Iowa keeps it real.

Tuesday, November 20th, 2007 @ 5:26 pm | Uncategorized

Why bother with the artifice and baggage of Hillary Clinton when you have Barack Obama to choose instead, I asked. Iowa rises to the challenge:

While Clinton still leads on more personal attributes than any of her competitors, just half of Iowa Democrats in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll believe she’s willing to say what she really thinks — far fewer than say so of either Obama or John Edwards. Obama beats her by 2-1 as the most honest and trustworthy candidate. Her advantage on experience, while substantial, has softened since summer. She has notably less support in Iowa than nationally in trust to handle a variety of specific issues — on Iraq, for example, Obama now runs evenly with her. And she’s third in Iowa among men.

Among those who say they’re “absolutely certain” to attend a caucus, Obama has 28 percent support, Clinton 26 percent — again very close, and a contrast to Clinton’s nearly 2-1 lead over Obama nationally.

Yes, yes, yes. Iowa is leaning toward the shrewd, smarter, more honest choice. This benefits both Barack and Iowa, affirming Iowa’s reputation for examining the hell out of candidates before making informed choices that can upset the conventional Beltway consensus. Iowans have the chance to say, “It isn’t over before we even get to start voting,” and should do so to say they don’t like others making their minds up for them.

Now, this dynamic mortally wounded my 2004 favorite, Howard Dean, but Barack stands to benefit from from it. Hillary is ahead nationwide because she’s got the name recognition and she’s got the press salivating for all the wild news stories 8 more years of the Clintons will generate. Obama is taking the lead in Iowa because Iowans took the time to investigate and explore the candidates in ways the media won’t.

Thank you, Iowa.

-jb

17 Responses to “Iowa keeps it real.”

  1. Dana Says:

    Well, I hope that you get your wish and Barack Hussein Obama carried Iowa, and wins the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008.

    Why? Well, I don’t see any of the Democratic contenders as very good, and all would have didastrous for America socialist policies, though a couple of the contenders (John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich come to mind) would be worse on the socialism.

    But Senator Obama has the rather unique position of being both the least offensive to Republicans if he wins the general election, because he just seems like a decent sort, and the candidate the GOP stands the best chance of beating.

  2. jeromy Says:

    That’s weird, Dana. While Obama is certainly hard for anybody, even Republicans, to hate, Hillary Clinton is the one you guys should be most comfortable with. Bill Clinton brought 8 years of triangulating cooperation with Republicans, Hillary is certain to bring more of the same, with probably even more preemptive surrendering to Republicans.

    Current polls indicate you guys would have a hard time beating Dennis Kucinich if he got the nomination. Why would you think Barack would be easier than the big fat target that is Hillary?

    I mean, I would think it would take a little more than playing the race card by continually referring to his middle name. I know Republicans can’t really help taming their inner white supremacist feelings around the guy, but are you sure that helps you? With the most fearful and ignorant of whites, sure.

    But if a voter is smart enough to figure out that Barack isn’t a member of al Queda, then that makes you look like the racist jerk you already sound like. More and more, voters are growing wise to the fact that the GOP is turning into a whites-only club, which pisses off non-white voters even more, and does plenty to drive away whites who don’t want to be associated with such racism anyway. From what I’ve heard, it’s already happening with Republican voters. Lots would cross over to vote for Obama, especially since a choice like Giuliani would represent support for dismantling the Constitution altogether.

  3. Jesurgislac Says:

    Why would you think Barack would be easier than the big fat target that is Hillary?

    To say nothing of John Edwards.

    It’s interesting how this is being played. The Republicans are the party of racist, sexist, homophobic bigots. With Obama, Clinton, and Edwards, they could exercise their racism on one, their sexism on the other – and they deal with Edwards by calling him a “faggot”.

  4. Thomas Tallis Says:

    I love when these dudes act like the economy under evil socialist Clinton was anything other than roaring. The last two Republican admins have done for our economy what actual socialist states do for the bankrolls, i.e., depleted them. When will conservatives wake up to just how unconservative the GOP really is?

  5. mike Says:

    Think of it this way, Dana, if a Dem wins next year you’ve got nothing to worry about in the way of material for your blog. You and the rest of the online devoted can recycle all those old Clinton era chestnuts about drunken Kennedy’s and philandering Congressman while competing over who can dream up the latest ham-fisted pun about Hillary Clinton and her sexual orientation. Of course, you’ll also get the luxury of blaming all of your failures on the oft-invoked but never demonstrated Librul Media(tm). Really, it’ll feel like old times.

  6. Jesurgislac Says:

    What I think is killing Republican 29%ers right now? (At least, the ones just bright enough to notice.)

    All three of the Democratic front runners are not only better Presidential candidates than any of the Republican candidates, they are all also so much better than George W. Bush.

    Dana’s plunge into delusion is their only solution: pretend desperately that the last seven years have been a rollicking good time.

  7. mike Says:

    >pretend desperately that the last seven years have been a rollicking good time.

    Which is essentially the mentality that’s going to lose them the ’08 election. That and their insistence on using the same ineffectual play book against Hillary that they used against Bill in the 90’s. (She’s a scheming, philandering dike, etc.) And you’re right about Obama, unfortunately, guys like Dana have already indicated that if he gets the nomination they’ll just come right out and refer to him as some nigger terrorist.

  8. Dana Says:

    Jeromy wrote:

    That’s weird, Dana. While Obama is certainly hard for anybody, even Republicans, to hate, Hillary Clinton is the one you guys should be most comfortable with. Bill Clinton brought 8 years of triangulating cooperation with Republicans, Hillary is certain to bring more of the same, with probably even more preemptive surrendering to Republicans.

    You don’t understand: it isn’t what Mrs Clinton says she’ll do, because Republicans simply don’t believe her. Rather, it’s that Republicans simply loathe the Clintons; we’d rather have a more liberal Democrat that we don’t hate rather than one who might be more moderate, but whom we cannot stand.

  9. Dana Says:

    Jeromy also wrote:

    Why would you think Barack would be easier than the big fat target that is Hillary?

    Because he’s black.

    I lived in Virginia in 1987 (or was it 1989?) when Doug Wilder was elected governor. The Democrats had a huge advantage in Virginia in those days, and all of the polls indicated that the three Democrats wunning for statewide office would all win big, big victories.

    And the Democrats running for Lieutenant Governor and Attorney General did win big victories — but Mr Wilder barely scraped by, winning by about 5,000 votes, against Marshall Coleman, a man who could best be described by the slang term for the sphincter.

    The answer is simple and obvious: a lot of Virginians who weren’t willing to tell pollsters that they would not vote for a black candidate did, in fact, vote against the black candidate in the privacy of the voting booth.

    For the Democratic nominee to win the presidency in 2008, he will have to carry at least one of the states President Bush carried in 2004; which of those states do you think is going to turn over and vote for a black president?

    Then, ask yourself about some of the 2004 blue states, like lily-white Vermont and Maine and New Hampshire and Minnesota and Wisconsin and Oregon, and tell me that a black presidential nominee will be able to hold them all.

  10. jeromy Says:

    Well, Dana, anecdotes from 1987 don’t really tell me enough. You’re talking about 20 years ago, and race relations have come a long way since.

    Secondly, that doesn’t tell me why Barack being black is a bigger handicap than Hillary being a woman. If I recall correctly, they generate about the same numbers of people who won’t vote for their kind.

    Which Southern state do I think is non-racist enough to vote for Obama? Well, given that Obama isn’t a jive-talkin’ scary kind of black guy, I’d give any state credit for being able to rise above history and ignorance and choose him. Obama gets the “He’s so clean and articulate!” types, who ordinarily wouldn’t vote for a black man but are calmed by his demeanor. And he went for a fine-ass black woman instead of a white woman, so you won’t get the white folk trembling in fear that Obama’s going to show their white daughters his 13-inch dong.

    Obama is a candidate who makes voters overlook that he’s black pretty quickly.

    As I’ve stated, I think the GOP still being Club Whitey is going to hurt it more than Obama being black hurts him. You guys are going go keep muttering “Barack Hussein Osama bin Laden!” and probably run some racist ads and commit all sorts of gaffes (you can depend on Limbaugh and Coulter for some good ones). And that might leave you with a very small constituency indeed.

    I just think we’ve come far enough where “He’s black,” isn’t enough by itself, no matter how much fear folks like you try to stoke, Dana.

  11. Dana Says:

    Well, Jeromy, I doubt we’ll actually see, since I’d guess the probabilities of Senator Obama winning the nomination are rather low. But if he is the nominee, my guess is that he’d be defeated rather handily.

    Don’t know that the female issue is quite the same thing: about 13% of the electorate, and women are about 52%. Still, it’s a probable negative.

    I’d guess that John Edwards or Bill Richardson would make your best candidates, but they seem even less likely to win the nomination.

  12. Jesurgislac Says:

    I always think it’s amusing when 29%ers get all serious and frowny and pretend they have an idea of what makes a good candidate… it’s kind of like Friedman pontificating about Iraq.

  13. jeromy Says:

    Yes…we would be correct, Dana, to assume you were one of the geniuses who thought George W. Bush deserved four more years in power?

    Not to mention all the other bridges to Atlantis we’ve been sold…the question is, why should anybody in Dubya’s brigade be taken seriously?

    And since you guys are trying to find a nominee to be Bush III, why would any sane person vote for them?

  14. Dana Says:

    You’d be correct to assume that I voted for george Bush, twice. Were he constitutionally able to run again, I’d vote for him again.

  15. jeromy Says:

    Holy smokes, Dana just dived on his own grenade. I knew him well!

  16. SmartVoter Says:

    A top issue in this campaign is “Who Can Defeat Hillary Clinton”. She may be smart, but she’s as phony as any politician in my lifetime.
    There are other candidates in this race who are more qualified, more experienced and definitely more sincere about serving the American people than Hillary.

    Don’t be fooled by name recognition. All that glitters is not gold.

    Democrats: When you vote in the Primary, vote for the candidate who has the best chance of defeating Hillary.

    Republicans: Vote on the candidate who can defeat her in the General Election, in the unfortunate event that she emerges as the Democratic candidate.

    Vote Smart, Iowa. In this election it’s A-B-C — Anybody But Clinton.

  17. Matt W Says:

    Why she gets labeled a liberal is beyond me.