Obama" - despite their efforts to help him.

There is a local young candidate here for city council who was like that, great initial candidate with charm and apparent charisma - but after winning he was largely dismissive of those that supported him. That city councilman has turned out to be one of the worst office holders in Austin. He tried to be friend to everyone, and he has come out to be friend to no one. Why? Inexperience! While Obama wants to have everyone have a voice equal to lobbyists and insiders, he is achieving this by excluding most everyone from input. While he has courted Iowa, NH, and SC closely, do not be mistaken - after you vote you won't hear or have any way to contact or be involved in his campaign, in my opinion - other than repeated "give me money" emails.

Having met all the top D candidates and also McCain on the R side, the two candidates that I think are the most personable when they are not wanting something from you are - Hillary and McCain. I was within the Secret Service bubble with Hillary for 3 hours and she was incredibly gracious and willing to listen to anyone. Obama was a rock star (in a negative way) in a similar position, and pretty much gives a smile, great giving speeches, but far LESS effective one-on-one than Hillary.

McCain also was willing to talk to people honestly, and I think also is someone that has incredible experience - and is not a gamble. I saw McCain get hit with a tough, emotional question from an audience member about health care, and he intently listened, and then gave his answer starting with, "you probably won't like my answer, but here it is ..." While I don't agree with McCain on all issues, he is genuine and capable. For those independents who do not like Hillary, I might suggest strongly giving a second look to McCain.

As an independent moderate, I hope my insight from Texas can help you all in NH better judge these candidates from a different perspective - the back side of their campaigns (the side you all don't see!).

Take care.

I think Hillary did okay in Iowa. When you look at the details, overall she didn't win the women's vote, but she did well in the rural, more conservative areas of the state, Obama did very well in the cities.

In the end it'll be about the # of delegates and after all the fuss over Iowa Obama walks away with 16, Hillary 15 and Edwards 14 delegates (interesting she came in 3rd place, but has an extra delegate over Edwards).

She's still well on her way to having the most delegates in the entire process, both parties.

Iowa was always going to be tough for her because Iowa has not elected women to any significant office.

Iowa doesn't know her and she never had a significant lead here to begin with.

The more interesting story will be in NH on Tuesday - to see if she can maintain her support there and win. If that is the case Iowa will be a thing of the past.

The media has been extremely unfair to Hillary and Obama supporters should not be too arrogant about this. They are trying to bring her down and build him up, particularly the right-wingers. Why? I would not be so naiive to believe it is because THEY believe he is non-partisan.

Despite the crying to the contrary, the short extent of the New Hampshire Primary now that the focus has shifted might just be the best thing Hillary has going for her. Look at the example Iowa set. The longer Hillary campaigned in Iowa and the more people got to really know her, the less they liked her and she fell a long way in the polls over time there. My only hope is that the voters in New Hampshire do not have short memories. I know that Bill is very popular in the state for some reason and has loaned Hillary a very impressive campaign staff on the ground up there, but I hope voters remember all to well how much trouble spelled S C A N D A L Hillary managed to get herself into when she was only FIRST LADY. In some ways, Bill may have done her a very big favor when he "didn't have sex with that woman . . Miss Lewinski" (at least for her career and ambition's sake. He managed to steal the spotlight and keep Hillary free of scandal for the last part of his tenure as President. Can you even begin to imagine all of the scandal and distraction to running this country that the return of the Clintons to the White House can generate?

"All that means Obama goes into this state's compressed contest with a target on his back a situation he has managed to avoid due to media bias against Clinton."

You know the words to the company song pretty well there, dyck21005 . . . but I thought Hillary was famous for putting the blame for everything that has tainted her over the years to "a vast right wing conspiracy" and I thought Senator Obama was supposed to be a liberal who is supposed to be to the left of Ms. Hillary on that scale. Your spin goes beyond spin, frankly, and qualifies as whining and crying. It's sad to see that last night didn't teach a lot of her supporters any more about how fed up voters are with all the negative campaigning than it did your candidate.

BEWARE NEW HAMPSHIRE!! I just caught the tail end of a story on ABC's 20/20 while preparing supper this evening. It seems that the dirty tricks of negative politics has begun in earnest up there in New Hampshire. From what I gathered once I really tuned in to the story, this involves phoney surveys where an unidentified caller phones and pretends to be taking a poll or survey while their actual intent is to "discretely" pass along a little information meant to smear an opposing candidate. In this case, the smear tactic is directed against Senator Obama (sorry, if they mentioned what the information was that's used to smear him, that was presented before I walked into the room in the middle of the story). This was actually part of a rather interesting story about how both parties employ teams of people whose sole job is to dig up dirt on other candidates (including those within their own party) I guess in case the people are threatening to elect someone other than the candidate the party really wants to run? Most of the report revolved around dirty tricks used during the past couple elections by Bush and his supporters but I thought this one current bit of news was worth sharing. According to 20/20 the obvious source of the phoney calls is . . you guessed it . . HRC.

I've been reading since last night that the Clinton team was "retooling" their strategy and were expected to go negative in New Hampshire. It certainly didn't take them very long. I was just questioning in an earlier post whether Hillary would at least have the nads to do so publicly if she chose to go DIRTY again, or if she would opt for more of the even more disgraceful secretive whispering campaign that has been going on behind people's back. I guess I got my answer to that question in short order also. I think we have had enough "scapegoating" from the Clinton Campaign. Maybe it's time to FIRE HILLARY this time!

Given the universally uncritical, even fawning media coverage, and campaign finance reports, a good case could be made that Sen Obama is the Washington/Wall St Establishment candidate for the Dem nomination--at least--until that crowd dumps him in favor of one of their own--the not-so-independent savior of Joe Lieberman--Billion Dollar Mike Bloomberg.

If Hillary Clinton wants to get the change issue back in her favor might I suggest that she point out the obvious on this account--as she did in 1998 when she angered a corrupt, complicit Establishment media by denouncing a vast right-wing conspiracy out to wreck the Bill Clinton presidency.

Given that the Establishment pundits like Broder who gush over Obama gush even more over Bloomberg it seems fair to ask whether Obama is not really a stalking horse for Billion Dollar Mike Bloomberg. Fascism with a Billion Dollar Face, anyone?

Anne9,

So maybe Mr. Obama is guilty of dereliction of duty.

Ronald Reagan was no intellectual star but he helped change the world.

Do you think Mahatma Gandhi was beyond reproach and perfect. He also helped change the world.

Maybe Mr. Obama deserves a go at it because he stands for more than expeditious
clerical efficiency.

This women makes me ill. Today she claimed she was never the front runner in Iowa. Fact check: She was leading for more than 4 months from Aug to Nov mostly in double digits.

i am from iowa. i did not attend a caucas. Due to the time limit the caucases are held...there are many who are unable to attend. Most of the people who switched...will switch again. I agree...many where wrapped up in the media hype. Senator Obama is a dynamic speaker..but remember...to change anything you must also have the cooperation of the senate and the congress. I havent heard one thing from him on how he intends to change them. So far, he hasnt even kept his committment to the people he represents from Illinois. He has missed votes while campaigning that others who were campaigning did not. He voted postive on every resolution to fund and support the war. He never held a meeting for a sub committee for which he is chairman. That is the sub committee of European Foreign Policy which includes the country of Afganistan. He stated he was so interested in that particular country...but fails to call a meeting? He voted ..."present" ...on a bill to restrict porn shops to a certain distance from schools. He was the only one who voted that way in the Illinois Senate. That doesnt seem like such a difficult decision to make.....considering how many sexual preditators we have in this country. I wonder why none of this information is forth coming out of the press. I think they are scared of bringing these things up....afraid of being called racists. So ...therefore...he continues to slide by. It is no secret...that the press has been very difficult on Senator Clinton. I am especially identifying Chris Matthews. I sometimes wonder what she ever did to him. Some of it is way over the line...and slides into darn outright rudeness. I quess he likes conflict to recieve ratings on his show...but has fed into the media misconceptions about many things. Electing a President isnt electing a prom king or queen. We ..the people...need to know the information about these people. The press appears more interested in a popularity contest..again to boost their ratings. What a diservice to our country and those who run for office.

Ms Clinton is on high spin cycle claiming the Iowa caucus system was flawed. I wonder how the good people of Iowa feel about that comment.

Yes, Mrs. Clinton is fully in command of her own belief, as she believes in her right to violate to any degree ANY laws when this violations serve her own personal interests. She also is serving NOBODY else but herself, as the political and public figure. Always was, is, and will be!

I don't like any of the top three Democratic candidates. They would increase military spending and continue America's meddling into other nation's affairs. But I have to admit that it was sweet to see Clinton in 3rd place.

Is Waco the rsolution? Or maybe the Oklahoma bombing was the resolution? Come one, roseslrosn.., you picked up the very wrong person. mrs. Clinton has the "experience" of the serving only herself, and violating all kind of laws in the process. Her experience oif the blood of many fellow-citizens on her hands. And that is also her 'solutions" to practically all questions. Obama in 2008. It is enough of the old and muderous dirt concentrated in Mrs. Clinton's experience!

With all due respect to those who have commented...Senator Clinton does not appear to be a cold person to me.....she is very much in command of herself and her beliefs...those of us who are not may be threatened by someone who is....She addresses the issues with knowledge and with resolution....I am for her ...She will be our next president.

I think Iowans were voting for an open nominating process, not for or against any candidtate in particular. Having 2nd teir candidates throw their support to Obama kept the process open, for a while, at least.

People want change, starting with how the nominee is chosen. We don't want party operatives and pundits telling us who will run. The Iowa results could play out in every other primary a close three way race, indicating that no one in the feild is supported by a true majority, only a plurality. Could mean a brokered convention. Perhaps its best for America to have the selection process take until next August to be decided. a lot can happoen by then in the world.

I think this discussion is moot because I don't see Busholini and Darth Cheney leaving office at the end of their term. I think they'd rather declare a National Emergency and Martial law and cancel elections. Color me cynical.

I think Iowans were voting for an open nominating process... not for or against any particular candidate. Voters want change allright, particularly in how the candidate is chosen.

Having 2nd tier candidates throw their support to Obama did that. It kept the process open, for a while. No one wants an inevitable canididate chosen by the party operatives and or pundits. If Hillary is nominated, it's better if it is because she was chosen by the people.

May the best candidate win, but I preferred Dodd or Biden. Really, I wantesd Russ Feingold to run. he is the only Democrat wh

I think Iowans were voting for an open nominating process... not for or against any particular candidate. Voters want change allright, particularly in how the candidate is chosen.

Having 2nd tier candidates throw their support to Obama did that. It kept the process open, for a while. No one wants an inevitable canididate chosen by the party operatives and or pundits. If Hillary is nominated, it's better if it is because she was chosen by the people.

May the best candidate win, but I preferred Dodd or Biden. Really, I wantesd Russ Feingold to run. he is the only Democrat wh

I think Iowans were voting for an open nominating process... not for or against any particular candidate. Voters want change allright, particularly in how the candidate is chosen.

Having 2nd tier candidates throw their support to Obama did that. It kept the process open, for a while. No one wants an inevitable canididate chosen by the party operatives and or pundits. If Hillary is nominated, it's better if it is because she was chosen by the people.

May the best candidate win, but I preferred Dodd or Biden. Really, I wantesd Russ Feingold to run. he is the only Democrat wh

Judy McKinn above said: "I am not a racist, and it does not bother me at all that Obama is half black. But..."

There is a rule of thumb that says anything you say after the "but" makes you question what was said before it. In other words... if Judy really only "scared" about Obama youth, she would have said so, straight up, no preface needed.

I think Iowa told the nation last night that if a state with only 2.3% African-American and about 3.5% Hispanic populations could look at a candidate for the "content of his character" and not the color of his skin, so can they.

As for Hillary, once again it is everyone else's fault and not hers. Iowa is wrong because they didn't choose her. The Des Moines Register Iowa poll was wrong because they did choose her. Iowa's system is flawed because it didn't choose her. If Clinton decides to go negative against Obama. she can expect a mighty backlash.

What did go incredibly right -- aside from everything in the Obama campaign -- is that the Register's EDITORIAL BOARD, that group of middle-aged women who were so easily charmed by Bill Clinton, were horribly out of touch with what Iowa voters wanted and ultimately chose. Once Again, the Register's endorsement insures a loss in the caucus. (And three cheers for J. Ann Selzer, the pollster who put together an incredibly accuracy poll of Iowa voters. Bang on!)

Democracy at work.

On to New Hampshire, on to the White House... OBAMA '08.

I think Clinton can weather the temporary setback. She will have to redefine "Change," not by saying simply I am the candidate for change, but rather by distinguishing her view of change from that of Obama's.
Both Obama and Edwards are what I call electric personalities, meaning smart articulate and communicate well with the crowds. Clinton can be charming too, there is no doubt about her star power. What she has to show is that the president's job truly requires more than an electric personality. And furthermore that she has what it takes while the others maybe truly convincing. She and she alone has the experience,the methodical thinking and staying power to back up her claim.
Iowa is only the start of a long drawn out race to establish a front runner .I would not count Clinton out before she goes through several primaries.

It's everyone's fault but yours, right Hillary?

peterdc and emancipation65...you hit the nail on the head. Could not have said it better.

Limbaugh plays parts of Obama's speech for the same reason that the rest of the GOP establishment blasts HRC: an Obama nomination is glad tidings for the Republican party.

Fictionalized people and events in all three of his works; a voting record with HUGE gaps on major issues - both in the Illinois State Legislature and in the Senate; and a complete lack of feel for what a President does - remember, Obama is the man who said he would make sure ambulances showed up on time after a terrorist attack, not a military response, not a deployment to ensure that a following strike wasn't in the works...ambulances. Obama is glitzy and he makes the 60s generation feel all warm and fuzzy about change but he will never get around the Republican nominee. A man who freely admits to cocaine use and has a Muslim name is not going to sell well in rural California, the Deep South, or any place where Democrats have made inroads.

Finally - what's the change? Please, please share with me - someone! He's the candidate of change...because his Dad was black and his Mom was white? Is that all? Change=the way he looks? Really? That's the greatest signifier?

Terry McAuliffe is enough for me to vote for someone else. This man is vial and rude and a real looser. Clinton will never take the White House with his antics in play.
He ruined the Democratic party and now how dumb of her to think that he can serve her campaign well.
He is a partisan as it gets. American will or maybe has woken up and realized that we can't take more Clintons in the White House with the kind of friends they bring to town.

Ms. Kornblut previously published potential excuses for the Iowa Hillary loss on December 13, 2007.She should reprint the article and admonish Hillary from omitting several excuses.

This column notes:

"They did not publicly concede making any mistakes in Iowa."

Of course not, Hillary is Inerrant.

"Instead they blamed the quirky caucus process.."

Kornblut called this on December 13, 2007.

"The post-game analysis by the Clinton campaign consisted mainly of claiming it hadn't mattered..."

Another Kornblut call on 12-13-2007.

"Instead she and her advisers blamed the electorate and the process, saying the Iowa system is flawed"

And Iowans are flawed also. All the little people are flawed.

Hillary is right, the voters do want change.

Change from the Clinton channel forever.

A very good column.

At this point I can only hope Barack keeps us working at it until we learn to spell his name right instead of wrong.

Hillary has been vetted, but the Republicans hold and have already quietly circulated further damaging rumors about her private life and her haughty relations with her security guards. Osama has been gentleman enough to take the high road so far, but Republicans would not be so generous.

People chose Obama. End of story.

I am just glad that the democratic turn out was so much more than the republican turn out. I hope the democratic voters stay motivated till the fall, because let us face it - any person on the democratic list is better than republican lineup. Even the two that dropped off - Dodd and Biden

http://ineerja.blogspot.com/

even w/ record turnout- HRC spun the result, complaining about all the people who were unable to vote ? then went on to say what a great thing it is for Democrats to have the record turnout after all. to many NH and SC are clear harbingers whether HRC is willing to do what is good for the Democratic party. is HRC more willing to split the party and placate her ego than drop out and unite the party ? what is wrong w/ living in the WH for 8 years as first lady, what's wrong with being a Sen from NY - what does she hope to bring to the presidency when voters don't trust her, are weary of a dynastic government- and they clearly want change, which she cannot offer for so many obvious reasons ?

So many commenters spewing complete bullsh*t on this site. Hillary lovers: get over it - you're candidate got spanked last night. The electability card will not play for Hill. Electability is actually my biggest concern about her - half the country HATES her and will not vote for her under any circumstance. Not exactly a winning electoral stategy. It's this simple - if Obama wins NH by more than 5 points, this thing is over!

Now the Obama is considered the front runner...it is my hope that the media will provide more agresssive coverage of his positions...The change philsophy is strong and exciting as a good public relations tool. Now we need speciic positions from him (and frankly from the Republican condidates) as to what he (they) will do in the way of change in programs, plans, and philosophy...Hillary and in a sense Romney) took her hits from the media..Now it is Obama ahd Huckeyee turn. I hope the media comes through...one more thing... I hope it is not going to be a 'Let Bygones be Bygonss..." ...Congress need to be held accountable for the mess....

Rush Limbaugh played several excerpts of Sen Obama's speech on his show today, then proceeded to compliment his message and his campaign.

ITS IOWA, people. I doubt most of the people in Iowa can read. The GOP wants Hillary to win, thats you need to know.

Dyck21005 is right about Obama and his votes in the Senate, which have consistently favored the interests of large corporations over those of middle-class Americans. He is not a progressive; he is a DLC "Republican lite" type; and those who are taken in by his soaring oratory need to do some homework on his actual legislative record. Will the voters of this country never learn to look at substance over style? How often must this lesson be learned?

Couple of things here Hillary made a huge mistake trying to stay above the fray with edwards and Obama. She should have came out swing from the word "go". Hillary wants to try to keep the party united for the general election...obama and edwards have no dreams of that. Hillary needs to go to scorched earth policy and forget all the Clinton haters clearly they wouldnt vote for her on a bet.

For the person who said being a first lady doesnt count..clearly you are unaware of what she was doing while she was the first lady which makes me think you are voting and you have no clue as to what the candidates past or present actions have been. The media pundits who were Bush supporters spew and you all just lap it up. Go to an unbiased site and try reading up on the candidates and their lives. Some of you might be shocked to see how stupid you sounded to people who actually bother to research the candidates.

For the Obama supporters congrads on your win. Now can any of you tell me exactly how Obama will get the 270 electorial votes needed to win the General? Oh wait you all probably thought only you will be the people voting in the election. Who ever gets the nomination will need depending on whom it is pick up at least one big red bush southern state or at least 2-3 mid western states. I suggest you all break out an electorial map and start counting. You also need to get the 1980, 1992 and 2004 maps as well. 1980 or 1984= likely states Obama MIGHT win, 1992 or 1996 Likley States Hillary can win, 2004 Edwards potential states.

Also can you Obama supporters tell me exactly how will Obama overcome the Nixon southern strategy(which by the way works)? Hey Obama Call Me! (wink). Oh wait, I know you guys thought they(republicans) would simply go away or worse discuss the issues. Hillary will be able to overcome chuavinists and jealous females...but can Obama over come subtle racism all wrapped up and disguised in the package of "States Rights"? Jimmy Carter could not and he was a better man than Obama.

Last parting thought which I hope makes u think before you let your hate overrule your thinking.....How much change can you make in the Country if you lose in the General election?

For those of you say Obama is not ready. Think about this. Harry Truman wasn't ready either. Statements made by associates in books written about him say he never really wanted the VP job. He got talked into it by FDR. He was a little like 'Mr. Smith goes to Washington', but he stepped up when it counted and probabbly was the last truly noble man we have had sit in that office since.

Do you believe Hillary Clinton can be the Comeback kid?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1435

.

Please, if you think Iowa has decided our next president, think again. Do any of you really believe Huckabee will be the Republican nominee? If so, you don't know politics. Why do you think Rudy G. stayed out of Iowa? Right-wing, religious fanatics chose Iowa's Republican winner, not mainstream Republicans. As for Clinton and Obama, New Hampshire and Super Tuesday will reveal the true winner. Clinton is correct in saying Iowa is a strange process that is not to be taken that seriously. Do any of you really know how a caucus works?? How many nominees has Iowa put forth?? Keep thinking...the answer is none. And there is a reason for that folks. Go Hill in NH.

I am always amazed that what the press says then gets attributed to candidates.

Hillary Clinton never said she was the inevitable candidate the press said that. Hillary Clinton always said she will fight for the nomination day by day and from coast to coast. But then the press and those Hillary haters never like to listen to what she actually says -but like to attribute their own thoughts to her.

I am a Hillary supporter that wants to congratulate Obama on his win in Iowa. It was impressive. However it doesn't change my feeling that Obama is not ready to be President.

But then that has never stopped us from electing someone. Look at George Bush the son. Messionic speeches aside we need to have someone who is ready to start on day one and Obama just isn't.

We have one crisis after another facing us in the world today. It takes even the brightest new President about a year to settle into office and find the bathrooms, the levers of power, set an administration and make those first year mistakes. In today's world we just don't have that year and are fortunate to have a candidate who is even more ready than a VP to take office.

No matter what you think of Hillary Clinton's actual role in foreign policy, and those that like to belittle her say it was only having Tea with the 80 leaders she met and talked to, no one can dispute her closeness to the President and her involvment in all the first year decisions that the President made.

Even the hates castigated her for that. So she does know what to avoid and what to do. She has the contacts and knowledge to put together an administration and avoid those pitfalls regarding confirmation that first term President's make. She understands what can and can't be done in the first year.

She is attacked becasue of the nuances in her speech and policy positions. But these are really a plus if you think about it honestly. They are what happens when someone learns from their mistakes and moves on. Her health care program in 1993 was one of hopes and dreams. Her health care program in 2008 is one based on reality and what can get done.

Obama, Clinton and Edwards are all progressive candidates with progressive policy positions and platforms that they want to run on. If you read them all closely you will see the major differences are in the nuances of how they are written. Those nuances are what lets you get something done. Those nuances in writing and in speech are what makes one person successful and the other just another charismatic individual with hopes and dreams.

I hope that the people of New Hampshire will take a solid look at both Obama and Clinton. Read their position papers, look at what they have actually accomplished in their lives. I think there is a real difference. And yes Obama began early to build his resume and run for office. Hillary chose to work and support her family and her husband while he ran for office. But no one in Arkansas or Washington will dispute what her influence was on his policies. She chose to take a back seat like so many other women do to their husbands and now the haters don't want to give her the credit for all she did during those years. And then she ran and won a Senate seat on her own. And was reelected and will have spent 8 years in the Senate by the time she would be innaugurated. Obama will have spent less than half that time and while Hillary had a full term and a record Obama had only a year till he began his Presidential planning. He never even held a hearing on the Sub-Committee he chaired. Ambition is a great thing but it seems we only see it as great still for a man, not a woman.

I think that above being Black- Obama is a man. And men see the world differently than women do. He can claim to be about change but he is still the macho man who keeps talking about making his way up from poor beginnings. He is a politician with all the foibles of men politicians. Trying to have things both ways by voting present 130 times on legislation- some on crucial issues. Can you imagine if Hillary did that what the haters would say- of course a woman-can't make up her mind.

We have the chance to make not only history by electing a woman- but the chance to elect the most prepared person to run for President in many years. If we as men and woman would only give her just the credit for supporting her family, working to make them a living, supporting her husband in everything he wanted to do, raising an incredible child, supporting and inviting her mother to live in her home, and all the while taking the slings and arrows of those who really hated her husband slung at her.

That is more proven strength and fortitude than most likely Obama will demonstrate in his lifetime.

It is time for real change and only a woman will make that differnce. Talk to women; white, black, latino, asian, and they will all tell you that Hillary Clinton has shown she has the strength and wisdom to lead.

Voters of New Hampshire- elect Hillary! We will all be better off for it.

We are now coming to akward place I've said has been coming for while. Hillary is going to have to make a decision that will decide the fate of her campaign. With a compressed schedule before the next contest, the only way to counter the boost that Obama will get from this is to start slinging mud. (That initail boost is the reason Iowa has been so important this year) It's a huge gamble especially for her, since she already has a reputation as a "B" word. If Obama takes the high road and doesn't engage her, it could severely hurt her in the polls. If she doesn't go negative she gambles that she already has enough in NH to win or come in a strong second. A close second place loss would keep her afloat long enough to get her to super Tuesday where her national lead in the polls might benefit her. A second big loss would cause a snowball she might not be able to recover from. Strategy is key. I am not for Hillary, but good candidates have lost the nomination in moments like this.

Hillary's experience is actually not much different from Barak's; both have served as senators. Sorry, but being first lady does not really count for much. So Hillary's claim (and her ardent supporters') that Barak is unexperienced falls flat. Step back and look at the big picture. The democrat nominee has to beat the republican nominee. Many voters will not give their vote to Hillary in a general election. With below-the-belt tactics she may be able to win, but just by a hair. That would leave us with no mandate and four years of bombast from the right. We are all tired of extreme polarization. One caucas is just one data point--but it also the beginning of a trend.

She lost and like most in the political class blamed everyone else. The problem Clinton has is about half the country really dislikes her, including women. If experience counted, Al Gore and Bob Dole would have been president. People like Bill, they apparently don't like her as much. She's not out of it yet, but losses in NH and S Carolina will probably eliminate her. The democrats will be happy but the Republicans won't. The center always wins in national elections. This time we may have a very liberal democrat and a right wing republican in November to choose from. There just won't be a Clinton or a Bush and that's probably OK with most people.

So will Bill and Hillary make the same mistake and go negative again on Obama? That is the rumor. And it just makes people mad to see them so vindictive. Sour losers they will become if they start doing it again. Obama has proven that people will vote for a black man. He has proven that independents will support him in high numbers. He has also proven that young people will turn out if they have a candidate that inspires them. Obama has the vision, and he will bring in the talent from everywhere to advise him. Most important, he has the judgement to make wise decisions and the political skill to get things done. He, not Clinton or Edwards, will forge the working majority to get the nation's problems solved.

I know Bill desperately wants Hillary to win and become President. When the cat become busy, the mouse can play.

Please, Hillary, you and Billy and Marc Rich just go away. Leave us Democrats alone, we don't need you or want you. We don't need another warmonger in the White House.

How credible can be Hillary's denial that the coming onslaught of SwiftBoat smears will proceed at her behest?

Hillary's negatives stem back to her position on the House Judicial Committee staff that was responsible for impeaching Nixon. It will never be forgotten, or forgiven, even if it isn't spoken. In particular, she is blamed by Jerome Zeifman, the then House Judiciary Committee's chief counsel for withholding information that could have exonerated Nixon. Specifically, she was in charge of researching the wrongs committed by other Presidents to establish precedent, did Nixon's actions exceed those of other presidents to establish a basis for an offense worthy of impeachment. Research into Kennedy and others did indeed show that other presidents had committed worse infractions. Such evidence may have exonerated Nixon. But, it never reached the committee. Hillary is blamed.

This is the story anyway, and I have no means to disprove it. True or not, it will feed into people's desires to inflict revenge, and I believe it is the underlying reason for the Republican hunt for any impeachable offense.

Personally, I find Hillary very offensive. I was a supporter, based on their White House years. His administration invested in technology and cut the budget deficit to build a sound economy. The world was in relative peace.

But, Hillary is not Bill. After researching, I have learned that she isn't hesitant to use the military and that her staff would turn to her to strengthen Bill's resolve. We see this reflected in her war votes today that are tougher than some Republicans, and sometimes she pushes harder than Bush. I want a president who IS hesitant to use the military, but strong enough to do so when necessary. I don't think Hillary knows how to be hesitant.

Hillary's campaign strategy finally pushed me to Obama. At the slightest attack, she was not able to counter with intelligence, wit, and a good explanation. Instead she attacked. First, she tried naive and inexperienced. She used sexism (picking on the woman, vote for the women, Bill save me); then she called Obama every name she could think of (naive, inexperienced, coward, criminal, drug dealer, terrorist). That backfired with intense reaction on the web. In the end, she had to put out a likability tour to tell people she really wasn't mean (but actions speak louder than words), and she copied Obama's campaign by changing positions (now she will talk to foreign leaders without preconditions), copying his style, and even adopting his rhetoric.

Hillary was winning in Iowa until she went on the negative spin. I'm not sure what people in Iowa thought, they get a closer personal look at the candidates, where as I'm limited to the web (no tv). For me, she lost my vote when she went negative.

Having compared her experience to Obama's, I am an avid Obama supporter.

OK, Hillary. They got what they wanted. They beat you in the "good old boys" forum.
But, that was yesterday. Roll up your sleeves, look at areas that you have not previously taken seriously and get going. We have an election to win, and we HAVE to take a slightly different path to victory. The future of our country is at stake and YOU are the person we need to lead us. How do we win? By learning every single lesson that was sent to us through the Iowa caucuses.
Do not sucuumb to playing by the "rules of the game" written by previous polititians. In case you may not have noticed, they are all men. To win, leaders have to make up the rules as needed to win. You have no one, not even Bill, to follow. Let's get going on the election road to the Presidency. You CAN do it!!!

Record turnout is the key here. People really want a change and HRC is more of the same status quo. The middle class is rising up and that's not good for the old pols Dem or Republican. New ideas need new people.

I am not a racist, and it does not bother me at all that Obama is half black. But what DOES scare the heck out of me is that he is a young, inexperienced, 1 term (actually 1 year before he ran for president) US senator. He can talk a great talk, but I think he will be incredibly weak on walking the walk. He seems weak on his voting, easily swayed, etc. I am afraid that voters are so afraid the world will look at us as "racist" if he doesn't get elected, so are going to vote in a weak, inexperienced man. I truly think we need Hillary. I hope this can turn around.

Hillary has nothing going for her: though on the Watergate Committee staff, Nixon died of natural causes rather than the hangman's noose he deserved for Dealey Plaza (what good did she do us...or Fred Thompson? Complicit, or just not bright?). She was a beard duping us into voting for what, despite the press, we allowed ourselves to think was a legitimate husband. The Senate seat from the State of Pocantico Hills was the payoff thanks to Winthrop's nose on Bill.

It's clear that the caucus system skews left compared to a primary; the smaller number of party members voting skews towards the harder-core activist-types, whose influence is further increased by the non-secret votes. (It's harder to put up your hand when your friend is glaring at you.) Iowa is also unusually non-urban compared to most states, so voters respond differently to the issues. It is also clear that the media has so far given Sen. Obama a pass on some of the electability questions that would come up in a general election. Super Tuesday is still the real test.

This is essentially a two-candidate race now. A two-candidate debate would be interesting, though not likely to happen.

If 7,000 people in Iowa had changed their minds, would things really be so different? Our political discourse has become particularly vapid lately.

"On to New Hampshire?" Lotsa luck for Ms. Inevitable, Hairdo Harry and B.O.; O'Reilly's going to be waiting for them there. Let's hope he opens fire on the Repubs, too, particularly Herr Rudy, "Mr. 9/11," someone he usually softballs.

How could Clinton team regroup in NH? She voted pro Iraqi war, didn't she? She practically voted to start Iran bombing, didn't she? She is hated by so many, including or starting with her own husband. She has NO CHANCE TO WIN PRESIDENCY, even if by some idiotic mistake she would come first in NH, which, I-personally think, would not happen. Edwards has no chance to win NH, Obama has the overwhelming chance to do it, and he would win. Clinton was trying to scrutinize Obama and to pour dirt on him, but it didn't work. Now she tries again. Who would be the next victim in her campaign team to be fired for this second attempt?

With great concern, I recall the same kind of undiscerning mass hysteria that we see now in some sectors associated with the rise of Barak Obama, back in 2000 when George W. Bush came out of nowhere and was propped up as the next president. I wish people would slow down a little and really look at what is going on here. Despite his oratory skills and the media having created him as its next "newsworthy" darling, when the next president of the U.S. sits down at the desk, it is going to be another disaster if Barak Obama is sitting there. Barak Obama is simply not prepared to lead the free world. Think people, think! We simply cannot afford to set up another president who is participating in on-the-job-training.

CTSKINSFAN2, who are all the "little people" that Mrs. Clinton crushed in her drive to the political summit over the years?

Rather than blaming the Iowa Caucus process, the electorate and the huge turnout, Hilary, Bill Clinton and their chief strategists need to take a hard look at how they ran their race.

For example, was it really reasonable to expect voters to believe that, based on 8 years as First Lady, Hilary has 8 years of experience in domestic, economic, energy, foreign, and tax policy and is prepared to hit the ground running, if she is elected President of the United States?

The voters in Iowa said no and I agree. And, just as important, given the time that her husband, former President, Bill Clinton, spent in Iowa, campaigning on her behalf, who is really running for President here, Bill or Hilary?

The campaign needs to assess the impact of having a former President, who left office on the heels of the Monica Lewinsky scandal and a failed impeachment, talking, in general terms, about his wife's great experience, without providing details on her role in the major decisions of his 8 years in office.

For Hilary, the experience dog didn't hunt in Iowa and I don't think it's going to hunt in New Hampshire, South Carolina or Nevada.

Obama won in Iowa because, after 8 years of probably the worse President in the history of these United States, Iowans want change and they want it badly.

After winning Iowa, Obama will be perceived as the front runner and be subjected to the same kind of scrutiny and attacks that Hilary Clinton had to withstand.

As an Obama supporter, I am anxious to see how my candidate and his record in the Illinois State Senate and the U.S. Senate, on the key issues,will withstand the attacks and scrutiny of Hilary Clinton, John Edwards, and the media.

If Obama is the really the candidate of change that he claims to be, and I believe he is, his record should reflect that very clearly.

Clinton and George Bush are in lockstep -- arrogance over all, anything amiss is someone else's fault. In this case, her strategy, her non-answers, her third-place finish, all were mistakes of Iowans.

The only one who will believe the cHillary Clinton spin (it's everyone's fault but mine) is the candidate herself. The reason Herself got whomped in Iowa is that her glaring character flaws--ice block personality, polecat-fierce meanness, plodding (or is that plotting?)nature and dirigible-sized ambition (full of hot air, no ideas)--make her equally unattractive as a presidential candidate. The people of Iowa took a good look and said, "No way!" This is a victory for all the "little people" Mrs. Clinton has crushed in her drive to the political summit over the years. It appears now that the scary candidate of inevitability is a loser.

I was a Hillary supporter and I do think she has received a very aggressive review by the press, especially by Washington insiders. I can't think of anything that she has done in her career that should make her negatives be so high. She's basically a decent and caring and hardworking human being. I think it partly comes down to delivery, she seems cold or disconnected to the average person. However, Barak Obama is an amazing speaker, he inspires. And I think this is a watershed moment for American politics and something great is about to happen. Americans are ready to turn the page on the negative politics as usual. That means leaving the years of Clintons and Bush behind. It appears their time in the spotlight has dimmed. My only fear in believing in Obama is that there will a nut case out there with a loaded gun and wanting to make a name for themselves. But as Obama stated last night, we must hope and not fear. I for one am ready for a change, I'm ready for a government that works for all people not just a few. I'm not one to think that only "seasoned" politicians or governors or senators deserve to be eligible for the President's office. I think an individual who can demonstrate they are an agent of change and can motivate a nation and it's people is a unique talent. Unpresidented numbers of people turned out and voted last night, and Obama won because he demonstrated to the public that he is ready to lead.

Penn crosses the border between spin and plain deception, take this quote:

- The caucus has "rarely picked the nominee," Penn said a little later. "The last time it picked the president it was 1976. And in 1976 'uncommitted' won." -

There have been only two democratic presidents since the caucus became the first in the nation in 1972: Carter who became president in 1976 and won it, and Clinton who did not contest the caucus since it featured a favorite son candidate. 1 out of 2, Thats 50%.

If you look purely at the nominee however: in 1976, 1980, 1984, 1996, 2000 and 2004 the Iowa winner went on to become the democratic nominee. That is 6 out of 9! Not exactly rarely.

dyck21005 - are you serious? First of all, you copy and paste Clinton talking points. At least be original. And when did Obama play the race card? I don't remember Obama saying "I'm your black man". Hillary did say "I'm your girl". Do you think playing the gender card will work? It didn't in Iowa, Obama won the women vote.

So you blame the people you hope will vote for you in the future election? What, are you people that arrogant to think that states such as Iowa do not count? You did not like the democratic system they use? Get back to Arkansas and stay there, you were never from NY, and if the people of that state ever wake up to the fact, they also will not vote for you.

All that means Obama goes into this state's compressed contest with a target on his back a situation he has managed to avoid due to media bias against Clinton. "Obama, through an unprecedented convergence of luck has never before faced serious attack yet, now he's earned the right to be mercilessly scrubbed and scrutinized. Will show he is something of a phony, someone whose lofty rhetoric isn't born out in his own public record. His lack of foreign policy experience and showing he isn't ready to lead in a dangerous world. His votes in the Senate to fund the Iraq war even as he tried to position himself as the strongest anti-war candidate will finally come into play nationally; facts show he always supports the war, voted twice in 2006 against bringing America's troops back home. Votes for war appropriations giving our money to Halliburton and Blackwater. Voted with Bush on posturing S 433 which allows the Bush Admin to suspend any troop withdrawal! keeps our troops in Iraq for a long time to come? Record also shows Obama faced with tough choices always gave in to pressure from Bush admin and corporate lobbyists. Obama voted for Bush's energy bill, sending more than $13 billion in subsidies and tax breaks to oil, coal, and nuclear companies. Obama voted with Republicans to allow credit card companies to raise interest rates over 30 percent, increasing hardship for families. "He talks about change but has no real record of making change. Lastly his use of the race card will not play well nationally...

hillery who?...hillery the inevitable....loser....as in 'has been' or 'never was' and 'never will be'.

It didn't take long for Hillary to pick up the "C" word after the beating she took.

It didn't take long for Hillary to pick up the "C" word after the beating she took.

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.