Obama sweeps to victory in Iowa caucuses

Advertisement

Sen. Barack Obama swept to victory in the Iowa caucuses Thursday night, pushing Hillary Rodham Clinton to third place and taking a major stride in a historic bid to become the nation's first black president. Mike Huckabee rode a wave of support from evangelical Christians to win the opening round among Republicans in the 2008 campaign for the White House.

Obama, 46 and a first-term senator from Illinois, told a raucous victory rally his triumph showed that in "big cities and small towns, you came together to say, 'We are one nation, we are one people and our time for change has come."'

Final Democratic returns showed the first-term lawmaker gaining 38 percent support. Former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina gained second, barely edging out Clinton, the former first lady.

Huckabee celebrated his own victory over Mitt Romney and a crowded Republican field. "A new day is needed in American politics, just like a new day is needed in American government," the former Arkansas governor told cheering supporters. "It starts here, but it doesn't end here. It goes all the way through the other states and ends at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue."

Huckabee, a preacher turned politician, handily defeated Romney despite being outspent by millions of dollars and deciding in the campaign's final days to scrap television commercials that would have assailed the former Massachusetts governor. He stressed his religion to the extent of airing a commercial that described himself as a "Christian leader" in his race against a man seeking to become the first Mormon president.

Nearly complete returns showed Huckabee with 34 percent support, compared with 25 percent for Romney. Former Sen. Fred Thompson and Sen. John McCain battled for third place, while Texas Rep. Ron Paul wound up fifth and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani sixth.

With the New Hampshire primary only five days distant, Clinton and Edwards vowed to fight on in the race for the Democratic nomination.

"We have always planned to run a national campaign," the former first lady told supporters at a noisy rally attended by her husband and their daughter, Chelsea. "I am so ready for the rest of this campaign, and I am so ready to lead."

Edwards, the Democrats' 2004 vice presidential nominee, told The Associated Press in an interview he would distinguish himself from Obama in New Hampshire by arguing that he is the candidate who can deliver the change that voters have shown they want. "I"m going to fight for that change," he said by telephone from his hotel room in Iowa. "I've fought for it my entire life. I have a long history of fighting powerful interests and winning."

Not everyone was going on. Democratic Sens. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut and Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware announced they would quit the race.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson said he would campaign in New Hampshire despite finishing in fourth place with a minuscule 2 percent support.

Romney sought to frame his defeat as something other than that, saying he had trailed Huckabee by more than 20 points a few weeks ago. "I've been pleased that I've been able to make up ground and I intend to keep making up ground, not just here but across the country," he said.

The words were brave, but already, his strategy of bankrolling a methodical campaign in hopes of winning the first two states was in tatters - and a rejuvenated McCain was tied with him in the polls in next-up New Hampshire.

Iowans rendered their judgments in meetings at 1,781 precincts from Adel to Zwingle, in schools, firehouses and community centers. Turnout was heavy, far more so for Democrats than Republicans in what could be an early indication of the country's mood after eight years of a Republican administration.

With President Bush constitutionally unable to seek re-election, a wide-open race developed in both parties that resulted in campaign organizations that dwarfed anything in previous campaigns. Romney alone spent $7 million on television commercials. The result was a record turnout.

Projections estimated that 220,588 Democrats showed up on a cold midwinter's night, shattering the previous mark of 124,000.

Turnout was also up on the Republican side, where projections showed about 114,000 people taking part. The last previous contested Republican caucuses in 2000 drew 87,666 participants.

In interviews as they entered the caucuses, more than half of all the Republicans said they were either born-again or evangelical Christians, and they liked Huckabee more than any of his rivals. Romney led handily among the balance of the Iowa Republican voters, according to the survey.

About half the Democratic caucus-goers said a candidate's ability to bring about needed change was the most important factor as they made up their minds, according to the entrance interviews by the AP and the television networks. Change was Obama's calling card in the arduous campaign for Iowa's backing.

Obama also outpolled Clinton among women, and benefited from a surge in first-time caucus-goers. More than half of those who participated said they had never been to a caucus before, and Obama won the backing of roughly 40 percent of them. Edwards did best among veteran caucus-goers, garnering 30 percent of their vote. Obama and Clinton each got about a quarter of their support.

An AP analysis of Iowa's Republican caucuses estimated that Huckabee would win 30 delegates to the national convention and Romney would win 7.

Obama's victory was much narrower in the race for delegates. The AP analysis estimated Obama would win 16 delegates, compared to 15 for Clinton and 14 for Edwards. Clinton will win more delegates than Edwards, despite getting fewer votes, because of Iowa's complicated caucus system.

In the overall race for the nomination, Clinton leads with 175 delegates, including superdelegates, followed by Obama with 75 and Edwards with 46.

While Republicans and Democrats both looked to Iowa to pass the first judgment of the election year, there was a key difference in the way they ran their caucuses. Republicans took a straw vote, then tallied the results. Democrats had a more complicated process in which one candidate's supporters might eventually wind up backing another contender.

Clinton, Obama and Edwards had all urged voters to consider them if their own candidate fell short. Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio publicly urged his backers to line up with Obama on a second round, and two Democrats said aides to Richardson did likewise as the caucuses unfolded in hopes of blocking the former first lady. Those two spoke on condition of anonymity, citing private discussions.

In the campaign's final days, Obama, a first-term senator, stressed a need for change. Clinton boasted of her experience as she worked to follow her husband into the White House. Edwards cast himself as the implacable enemy of special interests as he aimed to improve on last time's second-place showing in the state. Strikingly, none of the Democrats ran television commercials attacking one another, and the result was a remarkably civilized race despite the stakes.

Romney stressed his background as a businessman and organizer of the 2002 Olympics, and he worked to persuade conservatives to ignore his earlier positions on abortion and gay rights. He ran the only commercials of the campaign critical of a rival, hitting Huckabee for his positions on immigration and the pardons he issued while governor of Arkansas.

For three decades, Iowa's caucuses have drawn presidential hopefuls eager to make a strong first impression, and this year was no different.

Obama, Clinton and Edwards spent at least $19 million on television advertising among them. Romney told supporters in a final daylong swing around the state he had been in 68 of 99 counties since he began his quest for the White House, had spent 55 days in Iowa and spoken before 248 separate audiences.

Comments

nikobesti 6 years, 11 months ago

freshair: Scott said Iowa was 95% white, not that he won by 95%.

0

Scott Wedel 6 years, 11 months ago

Watch a rerun of Obama's speech on CSPAN. That was a great speech. Probably best nationwide speech since Bobby Kennedy in 1968.

Regardless of the future that speech will be remembered because on that January night, a black man seeking the presidency won a state 95% white and his victory speech matched the occasion.

Also, look at the people behind the candidates last night. Hillary had Bill, Madeline Albright, Gov Vilsack and basically a group of all white political insiders all at least 50 years old. Obama had men, women, young and old, mostly white and some black. Hillary's group was on the stage with her while Obama's group was a bit further behind so he stood out much better and you could see more of his supporters.

Thus, Hillary is trying to talk about change and has the status quo standing behind her while Obama has America standing behind him as he talks about the great American value of hope inspiring us to constantly trying to make our country better.

Who knows what the future will bring, but for one night one man showed the greatness of America.

0

blackthroatedwind 6 years, 11 months ago

More like, "for one night, one man showed what 2.5 year's experience and tons of $ spent on marketing to a bunch of guilty white Democratic sheep can do for you!" What a choice, a feminazi, an ambulance chaser, and a rookie. Geez, I can't wait for New Hampshire. NOT!

But I am excited to see Obama get the nomination, 'cause there is no way he can win a majority nationwide with his lack of experience. Our country ain't all that stupid!

0

dogd 6 years, 11 months ago

McCain is the best man, and I'm glad that he did better than just survive. Time for a character guy. Not just another character.

0

nikobesti 6 years, 11 months ago

What great news. The overall message I get from the Iowa caucuses is that people want someone who is substantially different, not a run-of-the-mill politician. They're looking for a good moral foundation and fresh ideas instead of experience. This is great news for Obama and I hope he can keep up the momentum.

It's also good news for Democrats that Huckabee won. Many moderate Republicans I talk to are sick to death of religious zealots ruining their party (another indication of this is the grassroots popularity of Ron Paul). I would really hope that any Dem candidate would mop the floor with Huckabee. Hey, I know he's a nice guy, down to earth, etc. but they guy's pretty far out there sometimes. Quarantine AIDS patients? I know that was 15 years ago when he said that, but still, that's crazy. I would hope even conservative Americans have learned their lesson with another evangelical nut case who doesn't listen to reason or use logic. But then again, the Dems sure are good at blowing it, so I wouldn't put it past them.

0

freshair 6 years, 11 months ago

Reality check...Obama did not win 95% of the Iowa vote. He won in a DEMOCRATIC primary. He is entirely a media creation and certainly Oprah's backing added a further veneer of bling to his candidacy. Add to that the larger than expected turnout of the under 21 vote and combine that with the Oprah vote, and Obama breaks first in the race. But will he appeal to a more mature and knowledgeable voting population? I doubt it. Hillary still the odds on favorite to be the party's nominee.

0

freshair 6 years, 11 months ago

nikobesti...you're splitting hairs, reread his statement. As worded it implies he won the entire state electorate. I repeat, he only won the Democratic primary in which less than half the state's registered voters cast a ballot.

0

nikobesti 6 years, 11 months ago

Just clarifying how he used the 95% number, fresh. I agree this is a tiny step. Still, there is so little to celebrate these days can't we enjoy it?

I would ask you why you think Iowans are not "mature and knowledgeable." I would contend that in this situation they are much more knowledgeable than the rest of us. Most of America has little to base our opinions on, just sound bites and "bling" as you call it. Iowans, however, have heard these candidates talk in detail for the last few months. They've held community forums where citizens like you and I get to ask them questions. After all this personal face-to-face attention showered on Iowans, don't you think they can see past the "Oprah veneer?" It sounds kind of funny after all that that you're the one who's more mature and knowledgeable than they are.

0

freshair 6 years, 11 months ago

nikobesti, sad to say, your average American doesn't have a clue as to what's really going on domestically or internationally. That's why every 4 years the 'candidates' repeat the same old, tired mantra of how they're going to fix things. Only a nation of yahoos would put up with it. And it's not just the US, it's the same all over the world. People are basically sheep, buying into the same BS that politicians promise then, and then when, inevitably, nothing changes, the pattern repeats itself the next time elections roll around.

The truth is we can't handle the truth. Nobody has said or promised anything in 2008 that wasn't said in 1960 by JFK. Democracy as it has evolved to the present day is nothing but a collection of special interests each doing their utmost to work the system. And the only way anything is going to change is a revolution by whichever dissatisfied group, Liberal or Conservative, gets its hand on the control button.

0

Neil O'Keeffe 6 years, 11 months ago

Freshair you need an attitude adjustment, may I suggest a margarita or 10. Your negativity is stinking up the place. Do us all a favor and... Believe!

0

Matthew Stoddard 6 years, 11 months ago

Guess what, mon fr'air: How many years did Conservatives control the Pres & Congress? Still a lot of gridlock during that time. Even a Dem Congress can't get any work done before even sending it to the Pres.

Nope! Nothing has changed and nothing will change until someone besides Republicans or Democrats control something. Hell, I'd settle for a moderate candidate that actually stays moderate after the election.

Where's a sane-version of Perot when you need one?

0

freshair 6 years, 11 months ago

rokboat, I adjusted my attitude a long, long time ago to the Reality of the human condition. Your reaction only proves most people can't handle the truth. It's not negative or positive. It is what it is. People are sheep and if you're a politician running for office you make sure you tell them what they want to hear. Nobody's ever going to get elected by telling it like it is.

0

Scott Wedel 6 years, 11 months ago

Pretty cynical to say Obama just shows what some marketing can buy you because if that was close to the truth then Romney whom had the money and marketing experience would have easily won the republican caucus.

And Hillary who also has gobs of money and marketing experience would be able to deliver a speech comparable to Obama's speech, if not win that caucus.

And Obama used his money to build an effective campaign organization while McCain whom once had the money built a top heavy bloated staff that he had to fire months ago.

I do wish Obama had stood up on the Senate floor and gave good speeches there about major issues, or joined Dodd on the filibuster threat against giving immunity to telecoms that knowingly violated the law when giving customer data to the warrantless search programs. But he was smart enough as a state senator to note the folly of the USA occupying moslem Iraq before the Iraq war started.

0

colobob 6 years, 11 months ago

Obama? OY!! The problem with the candidates running in this election as in most elections is that there are NO good candidate choices among the front runners on either side. It all boils down to picking the lesser of all evils. Money, Lies and promises that can't be kept are what get candidates elected. Same songs, same dances, different candidates. Even more worrysome than the candidates themselves are their possible running mates. What about the independent ticket? Can you say Pataki? Double OY!!

0

dogd 6 years, 11 months ago

What you won't get with the annointed party faves-Clinton or Romney is any sort of meaningful interference or interruption in the price of gasoline as it heads to 5 or 6 bucks.

The power-groups who run both entrenched parties protect the banking and investment interests which enable the greedy speculation which is sending us into recession.

The drilling that matters most in this is not the holes proposed in areas currently off-limits. It is the hole through which cheap dollars can be siphoned for the purpose of driving up the price of oil futures without risking one's own money.

This is killing us. It goes against every vestige of national interest, except the interest of the banking and finance heavyweights who control both parties.

These are powerful groups who can literally wreck a campaign, and I don't think that they have taken the threat of Obama seriously until now. I feel that they took McCain very seriously and that some of his campaign problems were not of his making. They'd love a fool like Edwards up top. And Hillary or Romney also pose no threat.

Huckabee scares them almost as much as McCain.

We have a chance to elect somebody who can tone down the banking, insuring and speculating monster who is destroying us with it's entrenched power. Hate to say it, but Iraq is not the only big issue. There is another one, maybe bigger.

0

thecondoguy1 6 years, 11 months ago

I am going to check myself in........... I am in total agreement with "sbvor",,, again............, I like the feminazi, ambulance chaser, rookie tags, as well.

0

thalgard 6 years, 11 months ago

great, two more proud supporters of tax cuts for the rich, abysmal environmental policies, and endless pointless war...the trade stamp of the repugnican party!

0

JLM 6 years, 11 months ago

Gosh, I miss President Dean. Ooops, I forgot he did win Iowa but he never did get that pesky nomination, did he? Nor did he actually get elected President, ---- oooops, my bad! Sorry!

Get over it Iowa. You are a little non-descript state whose only claim to fame (infamy?) is your weird little caucus tea ceremony which amounts to exactly nothing in the long run. It's just like being a New Orleans debutante --- the locals dig it but the rest of the country doesn't give a hoot!

Now let the adults have the television remote control cause we are tired of the goofy cartoons already! Sheesh!

President Obama? President Dean? President Oprah? Uhhhh, not gonna happen!

Though I must say I particularly enjoyed seeing Hillary get her bloomers knotted up around her neck and choking.

0

JLM 6 years, 11 months ago

SBVOR who can be a particulary wacky blogger is right freakin' on in regard to tax policy. The simple truth of the matter is that the liberals would strangle a milk cow to control the beef supply without even thinking about where heck the milk is going to come from.

The nicest thing you can say is that they are truly that dumb and the worst is that they are truly that dumb.

You can only give a tax cut to SOMEONE WHO ACTUALLY PAYS TAXES. But when you do, the resulting economic vigor INCREASES FEDERAL TAX RECEIPTS. You don't actually have to understand why if you just recognize the immutable results.

It's kind of like understanding the functions of the brake pedal and gas in your car --- one means whoa and the other means giddyup!

Tax cuts = giddyup

Tax increases = whoa

Now give me the damn remote control and have a nice damn day!

0

colobob 6 years, 11 months ago

Tax cuts for the rich are better than tax increases for the poor and the middle class, something Dems impose on us each and every time they are elected, fact not conjecture. As far as the war goes, pulling out now would be a much bigger mistake than trying to get the Iraqi's back in control of their own country. Is it going to be easy? Nothing about war is easy. Is winnig a sure thing? Nothing but death and taxes are a sure thing in life. This isn't Veitnam, where winning was never the end game. Our troops in 'Nam weren't allowed to win. This is a war in a region of the world where religious zealots seek to end ALL that is not Muslem and winning HAS TO BE the end game. War stinks. People die. There is no such thing as a good war but a war is far better over there than over hear. Those that think that just pulling out and going home will end the carnage live in a fantasy world. It will follow us home as it already has and before all the anti Bush folks blame this time of turmoil on him let me remind them that Clinton lobbed the first cruise missles over the Middle East. A fact that Bush haters never seem to bring up. In fact if you are really looking for someone to blame start with Jimmy Carter for letting 52 US diplomats be held hostage for 444 days. An act that showed these extremists of the Middle East that they could defy the Western world and get away with it. I pray for our brave servicemen and women both past and present for serving our country, for those who have made the ultimate sacrifice, and for their families. I only hope that unlike the Veitnam War that this time they LET our troops win. I praise all who have served and offer them nothing but thanks, praise and respect! God Bless America and our Troops and to hell with anyone that doesn't appreciate the sacrifices they are making now and have made in the past and will continue to make in the future!!

0

thecondoguy1 6 years, 11 months ago

liberalism is a mental illness, some of the facts and good thinking above may go a ways to cure it, but, don't count on it, to many people want to blame somebody else for their lot in life, and to many others want to dole it out to make themselves look and feel good. people need to look at themselves if they do not make as much as their neighbor, not slander their neighbor.......... keep up the good work folks, this may be the only place common folk get their facts and education. lots of luck to all...........

0

thecondoguy1 6 years, 11 months ago

and yes colobob, I am just going to repeat you, it can't be said better, just more often, God Bless America and our troops and to hell with anyone that doesn't appreciate the sacrifices they are making now and have made in the past and will continue to make in the future. because of them we have the freedom to live like we do and gripe openly, what a privilege...............

0

thecondoguy1 6 years, 11 months ago

it's not about religion, it's about values, and how do you say thank you, and to whom, for the freedom we have to live our lives without a murderous, hateful religion dictating our values.......

0

suckerfreeforlife 6 years, 11 months ago

Liberalism is a mental illness? You mean like the idea of the People being sovereign? You mean like the freedom to assemble? The freedom of the press? The freedom to worship as you see fit, or not at all if that suits you? The protection against cruel and unusual punishment? Protection against warrantless searches? The idea of checks and balances? The requirement of due process? These are all "Liberal" ideas. You can find their "Conservative" counterparts in theocracies, thugocracies and other dysfunctional forms of government scattered across the globe. Democracy is a "liberal" form of Government. Republicans are simply right wing liberals.

0

JazzSlave 6 years, 11 months ago

Reagan, Bush 41, & Bill Clinton all lost Iowa. 10 months in politics is an eternity. Coronations are premature.

0

thecondoguy1 6 years, 11 months ago

liberals are so ill they actually think the doctorine you site are exclusively liberal in origin and perpetuation, these are the doctorine of a healthy, free, democratic people, along with capitalism, liberals have no exclusive claim on these beliefs and values, only sick people, typically the liberal elite would think that..............

0

suckerfreeforlife 6 years, 11 months ago

Please pardon the wikipaste, i thought this'd be interesting food for thought

"Liberalism refers to a broad array of related ideas and theories of government that consider individual liberty to be the most important political goal.[1] Liberalism has its roots in the Western Age of Enlightenment.

Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. Different forms of liberalism may propose very different policies, but they are generally united by their support for a number of principles, including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy, and a transparent system of government.[2] All liberals as well as some adherents of other political ideologies support some variant of the form of government known as liberal democracy, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law.[3]"

As for this "illness" smear, straight out of the rove/coulter playbook, thats just adolescent drivel. Id say its beneath you, but, clearly, its not.

Sorry to break it to you, but unless your waaay out there on the fringe of the left or right, you're a LIBERAL

0

Slapper 6 years, 11 months ago

careful now sucker-those are fighten word for these guys

0

Matthew Stoddard 6 years, 11 months ago

Conservatism is a term used to describe political philosophies that favor tradition and gradual change, where tradition refers to religious, cultural, or nationally defined beliefs and customs. The term is derived from the Latin, com servare, to preserve; "to protect from loss or harm". Since different cultures have different established values, conservatives in different cultures have differing goals. Some conservatives seek to preserve the status quo or to reform society slowly, while others seek to return to the values of an earlier time, the status quo ante.

"Preserving Status Quo." "Return to Values of an Earlier Time."

Read: Dinosaurs

Welcome the True Neo-Con: The Moderate!

0

Matthew Stoddard 6 years, 11 months ago

So where do Conservatives stand on censorship, which you endorse?

Where did I imply anything in that post that had to do with the Constitution? WTF were you reading/smoking?

And if those are Goldberg's thoughts, quit claiming them as your own. We all know there is no original thought you can produce.

0

Scott Wedel 6 years, 11 months ago

If increasing turnout by 57% in an electoral process means nothing to you then you do not value democracy.

Winning Iowa does not necessarily carry great importance because it is a generally conservative rural state. Candidates that tailor their appeal to Iowa caucus voters can easily be alienating the rest of the country.

Which is why Huckabee is not expected to win New Hampshire and will probably need to win Soutt Carolina to have a chance going into the Feb 5th super duper tuesday.

But it is that very nature of Iowa that makes Obama's win so dramatic, that was not supposed to be his sort of people and candidates that rely upon the youth vote had always been disappointed at their poor turnout. Obama got the young to show up, proved to be better organized in the caucases than Hillary, and now is heading to New Hampshire has a far more favorable demographic for him than Iowa. New Hampshire has a high percentage of college grads who have been strong supporters of Obama. And after NH comes South Carolina where blacks are almost 50% of Democratic electorate and it is hard to imagine blacks saving Hillary from the Obama express. Thus, if Obama wins NH as the latest polls project then he'll go into super duper tuesday having won every head to head battle with Hillary.

And tactically, the way Obama is getting crowds excited with his speeches about the future and ending politics of the past, makes it far harder for his opponents to attack him because now doing an attack ad puts that candidate firmly as a politician of the past. As long as Obama avoids a major mistake then he is going to be hard to stop.

I think the republicans will probably end up with Romney because too many don't like Huckabee or McCain. Rudi has yet to campaign anywhere another than Florida without having his poll numbers decrease the more he talks. That a big problem for a politician.

I think republican insiders could tolerate Obama running for president and even winning because that'd be better than the likely vindictive partisianship they'd get from Hillary. And Obama's message of change would give the republicans a chance at knocking off some high profile democratic senators and congressmen.

0

twostroketerror 6 years, 11 months ago

Political experience shouldn't be the only gauge. GWB didn't have much foreign policy exp, and look what he's done for the US and the popularity of Americas' image across the globe.

0

grannyrett 6 years, 11 months ago

I would just like to hear a canidate state what he stands for or how he feels on any subject. Change-change-change-HOW will they change things. It's all lip service and nothing else.

0

dundalk 6 years, 11 months ago

GrannyRett:

I totally agree with you. "Change". It's the catch word for this year. "Change" here, "change" there.

American voters want change? Take a shower, change your panties, freshen up. But to use the simplistic word "change" to pad a pale resume, under the guise that a candidate is qualified to be president is a joke.

Although I am a lifelong conservative Republican, I am getting fed up with all the yahoos (on both sides of the spectrum) running on the premise that they are going to be the "change" this country needs.

Put up or shut up, I say. What are you going to do for the benefit of this country...How are you going to accomplish it? Tell me what you bring to the table, not what the other dinner guest is lacking.

0

seeuski 6 years, 11 months ago

grannyrett you are exactly right about these so called changeaholics. I just want a pres who doesn't raise taxes, protects the country from islamofascism terrorists, tells us what Clinton(Bill) lied about in regards to the Oklahoma City bombing and its connection to Sadam Hussien(http://www.jaynadavis.com/)which is the true reason for the Iraq invasion, Doesn't copitulate or negotiate bad deals like Clinton did with Iran and N. Korea and doesn't tuck tail and run from the bad guys we are fighting in the Middle East which will cause another round of attacks against the US.

0

Matthew Stoddard 6 years, 11 months ago

Is it just me, or did 2stroke's GWB remark about our popularity go right over sbvor's small head?

Now, I always say it's hard to read sarcasm in print, but that stuck out like a sore thumb to me. What, exactly, has Sarkozy done so far for the US except tell us of his admiration for Bush? Any troops going Iraq to give a hand?

Now read this link about Sarkozy from a site sbvor should be proud to call home:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/599dliqj.asp

And from only 5 days before sbvor's link. Hmmmm...is sbvor really Sarkozy??? LMAO! ;-)

0

raver 6 years, 11 months ago

wow, sbvor youve really opened my eyes. all liberals are communists, liars, freedom haters, they all hate the constitution, and are generally scum. thank you for enlightening me.

0

blackthroatedwind 6 years, 11 months ago

I visit these forums from time to time, and even comment now and then, although rarely. It's eye opening to watch the manner in which conservatives and liberals express their opinions. One thing I've noticed repeatedly in topic after topic; Kielbasa likes to insult the person who opines, as well as the opinion they express. Sbvor, I applaud your ability to keep from responding to personal attacks. Kielbasa, how about keeping to the topic, which actually has nothing to do with the size of sbvor's head, eh?

0

Matthew Stoddard 6 years, 11 months ago

Kielbasa LOVES to insult the person who watches O'Reilly for buzzwords too often. (Do people forget that I'm a moderate Republican and watch O'Reilly?)

And remember what I asked in prior threads: do you consider "Whacked Out Left" to be a spousal pet name? "Hi, Honey! How's my little Whacked Out Leftist today?!? Didn't cause any Downfall of Civilization today, did you?" Sounds ad hominem to me. If you're going to play, play fair. It's what O'Reilly does while bloviating.

0

ColoradoNative 6 years, 11 months ago

I can't think of a better example of our country being divided than this thread.

It's funny how we like to blame the politicians for all our problems.

0

blackthroatedwind 6 years, 11 months ago

Kielbasa, calling a political ideology the "whacked out left" is entirely different than singling out an individual for their supposed hat size (only one example among many). There is a difference. My suggestion is to simply, "play fair" and try to stick to the topic when expressing your opinion (buzzword removed in respect to your "moderate" sensibilities), rather than insulting another who has simply expressed their own opinion.

0

suckerfreeforlife 6 years, 11 months ago

A multitude of issues here.

First, "Change" is the buzzword this year because its been wildly succesful for Obama, and every other candidate is copying that formula. Not really a surprise from the dems, as theyre out of office. But listening to Repubs talking about change is surreal. You can just hear their scheister spin doctors reminding them to let America know theyll bring "change." Of course, if W wasnt such an inept bungler who's use of "signing statements"(among other things) make him more of a monarch than a president, "Change" wouldnt resonate quite so well.

Second, sbvor's record of snide,adolescent, disrespectful discourse is well established. Its a given that the mud will fly almost every time he/she posts. As most of the repubs who post here seem eager to enable the likes of Coulter and her minions, i find it odd that they try to take the miss manners high ground. "Yaaahs, were quite peeved with the ill-mannered fascist mentally diseased dims. Theyre quite shrill, woudn't you agree, buffy? Yaaahs, if only these traitorous tree hugging surrender monkeys would act a bit more civil. Yaaahs, tennis anyone?"

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.