maybe so -- but it was expected. Call it the Oprah effect!

Essentially Hillary's only shot was to met mor of the aged population (65+) which is her core support. Obama's goal was to get the youger crowd out and he succeeded.

It has changed a bit but I worked on the '88 Campaign in Iowa and spent several cold miserable months knocking on doors, attending town hall meetings, etc.... Those were the days before Al Gore invented the information super highway, so no internet campaigning. Sadly my candidate lost (came in 3rd) and not too long after NH and SC he dropped out.

I'm voting for Obama, but neither he nor Hillary have a chance in hell at beating the Republicans. America is not going to elect a woman, and it sure as hell won't elect a guy named Obama.

Girl power

1988? Third place? Dropped out?

I'm going to guess (if a Democrat) Paul Simon or Bruce Babbitt; if a Republican, I'd guess Jack Kemp.

The Quarterback!

2004 - Kerry
2000 - Gore, Bush
1996 - Dole

But you are right. I still hold Clinton, who has the party establishment behind her, as favourite.

Gotcha.

Exactly -- and look only one of these candidates went on to win the general election.

I am not sure who is the favorite -- it comes down to $ and organizaton.

Actually I was being optimistic. I think he came in 4th. And you know the mantra -- if you cant escape Iowas 1, 2 or 3 -- your toast

It may have been 4th. I would guess that Dole won. Robertson, I know, finished ahead of Bush Sr., who probably beat Kemp.

I believe that is correct. I was there and a part of it and cant even remember LOL I must be getting old!

TIS:
Thanks for your interest. The primary/caucus process is a very interesting process. Unfortunately, many Iowans don't know how the democratic caucus functions (the GOP one is simple), and therefore I think their attendance mixed with their ignorance is counter-productive. It's as JFK said, "The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all."

Basically when you arrive, you sign in as a blank supporter (I filled in the bubble for Joe Biden). You want to show up early, so you can get more supporters and look like you have support. They don't allow anybody else to sign in after 7, when it begins. Then you form your preference group, and who ever is in charge counts up the numbers. If your group doesn't have at least 15% to be viable, you have 30 minutes to get people to join you. This is where the people from Iowa are stupid. My cousin Joshua is a firefighter, he caucused for Dodd. Dodd, in his precinct, needed one more person to be viable. He saw Edwards had many people, so many to where he was viable and had delegates. If Edwards would have lost one person, it would NOT have affected him. So Josh (being precinct captain), asked the Edwards group for one person. The Edwards people were being stubborn, and didn't leave their candidate, thus Dodd was not viable, and his supporters had to disperse so it appeared he had NO support.

It's just horse shit really! It pisses me off because the national news media plays it up like the primary process starts in Iowa because we're so elite and wiser than other states' voters. I'm thinking if that were true, we'd at least know how our own caucus process works.

The reason the caucus starts in Iowa is because Iowa's lobbied for it for years (since it began in 1972, I believe). The reason the media and the state will claim it starts here is because our state is a swing state. We have a democrat and republican in the senate (Chuck Grassley and Tom Harkin), we have 3 democrats and 2 republicans in the house. Plus we're considered "common people" out in the heart land, not the New England intellectuals, Hollywood liberals, or southern "values voters". I'm not denying this fact, I'm just saying I think money speaks louder than anything.

Thanks for all the info Tony Love. I am learning.

I don't suppose anyone else is geeky enough and watched both the Republican and Democrat debates????

TIS

Yes I am geeky enough to have watched the Rep and Dem debates live Sat and the rerun on Sun!

Just to add to some observations and comments....Friday, Imus had Tim Russert on his radio shows commenting on the caucuses...in brief the cry for change, the Christian conservatives and the young vote were the big factors. Hillary, McCain, et al are seen as the old political machine. Obama is appealing to the young voters and to women (more than Hillary as previously stated). Iowa is more about social change where New Hampshire will be more about economics, so Obama and Huck will slip there.

Regarding change, I remember back in '76. The country had gotten over the Nixon years with Ford providing stability, but the country still wanted change, thus Jimmy Carter was elected. The same could happen with Obama. The demographics of America have changed. It should be interesting.

Doesnt look that way for Obama Mary. He is on fire. The change mantra is nothing new. JFK, Carter, Reagan and Clinton have all ridden it to the White House.RFK rode it to his grave. What is surrising is that for all their poliical savvy the Clintons didn't pick up on this. Maybe they are old and out of touch.

Of course who knows what will really happen, and I may be proven wrong. However, for a long long time now, I have never thought Hillary would be President. I still maintain that's the case. After listening to speeches, reading articles, blogs, etc. I still say there will be surprises. Obama IMHO could very well be that surpise that seemed to come out of the blue. I tend to agree with DT here.

Just as with MacCain being currently in the lead on the Republican side, I am still have my doubts that he'll make it, thinking perhaps Romney or even the longshot Huckabee might win.

I do think this is probably one of the most important election in my lifetime and think this particular time that the polls may be way off in the end. At any rate, it'll be very very interesting for those of us closely following this race.

On a sidenote, I saw this Obama "swift boating" (by kids) and had to search to make sure that it was a joke and thankfully it is. If you care to browse it has these same kids "swiftboating" all the candidates. Pretty sad really when you think how gullible people can be. But I think they all still will get down and dirty.

TIS


Kids Swiftboat

You mean the same Christian conservatives who wanted change by electing George W. Bush?

Remember when he was touted as the "Sheperd"?

Then one of his former aides came out with a book, a sincerely serious Christian, who claimed that Bush's clique at the White House mocked the "sheep" that is their Evangelical support.

Remember DIE HARD and its sequel DIE HARD 2: DIE HARDER?

Well I'm sorry, but Huckabee is BUSH HARDER, a sequel I don't want.

That said, better him than Romney. What a fucking douchebag.

Edwards 08

Wow the pundits and pollsters were really dead on with the Dems.

I guess Hillary's fake tears worked huh?

Looks like they did.

We watch these politicians on TV. We don't meet them. We don't know them. Therefore, how in God's name can anyone seriously contend that they can accurately evaluate anything about them except their words?

That's what is appealing about Iowa and New Hampshire because the pols have to meet just about everyone in those states. I think the worst thing that's happened to the system (other than the complete corruption of it by moneyed interests, and the rigging of elections) is the rise of the political consultants.
I wish I had a dime for every politician who apears to be a total phony on television who is said to be bright, funny and charming in person. Maybe if these people acted like themselves we would get a better picture of who we are dealing with.

Those Clintons have more lives than a roomful of cats. This may be an exciting campaign.

The media is so laughable. They were absolutely trashing Clinton, essentially burying her. Obama was the Golden Boy. Now, with this win, Hillary is the "come-back" kid and Obama the big loser (at what a 3 point difference?). How many more primaries are left? 48 (each state holds a caucus or primary no?)

Anyway, it sure will make for an exciting race on both sides. The media likes to give the impression that it's over with Hillary and McCain, but I think it's way too early to tell.

TIS

US politics are very confusing but very exciting....

It's the very reason I hate the media.

You know what?? Hillary is said to be robotic and unemotional. Then she shows some emotion, and she's called either unstable or a faker. There is a long campaign ahead for many of these candidates, and everyone should remember that, especially the candidates!

Both Clinton and Bush lost New Hampshire in '92 and '00, respectively