Comments on Also in Iowa...

So basically it went down like that scene in "Wild at Heart" between Laura Dern and William Dafoe? I can see how if his hands are that deft it would win him a lot of support, but are his hands fast enough to win over a nation?

I'd let him spiccato my second position any day.

Bareback Osama is a giant QUEEFING DOUCHE BAG!

Anyone who runs soley on the color of their skin (endorsed by people like Oprah because of the color of his skin) is sending the wrong message.

He will never win the presidency Nig-Nog lovers! A vote for him = Four more years of Republicans!

New Obama campaign strategy: shake hands with every straight, female voter in the U.S.

Big Fucking Whoop. De. Doo. He's gonna crash and burn. Probably in Iowa (hard as it is to believe, those polls don't mean doodly), but even more so -gasp! - Iowa doesn't mean doodly. Ah, teenage wasteland...

I thought it was funny a few months ago when they had that mini-scandal about the Clinton campaigner who asked the (as it turns out) planted question about global warming.

People in the media were shocked that someone from Grinell would ask a question about global warming. I was shocked they had to plant somebody to ask it. Grinnel is the Iowa equivalent of Evergreen.

What I really want to know is when are they going to start making decent pantyhose again? You know, the kind that were so freaking slippery and sexy that every guy on Earth would cream his pants within two seconds of the time he touched them. I miss those days.

Obama actually managed to break the awkward silence. Gore would've just stood there, looking uncomfortable.

I've seen Gore. He's witty and personable. That stuff about him being dull is just a media narrative.

It's a damn shame that anybody would choose from among the top three for any reason other than whose politics they are "most in sync with," as Mirk admits to being with John Edwards. He has consistently demonstrated himself to be the most progressive of the big three Dems, in contrast to Obama's ethereal "change," of which we still do not know what the hell it means.

I can't take any more blathering about how progressive Edwards is. The first time he ran in the Iowa caucuses he ran right of center thinking that is where the votes would be. Most of us who have seen him in person more than a few times have grown to view him as little more than slick. So let it go, already, as after Obama wins Iowa tomorrow Edwards will be dead meat. For those who can't figure out the type of change Obama is presenting, well, you're really not paying much attention are you. And in case it slipped by you, he's the only Dem running, other than Kucinich, who opposed the war back when all the other candidates were bending over backwards to give Bush their blessing for his invasion of Iraq.
And he does have nice hands. It is a shame you won't get to touch them as they are strong, yet soft.

The 'normally friendly' security guard shows he's only waiting for an excuse to kick your ass, just like a cop.

There's no more controversy about Iowa residents who happen to be students caucusing than there's a controversy about women being able to vote.

Not true.

While I think out of state students should be allowed to caucus, they are in a grayer area than Iowa retirees with a winter home in Florida....the students don't even have a place to sleep unless their college opens up the dorm or gym.
The main thing is if they caucus in Iowa, they shouldn't caucus or vote in another state, too.

Unless they favor the candidate I like.

Mini-rant off topic, a bit:
###
I just tried to find out where my 2/9
But: No such information available.
43d District Democrats,
King County Democrats and State Democrats websites are fairly uninofrmative about the caucuses. They don't have the locations listed, don't say when they will have such locations listed, etc. The first two websites don't even have jack on caucuses on their front page. The County site refers to the State party site
http://www.wa-democrats.org/pdf/uploaded/2008%20Precinct%20Caucuses%20-%20Basic%20Explanation%20-%20Short.pdf
which has the loads of super boring details about the chain of caucusing required throughout the Spring and Summer (yawn.......), but not where in heck do we go on 2/9.

I did learn they start at 1 pm. Nice to know that.

I'd assumed it was in the morning. OK, the Democrats want me to break up my day and I will gladly cancel other plans I made for that afternoon.

It'd be nice to have all the info now, not just for me, but when I ask neighbors to go and have to tell them I don't know where they are supposed to go, it's harder for them to commit and it leaves a loose end, and a pretty bad impression.

I know it's hard to get all the sites lined up and appreciate the tons of volunteer hours involved, but really, why can't this all happen so we get more advance notice?

I have tons of events in Feb. and March already, everyone else seems to be able to plan in advance.

More advance notice = more people going.
Stuff like this is why few people go to caucuses.
###
End of rantita.

where my 2/9 Washington State caucus is going to be held

that is.

They live in Iowa. They work in Iowa. They pay Iowa taxes. They are Iowa residents.

That is the bottom line from the Iowa Democratic Party all the way to the Iowa Secretary of State.

Everything else is irrelevant.

Sigh.
Why does having a conclusion mean one must dismiss all contrary thought ?
I previously said the out of state ones should caucus in Iowa but it is a gray area. "They live in Iowa" -- except not as much as other Iowa residents with second homes in other states. The out of state sudents have another home out of state, back with the parents, with all their stuff, where they get mail, where they have a library card, to which they return during vacations. They have less of a home in Iowa compared to say, retirees with an Iowa home and a condo in Pensacola. Because the students' dorm room or frat room doesn't have a kitchen, isn't a total dwelling, and it seems often to be closed to the student during vacations, as per the link in the post.

If you need your college to especiallyopen the gym to give you a place to stay, that's less of a home than, say a building you own with its own bedrooms, kitchen, and mailbox with your name on it.

And get this: One candidate says his student supporters who are from Iowa but live on campus should not caucus at the campus location -- they should go back home ("home"!) to their parents' and caucus there because the rural areas count more than the caucus in the big college towns. But the out of state students should come back to the campus location to caucus. So, the campus "home" is --- or is not -- the residence according to....political expedience.

Pretty good proof the student residence question is in a gray area.

If you can see beyond black and white.

@9,

Whatever you say. I'm primarily going on his most recent book which is the dullest book I've ever read.

Pretty good proof the student residence question is in a gray area.

There's no gray area. _It's_ _the_ _law_ and that law is explicitly clear that they are residents of Iowa who can vote in Iowa. The Iowa Democratic Party agrees. The Iowa Secretary of State agrees. How much more clear does it have to be?

Besides, this isn't anything new; It isn't like Iowa sprouted dozen of universities in the past three years. No one complained about this in 2004. The only reason certain campaigns are trying to create FUD this year is because:

1. The caucuses are taking place during a time when many Iowa students are out of state so more effort is required to get them to caucus.

2. Students break for Obama overwhelmingly.

The staggering hypocrisy is that come November, every Democratic campaign will want these very same people to vote in Iowa.