Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Shut Up Hillary | Seattle Obama Supporters Bask ... »

Thursday, January 3, 2008

Props to the Kids

posted by on January 3 at 20:09 PM

Obama’s campaign advisor David Axelrod is giving credit where credit’s due. GOTV—and don’t you dare discount the students. Awesome.

RSS icon Comments

1

Totally awesome.
President Obama
Vice President Edwards

The day has come!

Posted by Papayas | January 3, 2008 8:14 PM
2

Listening to my Jr. Senator from Il. right now. Wonderful to listen to the 44th President of the United States.

He sounds like the President, he elevates the language and elevates the people. John Kerry was right when he said "hope is on the way" but he was just off by 4 years.

So let's elect Obama and get that damn 22nd amendment repealed. We are going to want to keep him longer than 8 years.

Posted by Cato the Younger Younger | January 3, 2008 8:16 PM
3

Yes, kids. It's YOU that has to pay back the estimated THIRTY-TWO TRILLION (yes TRILLION) that GWB squandered during his reign. You, and your kids, and their kids...

Posted by Andy Niable | January 3, 2008 8:18 PM
4
Posted by Andy Niable | January 3, 2008 8:19 PM
5

You know, i was all for edwards. then i was thinking, man, the fundies hate hrc almost as much as we hate w. so wouldn't it be nice to have her in the whitehouse where they can stress out as much as i have for the last 7+years?

Posted by soichanged | January 3, 2008 8:26 PM
6

So I'm an emotional guy, and I'll probably regret this later, and I sincerely *love* Hillary Clinton, but...

***

I have to say I am stunned and in awe of the results tonight in Iowa. If in fact the reports of 200,000+ Democratic caucus attendees is right, and that ~50% were new or independents, then I think we are seeing an historic day.

For twenty years I watched the wreckage of the Reagan and G.H.W. Bush era, followed by the lowered expectations of a competent but austere Clinton years. And my Generation X and Generation Y peers were too cool to get involved, too hardened to what they might accomplish.

Half of all Americans are younger than 38 years old, but I watched in sadness as apathy and hipster nihilism became the official stance. I became involved in politics, and then became uninvolved, as those my age failed to join in the great fights for equality, choice, and fairness. And perhaps my ears grew deaf to the sound of a hopeful note, ringing just to hear the joyous sound in the harsh cacophony all around us.

But now I feel that maybe- maybe- we may be seeing the Great Awakening where YOU all realize the power that you have always had, the power to make things right and whole in America after a long sad age.

If this wave can build then there will be no stopping it, and it will carry us through the 2008 elections to transform Washington and America- hopeful liberal progressive young Americans in command of both the Executive and Legislative branches of government, ready to make good on the promises of the enlightened age.

If you can keep it up, your candidate of hope will be up on that stand in January 2009, ready to transform America, with all of us cheering him on.

Good luck, and keep us the good work.

Posted by Big Sven | January 3, 2008 8:28 PM
7

Fucked it up on the dismount.

"Keep UP the good work."

Posted by Big Sven | January 3, 2008 8:29 PM
8

Yeah, ok I'm excited.

But I haven't gotten over that this piss ant little state Iowa has such inflated importance. My whole family comes from Iowa. Iowans are nothing special. They should get in line with everybody else.

So every time anybody wants to make a big deal out of this crap, would it be too much to ask to have a little reminder how undemocratic this system is?

Posted by elenchos | January 3, 2008 8:38 PM
9

@5-- I could agree if only for the schadenfreude, but we've already SEEN what the Xtian Taliban/HRC haters do with her in the White House for 8 years. Investigate, obfuscate, hound hound hound hound hound. Entertaining it might be, but helpful in a time we need to return from empire to republic? Not a good time...

Posted by Andy Niable | January 3, 2008 8:42 PM
10

@8 - Nothing against Iowa, but again: What the hell? Why do a handful of states, who are all so eager to be "first", get to move their caucuses as early as they want on the calendar, supposedly get to dictate the momentum of the parties' candidates for the rest of the country? Why can't there be a national caucus day, giving all the states a fair shake at choosing candidates? By the time lowly remaining states hold their caucuses, a handful of preening "me first" states have decided the whole thing, giving their favorite candidates momentum, with the help of the media. (disgruntled with the process)

Posted by underworld | January 3, 2008 8:57 PM
11

Obama 16 delegates
Clinton 15 "
Edwards 14 "

It's over.

Posted by whatever | January 3, 2008 9:10 PM
12

Hey elenchos, before you go calling the caucus system undemocratic (without any supporting argument) perhaps you should take a second to think about WHY Iowa has such an inflated importance. As my father put it, "People are sheep, they want to vote for a winner." So Obama and Huckabee come out of Iowa on top, the media shits their pants, and everybody else figures the race is already won and either votes with Iowa or stays home. It doesn't have to be that way, but this is a democracy and that's the way people act in large groups.

Posted by Brandon J. | January 3, 2008 9:11 PM
13

@10 -- Because a candidate can address a roomful of people in a different manner than he or she can address the Nation.

Posted by six shooter | January 3, 2008 9:14 PM
14

C'mon. It's only Iowa. The big stink is making my head spin and I need to head toward the fainting couch.

Posted by M | January 3, 2008 9:17 PM
15

@12

I know people are sheep. Democracy does not depend on people not being sheep. Democracy depends on treating everyone (sheep included) equally. Iowans, who are mostly sheep, should be given voting power equal to everyone else (who are also mostly sheep).

I can't believe anybody needs to hear an argument for why this piece of shit system is not democracy.

Do you want to hear the argument for why a secret ballot is better than a public ballot? I got an argument for that too -- though I assure you, it ain't new. Been argued before, like 2,500 years ago (see Greece, Ancient).

Posted by elenchos | January 3, 2008 9:21 PM
16

@10: yup -- it's all due to historical accident, that's all. Dumb.

@12: you need a boxload of "evidence" to understand why it's not democratic??

Even if the theory is to have a tiny slice of voters "vet" candidates on a retail basis, it would be fair if the states or portions of states could take turns being first.

Iowa one year (pop. 3 million), then the Bronx the next year (pop. about 3 million, too)?

Or IA/NH one year, Washington State the next?

@11 whatev:
thanks but what're those nos. and where from? why isn't HRC 2d??

Posted by unPC | January 3, 2008 9:27 PM
17

oops I mean 3d?

Posted by unPC | January 3, 2008 9:29 PM
18

Students really helped Gore, didn't they? No. They didn't. Building a political base on students is like buying your condoms at the Dollar Store.

Posted by kinaidos | January 3, 2008 9:37 PM
19

Let's put this in perspective.

Iowa is a Red State. Not Purple. Not Blue.

Dems got TWICE the number of citizens of Iowa at their caucus than did Repugs.

TWICE.

Sen Obama was the choice of more women than Sen Clinton - in all age groups.

Sen Obama was the choice of more young people than any candidate.

The MSM refused to mention Ron Paul got 10 percent of the GOP vote, more than Rudy Guiliani (who they gave airtime to) and almost as much as that Law and Order doofus who got 13 percent.

This is the 6-8 foot Blue Wave that will make the 2 foot Blue Wave of 2006 look like small potatoes.

There are no safe GOP seats. NONE.

And, that said, since I'm a bit under the weather, I shared a Victory Pizza for Obama with my son tonight, even tho I would have liked to be at the Victory Watch.

Posted by Will in Seattle | January 3, 2008 9:49 PM
20
Iowa is a Red State. Not Purple. Not Blue.

Sigh. Will, Iowa went for Gore in 2000 and barely went for Bush in 2004.

Posted by tsm | January 3, 2008 9:56 PM
21

I'm glad to see Daxid Axelrod make such a career move... his albums from the late 60s and 70s were hellafulla great breakbeats!

Posted by mackro mackro | January 3, 2008 9:57 PM
22

And am I the only one excited to see that Obama, Clinton, and Edwards are neck in neck? I don't dislike any of them.

We'll see how this plays out, but if there's more well distributed unity among the Dem candidates like this in other states' primaries and caucuses (cauci?), while the GOP winners stick out moreso and randomly on a per-state basis, do a little math given how electoral politics work vs. how single-isssue'd people are these days, and this bodes very well for having a Dem prez in 2009.

Posted by mackro mackro | January 3, 2008 10:03 PM
23

Will, yes, it's a red state, but the Dems ALWAYS get twice the turnout at the caucus. Which tells me one of two things is happening: either a lot of Repubs caucus for the Dems, or a lot of people caucus who don't vote in the general election. Neither of those options are anything for the Dems to get excited about.

Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty | January 3, 2008 10:06 PM
24

Well, if the GOP is trying to sabotage the Dem caucus -- especially this time, it's not really helping, is it? I like all three Dems, but Hillary is the most vulnerable candidate, and she didn't do so hot.

It's probably a combination of both.

(and I was kidding about the David Axelrod thing above. I know it's just a coincidence, but I was just listening to "Songs Of Experience" today, so I couldn't resist.)

Posted by mackro mackro | January 3, 2008 10:19 PM
25

I can feel your fear, Republicants.

Fear is not an American trait - we are stronger than that.

Posted by Will in Seattle | January 3, 2008 10:34 PM
26

mackro, I only just this year discovered the fabulous David Axelrod music, and I thought, wait, that name is so familiar...
I think each reflects well on the other!

Posted by Phoebe | January 4, 2008 12:04 AM
27

he made a really nice victory speech. i love the fact that a rather historical moment just passed, but i'm still not switching camps.


i'm really curious to see who biden and dodd will endorse now. has there been any news on that? i've been stuck on a plane for this whole magilla and am just getting all the news now.

Posted by kim | January 4, 2008 12:09 AM
28

4 years ago I was a huge Dean supporter, and my view was "f*ck Iowa", and the whole let-one-state-pick system, and everyone else decides "well, Democrats in Iowa think he will win in the General, so he must be electable!" and this brought us the candyass craven flip flopper with no spine and no vision, whom I did eventually vote for, while still too angry to paste his sticker on my bumper.

Now, of course, I love Obama, and my opinion of Iowa has changed. Those Iowans certainly have good judgment! Especially the ones who were too young four years ago. Seriously, though, the advantage of this Iowa thing is that candidates really can get the proper exposure to a population that is extremely interested in educating itself on these people, and then has to care enough to drag themselves to caucus for hours on a freezing weeknight. And why are they so interested? Because they know that they have all this power, their vote really really counts. Unless it's for Biden, but that's another subject. If we were to have a national caucus day, or primary day, Hillary would probably win because of the name recognition, but in places where the population has made it its business to examine people carefully, it's a much different story. Prolonged exposure does not wear well, it seems. Things like not taking questions from an audience [after taking planted ones], that kind of thing makes a bad impression, and I think rightly so.

All I'm saying is that there's an argument to be made for letting a much more informed group make the decisions, even if that group doesn't include me. But I'm still not crazy about it. But it has its merits. How can we get the best of all worlds?

Posted by Phoebe | January 4, 2008 12:53 AM
29

@ 19

"Iowa is a Red State. Not Purple. Not Blue."

I would say Iowa is very blue tinged purple. I think that you're mistaking the nature of Iowa's political makeup. Not sure what the exact breakdown is of registered voters, but Iowa has voted for the Democratic candidate in 4 out of the last 5 presidential elections and 4 of the states 7 representatives in the house and senate are Dems. Not only that, but roughly twice the # of voters voted in the Democratic caucus (220,000) vs the Republican one (110,000).

Posted by purple slogger eater | January 4, 2008 1:03 AM
30

@ 19, 20, 23, 29

According to CNN, here are Iowa's voter registration numbers.

39% Independent
31% Democratic
30% Republican

Posted by PassionateJus | January 4, 2008 10:20 AM
31

@29 - look, in 2004, after everyone had a chance to realize what a scr.w.p GWB was, they still voted for him. They're a Red State, and no "registration" fudging of non-voting numbers will change that.

It's how you vote that makes you Red, just like the brown armbands you wear, and your cheering for the Royalists in the Red Bushie party.

Posted by Will in Seattle | January 4, 2008 11:39 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).