Obama Wins in Iowa: A Historic Day for America

  • News
  • Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date
  • #1

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
8,063
1,438
Obama wins!

IMO the best candidate by far, a black man named Hussein Obama wins in Iowa.

This is a historic day in America. Maybe there is hope after all.
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
As long as Clinton loses, I'm happy.
 
  • #3
With 90% of precincts reporting, Edwards is 9 votes ahead of Clinton.

Interestingly in Iowa there are: 2,054,843 total registered voters -- 31% Democratic, 30% Republican, 39% Independent - so there is a reasonable chance for a 3rd party/independent to run.

Immigration and Iraq are apparently two key issues.
 
  • #4
Where are you getting these results, I can't find them on the news anywhere!
 
  • #6
I wonder if Obama-Edwards would work better than Kerry-Edwards?

Huckabee and ?

or

Romney and ?

I wonder if Thompson will pull back to third, or will he stay in.
 
  • #7
Ivan Seeking said:
IMO the best candidate by far, a black man named Hussein Obama wins in Iowa.

This is a historic day in America. Maybe there is hope after all.

A white man named Obama wins.
 
  • #8
animalcroc said:
A white man named Obama wins.

Not black enough for you? :rofl:

Deny deny deny!

A black man won in what is often called the whitest state in the union.
 
  • #9
Historic, indeed!

I've been reading this forum for a while, and I'm happy to make my first post about Obama.

He can unite the country, I believe, and we haven't seen that in...what, two, three generations? Isn't everyone sick and tired of all of the animosity? We have to get out of the red-blue mentality.
 
  • #10
The problem, as I see it, is even if he can win the Democratic platform, do you think he'd have enough support within America as a whole to win the Presidency? Sadly, realistically, I think not.
 
  • #11
I think it has already been shown otherwise, but let's see how he does in New Hampshire. If he can win in the NE and Iowa, he can win anywhere. What's more, he pulled more women voters than Hillary!

Just a reminder: My red-neck, racist, corn farming cousin in Illinois, whom I've never once heard utter a nice or even respectable word about black people, likes Obama! From my point of view, this is about as hard of a sell as one can find. And considering that something like 40% of all voters have said thay they would never vote for Hillary, it may well be that racism will be less a factor than Hillary's high negatives.

ps. I need to check that number but I think that's correct.

I just noticed also that if last night had been a general election, with nearly twice as many Dems turning out than Reps, Obama would have slaughtered Chuckybee.

Late edit: Here is a poll from October

While she is winning wide support in nationwide samples among Democrats in the race for their party’s presidential nomination, half of likely voters nationwide said they would never vote for New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, a new Zogby Interactive poll shows.
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1376
 
Last edited:
  • #12
lisab said:
I've been reading this forum for a while, and I'm happy to make my first post about Obama.

He can unite the country, I believe, and we haven't seen that in...what, two, three generations? Isn't everyone sick and tired of all of the animosity? We have to get out of the red-blue mentality.

Welcome to the cage.

You are on the blue team. :biggrin:
 
  • #13
Ivan Seeking said:
What's more, he pulled more women voters than Hillary!

them silly womens, they'll vote for hillary because she a womens too

As long as Clinton loses, I'm happy.
Yeah, that ***** and her um policies. Can you even name 3 things she believes?
 
  • #14
One of the best arguments I've heard for Obama is: for two decades it's been Bush - Clinton - Bush. Do you want to make that Bush - Clinton - Bush - Clinton for maybe almost thirty years? (I guess that's essentially an argument for Edwards too.) Too much entrenchment - they'll get brittle bones and start to rot.

People say to me, "But Hilary's got so much experience!"

And I say, "Then she'll make a really great advisor. And Bill too." (Obama said that himself at some point, didn't he?)

And they say, "But it's not the same, she's been in the White House!"

So maybe, maybe she's had some kind of experience that Obama or Edwards just wouldn't be able to tap through an advisor. But along with Bill's experience comes Bill's political ties and debts.

In reality, I wouldn't mind her getting elected. But the carpetbagging thing in New York I found kind of unethical, and she admitted she was doing it herself and even flaunted it once she was sure it wouldn't cost too much politically. Between that, shady-looking things that came out during WhiteWater, and the inevitable IOUs that must still be lying around after the Bill Clinton presidency, she's looking too establishment for me to be totally comfortable with her.

But one big gold star on Obama is that he never supported the war. With a Marine brother just back from his 1st tour in Iraq that matters.

Obama not able to win nationally? I'm not seeing it, he hasn't done that badly in national polls has he? Even if so - I can accept that. I have not-infrequently voted for guys I wasn't sure would win, in both the primary and general election. He seems like the kinda guy I'll be proud to have voted for even if he didn't win.
 
  • #15
CaptainQuasar said:
But one big gold star on Obama is that he never supported the war. With a Marine brother just back from his 1st tour in Iraq that matters.

Very true. IIRC, he made a pretty bang on prediction of there being a long-term and very costly occupation following an invasion, and that's exactly what happened.
 
  • #16
Evo said:
The problem, as I see it, is even if he can win the Democratic platform, do you think he'd have enough support within America as a whole to win the Presidency? Sadly, realistically, I think not.
I spent a number of years doing consulting work in the deep south, and I have a hard time imagining that either Obama or Clinton could make a respectable showing there. The rednecks seemed to hate Bill Clinton with a passion that I could not fathom, and they will not vote for Hillary either. Obama is not going to have any easier time in the south, especially since in the last two elections, the Republicans have found a handy way to disenfranchise black voters. They pull up the names and addresses of registered black voters (voters in predominantly black areas) and send them notices by mail that requires a signature. If the person is not currently at the address under which they last registered to vote, and the mail is returned, the Republicans forward the voter's name to the registrar to be dropped from the list of registered voters. The citizen shows up to vote, only to be told that he/she is not a registered voter, and must re-register. In some cases, they might be able to re-register and vote, but in many locations, you cannot register on election day. These lists of likely Democratic voters are called "caging lists" and they have been used very effectively to disenfranchise many black voters, including many who are deployed to Iraq/Afghanistan and cannot sign for the mail that was sent to them because they are half-way around the world. In some cases, these voters still cast absentee ballots, but their ballots are "provisional", which means that they may well be disregarded.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caging_list
http://www.larouchepac.com/pages/breaking_news/2007/06/01/conyers_rove.asp [Broken]
http://www.gnn.tv/articles/3078/Do_Rove_s_Missing_Emails_Prove_Illegal_Caging
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #17
The debate is not yet over, but Obama has won me over 110%. Hillary was composed and on track, but Obama speaking without his hokey Evangelistic style showed an intelligent side to him.
 
  • #18
Evo said:
...but Obama speaking without his hokey Evangelistic style showed an intelligent side to him.
He uses that mainly in the south. It would be a bad idea to come off that way in front of a largely New England audience.
 
  • #19
Evo said:
The debate is not yet over, but Obama has won me over 110%.

WOW!
 
  • #20
Gokul43201 said:
He uses that mainly in the south. It would be a bad idea to come off that way in front of a largely New England audience.
The fact that he is so direct, composed and literate in front of a normal audience speaks volumes for him. That is not something that can be coached. This guy is intelligent.
 
  • #21
Evo said:
The fact that he is so direct, composed and literate in front of a normal audience speaks volumes for him. That is not something that can be coached. This guy is intelligent.

If he can get you and I to agree, then he really is a uniter!
 
  • #22
He is now at 125%. He's an intelligent speaker. He writes notes as his opponents speak and he speaks off the cuff to them. This is something I watch for carefully in a debate.
 
  • #23
Evo said:
The debate is not yet over, but Obama has won me over 110%. Hillary was composed and on track, but Obama speaking without his hokey Evangelistic style showed an intelligent side to him.

Aw come on, all good orators use soaring prose and dramatic pauses, not just religious orators. Something I've found notable about Obama is that he does not sound almost exactly like Martin Luther King, who most black American orators like Maya Angelou or Al Sharpton sound like to me. (Is that racist to say? I'm not sure. Heck, I'm probably going to vote for a black president, I hope that makes up for it.)

Hillary really annoyed me tonight in the way that she kept trying to pretend that when Obama or Edwards talk about "change" she has no idea that they're talking about being establishment and politically connected. Especially that point where she started waving her arms and yelling at Edwards; when she's responding to a point about change by talking about all the good or charitable stuff she's done it sounds to me like "I deserve to be president! So there!"

I think that Edwards "won" the Democratic debate. And despite all the arm-waving I think Hillary actually looks more presidential than Obama, as far as being regal and poised and dignified. But I still like Obama. And it was really cool when they had all the Democratic candidates come out while the Republican candidates were still on stage, it was like a cross-over in a comic book or TV show, like the CSI - Without a Trace cross-over episodes. :biggrin:
 
Last edited:
  • #24
Evo said:
He is now at 125%. He's an intelligent speaker. He writes notes as his opponents speak and he speaks off the cuff to them. This is something I watch for carefully in a debate.

Tsu and I seem to both arrive at the same conclusion: Yes, he lacks experience, but are we willing to bet that he is smart enough to compensate for that; for example, by surrounding himself with the right people and knowing how to get to the core of an issue? IMO, intellect and character will take care of the rest. And he certainly has the flair of a great orator, which is tremendously valuable. But he does also speak directly and with great clarity. He can also be quite insightful. If he said nothing of interest, no amount speaking talent would matter. Given that he is capable, to me the most important thing is whether he cares about the same issues that I do, in the way that I do.

The fact that he taught Constitutional Law is a huge plus as well.
 
Last edited:
  • #25
Obama is well-spoken, intelligent, and poised. I believe that he would do a better job than Clinton, and I believe that he is more electable than she, especially if vote-rigging can be suppressed this year (unlike the past couple of elections). He may still have tough sledding in the south, even if the elections are honest, but nationally, he should do OK. Right now, I don't see a Republican candidate that is capable of beating him, unless some independent candidate throws in and steals some of his support.
 
  • #26
turbo-1 said:
Obama is well-spoken, intelligent, and poised. I believe that he would do a better job than Clinton, and I believe that he is more electable than she, especially if vote-rigging can be suppressed this year (unlike the past couple of elections). He may still have tough sledding in the south, even if the elections are honest, but nationally, he should do OK. Right now, I don't see a Republican candidate that is capable of beating him, unless some independent candidate throws in and steals some of his support.

The biggest independent candidate is Bloomberg and the rumor mill says Obama is about the only candidate that would keep him out of the race. Bloomberg doesn't want to go down in history as playing a key role in stopping the election of the US's first black President. Interestingly, Bloomberg doesn't seem too worried about being noted in history for the role he played in stopping the US's first woman President.

Personally, I think Bloomberg would steal more from the Republican Party than the Democratic Party.
 
  • #27
turbo-1 said:
He may still have tough sledding in the south, even if the elections are honest,

Dare we hope for a black turnout? He certainly turned out the new vote in Iowa and by a huge number. Also, Obama-Edwards?

For a time I didn't think that Obama could win, but now...NOW it seems to be a whole new ball game. I could see that by any standard measure Obama was going to do very well in Iowa and probably win, but I was afraid to believe my lying eyes until he actually won.

Now it looks like he will take NH! As one commentator said this morning on This Week, Hillary's firewall is on fire! NH was supposed to be a dead lock for her.
 
Last edited:
  • #28
At what point would one expect losing candidates to drop out? If Clinton and Edwards lose in NH are they both likely to continue to Feb 5 Super Tuesday or is it more probable Edwards at least would drop out beforehand and support Obama in return for a vice-presidency ticket?
 
  • #29
Well, what with Obama's disturbing connections to Odinga in Kenya?
http://www.aina.org/news/20080106002912.htm
 
  • #30
I don't expect Edwards to officially drop out until after Super Tuesday, but from what the pundits are saying, he is effectively dead already. He spent four years in Iowa and had to win.
 
  • #31
arildno said:
Well, what with Obama's disturbing connections to Odinga in Kenya?
http://www.aina.org/news/20080106002912.htm

As nearly as I can tell, this is an angelican driven agenda. First off, they seem to want to incriminate Obama for having been a Muslim. That makes them, let's see... what's the word...zealots? I'm not sure but it came off this way to me.

Note also this quote:

And here is the biggest non-surprise: Raila Odinga has, in his own words, a "close personal friendship" with Barrack Hussein Obama Junior.

So what? Barrack and I are old army buddies. Do you believe me?

I would imagine that this is nothing but a bunch of nonsense. Obama toured the area. As far as I can tell, that is the only connection.
 
Last edited:
  • #32
Ivan Seeking said:
As nearly as I can tell, this is an angelican driven agenda.
Don't shoot the messenger.
I would imagine that this is nothing but a bunch of nonsense. Obama toured the area. As far as I can tell, that is the only connection.
Might well be.

But a politician merely "touring" is not your average tourist, you know.

At any rate, do you think that if it is proven that

a) Odinga's supporters have been upon a murder rampage

b) That Odinga is planning to endorse enforcement of sharia law

that Obama (or for that matter, any other politician) ought to distance himself from Odinga if questioned upon these matters?
 
  • #33
It's not that I'm shooting the messenger; I just don't trust the story as being accurate. I think their choice of quotes shows a clear bias. But sure; if Obama has inadvertently shown support of a murderous tyrant, then he needs to get that on the table and make his position clear. And I have no doubt that he will if required. One of the things that most impresses me about Obama is that he doesn't deny his past. He admits that he's not perfect and that he makes mistakes.

When he was attacked for his drug use in high school, the attack failed because he had already talked all about this in his first book.
 
Last edited:
  • #34
He has seemed to me to be more forthright and sincere than Ms Rodham, at least, so I have had quite some sympathy for him.
 
  • #35
arildno said:
Don't shoot the messenger.

Might well be.

But a politician merely "touring" is not your average tourist, you know.

At any rate, do you think that if it is proven that

a) Odinga's supporters have been upon a murder rampage

b) That Odinga is planning to endorse enforcement of sharia law

that Obama (or for that matter, any other politician) ought to distance himself from Odinga if questioned upon these matters?

I do not at all understand what this has to do with US election. Your link is obviously christian evangelist propaganda.

And if one person support a tribe or group which seems to be oppressed in another country, and suddenly they go on a killing spree, is that person responsible because he supported them earlier?

Another note: it actually seems like obama has an interest in his roots, and has been concerned for the situation in Kenya for a while. Isn't it positive to see someone who may become the us president
which have interest in other countries, not because of economic interests, but humanitarian causes?

Concerning sharia law, I believe most certainly that Obama is against such a system.
 

Suggested for: Obama Wins in Iowa: A Historic Day for America

Today is a special day
Replies
4
Views
456
Happy Star Wars Day
Replies
4
Views
178
Is "Umbrella" Insurance Worth it for "Average Joe" American?
Replies
7
Views
268
Is today a special day?
Replies
2
Views
582
Physics major wins US Open
Replies
10
Views
959
Is a historic speech historic if no one hears it?
Replies
3
Views
792
Karen Uhlenbeck wins Abel Prize
Replies
4
Views
1K
Incorrect Dress on Kartini's Day
Replies
1
Views
603
Today is National Beer Day in the US
Replies
2
Views
704
Neil deGrasse Tyson said that your mind should be blown once a day
Replies
4
Views
532

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top