Iowa & New Hampshire Really Matter for IF Obama Wins There, He Will Be the Nominee of Our Party.

[David Zephyr]

Here it is: I'm willing to put my forty years of activism and national organizing from licking envelopes for Bobby Kennedy and posting yards signs to being a voting delegate to two National Democratic Conventions from "the great state of California" all on the line and make this statement, and I don't make it lightly:

If Senator Barack Obama from Illinois should come in first place in Iowa and then in New Hampshire, he will certainly be the nominee of our great party. And it's not an unlikely assumption anymore because something nearly cosmic is going on in those two states this time. At this moment. Obama is beginning to suck up the oxygen and just at the right time, too. There is magic in the air.

The people of Iowa and New Hampshire, not always in sync with each other, but at pivotal points, have had a way of turning conventional wisdom on its head. Ask Jimmy Carter from Georgia and Bill Clinton from Arkansas or think back to Eugene McCarthy or more recently to John McCain and John Kerry. The voters in these two states always get real serious, almost solemnly religious in how they inspect and then grade the candidates who aspire to lead our nation. And never more so than now.

And it's not just Democrats who are serious this time, either. The American people will not be shopping this time for a candidate "to have a beer with" or who makes the funniest jokes in a debate. They know that our nation is at a perilous crossroads domestically and internationally and they know that our country needs a real change in direction. They understand that elections matter and have consequences. This is not good news for the Republican Party. And not good news for Democrats who may be perceived as having been part of political establishment.

The American people are a good people. But that does not mean that collectively we are always a very bright people. Lord knows we certainly have made some shitty choices recently. Did Americans make choices because they were deceived by those in high positions of trust? Yes. Did they choose leadership because they were afraid and wrongfully made to fear, to feel their families were in jeopardy? Yes. But the upside is that Americans, who are so damned slow to turn on anyone, have finally turned on this President and his Vice-President. The elections of 2006 showed just how sour that sentiment was and it has only solidified in the past twelve months.

And there is something even bigger going on among our fellow Americans up in Iowa and New Hampshire that's hard to put a finger on, but that something may just be found in this young fellow, Barack Obama. He is coming into this last stretch now with his eyes squarely focused on the goal ahead. One can see it in his eyes --he sees his place in history. You can hear it in his voice -- a conviction that transcends politics as he speaks to the American people. Maybe it is their voice.

Why is it that now -- just precious weeks before the contests of Iowa and New Hampshire -- that an undeniable wave of enthusiasm is developing Senator Obama? Could it be that the young man who inspires the largest of crowds of whites and black, young and old, male and female has closed the sale with these very tough and informed voters?

None other than Tom Hayden, who Barack foolishly made light of, wrote me and told he appreciated my "sentiments", in his defense, but that I shouldn't write Obama off. I haven't, Tom.

Make no mistake. If Barack Obama, who hails from the Land of Lincoln, takes Iowa and New Hampshire, a miracle just might happen in American politics -- as it occasionally does -- and make Americans believe in their better nature again, hope in their future again, and find their role on our small, vital, blue planet here in the Milky Way once again.

Make me believe, Barack. I want to.

[blm]

1. I hear ya, DZ. Once the voters decide it's time to get serious, THAT is when the numbers

start changing.

Both Biden and Obama did well in recent debates - and Iowa and NH voters really LISTEN and judge during these debates, no matter WHAT the corporate media spin is saying.

[David Zephyr]

3. And boy, are the numbers changing, too.

Obama comes from third to first. Something's up. It's crunch time. It's good to hear from you blm.

[dsc]

2. Iowa was a non factor in 92

and Obama is at best stationary at this time. Frankly, I think Edwards has a better chance in Iowa than he does but both are behind Hillary. Obama will take a hit in fundraising for this McClurkin fiasco, which he poured more salt into with his idiotic interview in the Advocate. Frankly, I don't see Obama making it.

[David Zephyr]

4. Obama has made some mistakes, but Iraq wasn't one of them. And 1992, New Hampshire was pivotal.

In 1992, New Hampshire was pivotal in rescuing Bill Clinton from the ropes. I pointed out in the OP that the two states aren't always "in sync", but that they have a way separately or independently changing the dynamics. 1992 was a case in point.

I'm saying that if Obama wins "both" he is the nominee. That I will stake the farm on.

And, Obama has made some mis-steps and I've hammered him here when he has done so, as I have the others, but Obama can not be blamed for voting for the Iraqi War or The Patriot Act in 2002 and 2003. He, like Dennis Kucinich, opposed the war while the entire rest of our current candidates voted for both.

Don't hold a grudge against Obama because of what happened in South Carolina, dsc. It was a "fiasco" indeed, but that said, Barack Obama will be the best president gays and lesbian Americans ever had. He knows discrimination painfully well.

[bain_sidhe]

5. "Iraq wan't one of them"

because he wasn't f*ing there.

You know, I haven't really made up my mind yet, but I'm really tired of Obama's self-congratulatory claim that he never voted for the war (or the patriot act, for that matter). Well, duh. He wasn't in the Senate at the time of the vote. So he opposed the war, and good on him for that, but it wasn't like it was going to cost him anything to do so.

And when it came to Kyl-Lieberman, he wasn't there then, either. So "opposing it" didn't cost him anything there, either.

Look, I'm not saying I agree with those who *were* in the Senate at the time, and voted for the Iraq war authoriziation, but it seriously rubs me the wrong way every time Obama claims some sort of anti-war "purity" because "he didn't vote for it" when the fact is, he COULDN'T vote for it. He wasn't there.

[FrenchieCat]

6. He still spoke out prior to the IWR vote loud and clear.....

and that is just as good. It isn't the vote as much as who stood up when it was time and when the majority were sitting.

Edwards not only voted for it, but he co-sponsored it and wrote op-eds that were pro-war.....and so I hold Edwards responsible for his actions in their entirity, not solely his vote.

Hillary only voted for it, but did not co-sponsore the IWR or write pro-war op-eds.....and so I find her responsible only for her vote, but not as responsible as those selling war to us....like Edwards was at the time.

Barack clearly stated on Charlie Rose PRIOR to the vote that if he had a vote, he would not vote for it. That and speaking out against that war before it happens (in a public speech), makes him clearly the one with the best instinctual judgment out of those three....and this quality is what a great President needs; good judgment on the fly, not way days/years after.

[David Zephyr]

11. And what Barack said back then in 2002 seems prophetic today.

I posted his comments below, FrenchieCat. Thanks for your input.

[bain_sidhe]

12. Yes, I know that, and as I said, good on him for that

but the fact remains, that at the time he opposed it, he did not have to answer to constituents that were (at the time) overwhelmingly in favor of the IWR. And it didn't bother me as much until he *also* skipped the Kyl-Lieberman vote, and now berates Hillary for voting for it. And, don't get me wrong, she *should* be berated for it... but it was at that point that his rhetoric started sounding a little hollow... it smacks of ducking the consequences of an actual vote, while reaping the benefits of opposing it in theory.

I don't like Hillary's Kyl-Lieberman vote, for sure, but also don't like Obama's ducking the vote and then trumpeting his opposition (in theory) to the bill. And, I have to add, Hillary *had* to have known she'd pay a price for that vote, so good on her if she voted that way *anyway*, just because she believed it was right. Not that I agree, just that it shows a willingness to suffer the consequences for doing what she thought was "right" but unpopular.

Again, I haven't made up my mind yet, and things like this are the reason. All of the candidates have things I like, and things I don't like about them. None of them are angels, not even the DU-beloved Kucinich who is much too absolutist and unilateral for my comfort.

So, I hover about the fringes, loving and hating each candidate in turn. And I'll vote for who ever the Democrats nominate. But whether I'll play a part in that choice remains to be seen. Right now, I simply can't choose a candidate to back.

[David Zephyr]

14. I hear you and I agree.

Obama should have voted against the K/L resolution.

But, what I'm saying is that he's climbing in the polls at the time he needs to in both Iowa and New Hampshire and those voters have been upfront and personal with the candidates.

Something is clearly up. Critical mass? Looks like it to me.

[David Zephyr]

7. He spoke out against the war when it was very popular & before he ran for Senate.

Obama, as you said did not vote for or against the war in Iraq. The only one who can make that claim is Dennis Kucinich. Still, Barack did speak out against the war before it began and back when it was a popular thing with the media, the Democratic Party and with the American peopel. He spoke out when those of us against the war were in a very lonely minority...even within our own party. His standing up against a then-popular war -- when he knew he would be running for Senate is a profile in courage.

And, while I will gladly support any of our candidates, all the others with the exception I mentioned actually voted for the Iraqi War Resolution.

Here are Barack Obama's words way, way back in 2002 about the rush to war in Iraq which nearly prophetic in what he saw coming:

-------

Barack Obama in 2002:

I Don't Oppose All Wars

I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil.

I don't oppose all wars. My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil.

I don't oppose all wars. After September 11, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again.

Opposed to Dumb, Rash Wars

I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income, to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

On Saddam Hussein

Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power.... The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors...and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.

I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars. So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president.

You Want a Fight, President Bush?

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure that...we vigorously enforce a nonproliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair."

[AZ Criminal JD]

9. How does someone get to go to Harvard Law School

and become Editor of the Harvard Law Review "know discrimination painfully well"? When did this discrimination happen?

[tammywammy]

18. He did a lot of community work and as a lawyer

was working in discrimination cases. That's in addition to growing up black in America.

I hate using wikipedia, but here you go http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_obama#Early_life_and_career

"On returning to Chicago, Obama directed a voter registration drive.<27> As an associate attorney with Miner, Barnhill & Galland from 1993 to 1996, he represented community organizers, discrimination claims, and voting rights cases.<28> He was a lecturer of constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1993 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004.<29>"

[AZ Criminal JD]

29. When someone knows "discrimination painfully well"

It means they have suffered discrimination. I ask again, when did Obama suffer painful discrimination and by whom? At Harvard? At the University of Chicago? In Indonesia as a kid? And why doesn't he talk about it in his speeches?

[dsc]

26. I wish I could believe you about Obama

but his lack of character in regards to McClurkin throws that in doubt for me.

[earthlover]

8. so we have to go all the way back to 92 for a non-factor?

in 04 it was everything!

92 is so 90s.

Seems to me that if Obama wins Iowa, several things happen. 1) Obama gets the tidal wave of media attention going into NH, 2) hillary is proven a non-inevitability, 3) edwards loses strength, and more of his supporters go to obama than hillary, 4) obama has a good chance to upset hillary in her neighboring state of new hampshire, then 5) South carolina gets a record black turnout while hillary's black support dwindles. Pretty soon they would be doing a study on how anyone could have been so dumb as to think hillary was inevitable. I mean, really....

[Alexander]

19. Iowa was only a non-factor in '92 because of Tom Harkin.

Iowa's favorite son.

Vilsack withdrew, so there's no favorite son this time.

[graywarrior]

10. And yet, according to the Spittle Kid, Tweety, he says and AP poll shows

that 64% of dems support Hillary.

[KoKo]

13. Beg to differ....he won't be the nominee of the party...

I don't have your esteemed affiliation with Tom Hayden. But, some years of observation and activism on my own with groups that Tom holds in high regard. So, my perspective tells me...he will not be the nominee.

[David Zephyr]

16. Title of the OP says "IF" he wins both Iowa and New Hampshire.

That's a tall challenge to win both, but if he does, he will be the nominee.

[Horse with no Name]

15. Obama isn't my first or second choice. Heck he isn't even my third choice BUT

I could vote for him easier than I can vote for Clinton.

[David Zephyr]

17. Your post underscores why I think he's climbing.

Edwards demise in Iowa benefits Obama.

For the life of me, I don't understand why Edwards focused on Hillary when, strategically he should have focused on Obama. Hillary will be in the top two in New Hampshire and Iowa leaving only Edwards or Obama to place with her. Obama stood back and let Edwards do the attacking of Hillary and it hurt him as every poll now indicates.

By not attacking Hillary as harshly as Edwards did, Obama gets to be the anti-Hillary candidate. There's really only room for one.

[Bluebear]

20. 'whites and black, young and old, male and female' - just not gays. We try to kill children.

At least according to the Senator's South Carolina spokesperson.

I wish I could share your enthusiasm as I head out to vote in NH. I was seriously considering Obama but I don't remember too many times when I have been let down more by a politician.

[David Zephyr]

22. I understand your hurt regarding South Carolina, Bluebear.

I have posted here on this and in your thoughtful threads, too.

But Obama is clearly progressive on GLBT issues and has made his positions clear even in the GLBT forum.

Frankly, all of the candidates except for Dennis Kucinich have some serious flaws which is why I've bounced around as I say 'like a BB in boxcar" because I would love to get behind a candidate who has a real shot at the White House. With Edwards opting for matching funds, he's eliminated himself as a serious threat to the GOP leaving Hillary and Obama, both of whom will be light years more progressive on GLBT concerns than any nominee thus far.

Honestly, I read Senator Obama's interview in The Advocate and I don't know what more he can say than what he did. His campaign made a mistake. He's clearly sided with the GLBT and not the homophobes when it comes to our civil rights. I think that took guts on his part. Hillary has her homophobes, too entrenched within the DLC wing of the party.

Barack is a good man.

Thanks for weighing in.

[dsc]

27. He could have admitted what he did

He stated in that interview that McClurkin only sang songs which was a bald faced lie. On edit Kucinich is flawed too. He only became a gay rights supporter on the eve of his Presidential run.

[Blackhatjack]

21. Don't count those chickens before they hatch....

Obama has spent in excess of $5 mil in tv advertising, and run 9 tv ads to every 1 ad run by Edwards and 3 by Hillary, in Iowa.

Edwards just started advertising in Iowa. There is a long way to go Iowa and N.H. even if the time to get there is short.

I think the OP is conditioned on 2 events which at best are uncertain, and the same claim could be made by either Edwards or Clinton.

[David Zephyr]

23. Six or seven weeks away from the first test in Iowa.

Decisions are being formed. Edwards appears to have really lost a lot in the last weeks and Obama is quickly becoming the alternative to Hillary for many voters.

HIllary benefits from a larger field than a smaller one and the recent polls show that Edwards' slide is to the benefit of Obama at her expense.

[Blackhatjack]

24. These polls do not reflect the factors that will decide Iowa's caucus...

There is no 'Edwards slide' ....

THis telephone poll does not take into account who will actually caucus, who has the best ground organization, etc.

[calimary]

25. If he does well there, wins outright or simply does well, the momentum

will be all HIS.

Even Iowa all by itself would be awfully convincing to a lot of people. His campaign contributions would skyrocket, because people would start smelling a winner, and want to climb onboard with him.

[bcoylepa]

28. I want to believe

so tired of putting my faith and energy into a candidate who is a product of the system that is the problem
The way I see it - Obama is the chance that we have to change things - and mistakes and stumbles and all - he articulates a vision that will be good for this country and the rest of the world
Just got back from Ireland and although they expect Clinton to win (they love Bill and by default Hillary) they are talking about Obama as a possibility. The whole world is watching.