A new poll shows a three-way-tie among the top Democratic candidates in Iowa.
WASHINGTON (CNN) - It's a dead heat among the top three Democratic presidential candidates in the crucial early-voting state of Iowa, according to a new CBS/New York Times poll out of the Hawkeye State Wednesday.
Less than 50 days before Iowa voters kick off the presidential primary process, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-New York, holds a statistically insignificant 2 percentage-point lead over former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards (25 percent to 23 percent.) Illinois Sen. Barack Obama is only 1 point behind at 22 percent. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson registered 12 percent and the rest of the field is in single digits.
But nearly half of those backing the top candidates said they may change their mind before caucus day, an indication the final outcome of the presidential season's first caucus is extremely unpredictable.
The poll also indicates former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney continues to hold his lead over the rest of the Republican presidential field with 27 percent while dark-horse candidate and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee places a strong second with 21 percent. Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani comes in third with 15 percent and former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson stands at 9 percent. The rest of the field polled in low single digits.
Like their Democratic counterparts, close to 1 in 2 Republican caucus goers who identified supporting a candidate said their mind is not definitely made up, and 14 percent say they aren't leaning toward any particular candidate at this point in time.
The poll surveyed 1,273 likely Iowa caucus goers from November 2-11. The margin of error for the Democratic sample is 4 percentage points, while the margin of error for the Republican sample is plus or minus 5 percentage points.
– CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney
Obama, grow up. Who wants to vote for a guy who asked a scientific establishment to fire the man who discovered the DNA sequence for revealing the results of a test showing that African Americans score below the Caucasians? Watson was fired from his job for making that statement and saying other good things about the African Americans. Obama' s request that Watson be fired is stupid and who wants a stupid president? Obama is a racist for making his own statement, not Watson.
After all, Caucasians don't get angry when the tests show that they score below the Orientals. When you thick about it, how can we expect African Americans to score higher than Caucasians when they lack the thousands of years of civilization behind their race? They are lucky to be in America where they can absorb the advanced civilization at this time.
Let Obama grow up before we consider him a candidate for president.
This is actually not bad news for any of the top three DEMs. This is the first vetting process and each of them have what it takes to be President. I am a Clinton supporter and I do believe she will emerge the eventual winner of the Iowa caucus and the rest will be history. NO MORE FAUX PAS, NO PLANTED QUESTIONS, NO TIMID DUBIOUS ANSWERS....STAY FOCUSED. Hillary can do this.
MEET THE PRESS SUNDAY INTERVIEW WITH OBAMA
MR. RUSSERT: A year ago, you were asked about Hillary Clinton. And this the exchange. “Where do you find yourself having the biggest differences with Hillary Clinton, politically?” Obama: “You know, I think very highly of Hillary. The more I get to know her, the more I admire her. I think she’s the most disciplined—one of the most disciplined people I’ve ever met. She’s one of the toughest. She’s got an extraordinary intelligence.” “She is—she’s somebody who’s in this stuff for the right reasons. She’s passionate about moving the country forward on issues like healthcare and children. So it’s not clear to me what differences we’ve had since I’ve been in the Senate.” Do you still hold to that? There aren’t any differences?
SEN. OBAMA: Well, I think that I, as I said earlier, I have admiration for Senator Clinton. I think she’s a fine public servant. The reason I’m running is because I think we’re in a unique moment in American history right now. The nation’s at war; our planet is in peril. We’ve got a series of decisions that we’re going to have to make. And I believe that I can more effectively than any other candidate in this race bring the country together, overcome some of the same old arguments that we’ve been having since the 1990s. I think I can reach out to Republicans and independents more effectively than any other candidate that...
MR. RUSSERT: What arguments do you want to put behind you?
SEN. OBAMA: Well, look, when we think about, let’s say, foreign policy, we have had a tendency to, to argue along the spectrum of you’re either a hawk or a dove. Either you’re willing to engage in military action and oftentimes think military action first and diplomacy second, or you’re a dove, you’ve got post-Vietnam syndrome, you’re suspicious of any military action. I think that the way we have to think about it is to say that right now we live in a dangerous world. There are times where we’re going to need to act militarily. We should not hesitate to act on behalf of the national interest. But we have to understand that we’ve got more power than just the military at our, our disposal, and that’s something, obviously, the Bush administration has forgotten.
Having the ability to focus on getting the job done, as opposed to getting embroiled in ideological arguments, which have become so common in Washington, I think, is going to be important for the next president, and that’s what I intend to do as president.
MR. RUSSERT: You had an exchange with The New York Times. It says here, “In an interview, Obama said Hillary Clinton was deliberately obscuring her positions for political gain. Asked if she had been fully truthful with voters about what she should do as president, Mr. Obama replied, ‘No.’” On which issues has Hillary Clinton not been truthful?
SEN. OBAMA: Well, I think that what Senator Clinton’s been doing is running what’s considered a textbook Washington campaign, and what that says is that you don’t answer directly tough questions. You don’t present tough choices directly to the American people for fear that your answers might not be popular, you might make yourself a target for Republicans in the general election. So on Social Security, for example, she has maintained, it appears, that if we just get our fiscal house in order that we can solve the problem of Social Security. Now, we’ve got 78 million baby boomers that are going to be retiring, and every expert that looks at this problem says “There’s going to be a gap, and we’re going to have more money going out than we have coming in unless we make some adjustments now.” Now, I think that Social Security is the single most important social program that we have in this country, and I want to make sure that it’s there not just for this generation, but for next generations. So that means that we’re going to have to make some decisions, and it’s not sufficient for us to just finesse the issue because we’re worried that, well, we might be attacked for the various options we present.
MR. RUSSERT: But, Senator, you said last year—earlier this year that everything should be on the table for Social Security, including looking at raising retirement age, indexing benefits, and then suddenly you said, “No, no. Those aren’t off—on the table; I’m taking them off the table.”
SEN. OBAMA: Tim, that’s not—that’s not what I said. What I said was that I will convene a meeting as president where we discuss all of the options that are available. That doesn’t mean that as president I will not have strong opinions on how we should move forward. And when you look at how we should approach Social Security, I believe that cutting retire—cutting benefits is not the right answer. I meet too many seniors all across the country who are struggling with the limited Social Security benefits that they have. That raising the retirement age is not the best option, particularly when we’ve got people who ware still in manufacturing. By the time they’re 67, their bodies, oftentimes...
MR. RUSSERT: But in May you said they would be on the table.
SEN. OBAMA: Well, when I—I am going to be listening to any ideas that are presented, but I think that the best way to approach this is to adjust the cap on the payroll tax so that people like myself are paying a little bit more and the people who are in need are protected. That is the option that I will be pushing forward. But, look, even as president I’m not going to be able to get this done by myself, and that means that I’m going to be listening to any other ideas out there. It doesn’t mean, though, that I’m not going to have a strong position on it.
MR. RUSSERT: But they would be on the table?
SEN. OBAMA: Well, I will listen to all arguments and the best options, finding out what is it going to take to close that gap. But what I’m going to continue to insist on is that the reason we need to fix it now is precisely to protect our senior citizens and maintain not only Social Security as a social insurance program, but also make sure that the benefits are sufficient so that we don’t have seniors in need.
MR. RUSSERT: When you say “raise the cap,” right now you pay payroll tax on the first $97,500. If you increase that for people to pay Social Security tax on their full income, about 10 million people, some could pay as much as $5,000 a year more. How is that going to play in November?
SEN. OBAMA: Well, it—you know, I have not specified exactly how we would structure it. Conceivably, you might have the equivalent of a doughnut hole, although this one would be a good one, as opposed to the bad doughnut hole that Bush set up for, for prescription drugs where you have a gap between people who are of middle income and very wealthy people. But, look, I’ve, I’ve got a friend, Warren Buffett, you may know, the guy made $46 million last year. This is public information because he’s concerned that he is paying a lower tax rate than anybody else in his office. And, you know, he has said, and I think a lot of us who have been fortunate are willing to pay a little bit more to make sure that a senior citizen who is struggling to deal with rising property taxes or rising heating bills, that they’ve got the coverage that they need.
MR. RUSSERT: So you would not be afraid to say, “We have a problem with Social Security, and I’m willing to raise taxes on some to help address the?to fix it.”
SEN. OBAMA: I, I, I believe that it is important for us to look at all the options, but I think that the best option would be to make sure that those who are in the best position to help solve this problem are willing to do so.
MR. RUSSERT: Last night, the Jefferson Jackson dinner here in Iowa, you spoke, and this an—a quick quote from your speech. Let’s listen.
SEN. OBAMA: I am sick and tired of Democrats thinking that the only way to look tough on national security is by talking and acting and voting like George Bush Republicans.
MR. RUSSERT: “Talking and acting and voting like George Bush Republicans.” Who’s that?
SEN. OBAMA: Well, look, we know that too many Democrats, I believe, went along with George Bush when it came to the war in Iraq. In fact, of all the major candidates, I’m the only one who, in 2002, opposed the war in Iraq. I am concerned about the latest moves that the administration has been making with respect to Iran. And when, for example, Senator Clinton supported the Kyl-Lieberman amendment that suggests that we should structure our forces in Iraq with an eye toward blunting the influence of Iran in that country, that is, I think, a wrong message, not only to the world but also to the region, where we should be pursuing direct diplomacy. And so, on a series of issues, what I believe is that the Democrats have not stood forcefully against George Bush, they have not been clear about what an alternative foreign policy strategy would be, and, unless we present as a party a different vision about how we would approach national security, how we’d approach battling terrorism, I think that we are going to make ourselves vulnerable in the fall, and, more importantly, we’re going to be doing a disservice to the American people.
MR. RUSSERT: You were not in the Senate in October of 2002. You did give a speech opposing the war. But Senator Clinton’s campaign will say since you’ve been a senator there’s been no difference in your record. And other critics will say that you’ve not been a leader against the war, and they point to this: In July of ‘04, Barack Obama, “I’m not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don’t know,” in terms of how you would have voted on the war. And then this: “There’s not much of a difference between my position on Iraq and George Bush’s position at this stage.” That was July of ‘04. And this: “I think” there’s “some room for disagreement in that initial decision to vote for authorization of the war.” It doesn’t seem that you are firmly wedded against the war, and that you left some wiggle room that, if you had been in the Senate, you may have voted for it.
SEN. OBAMA: Now, Tim, that first quote was made with an interview with a guy named Tim Russert on MEET THE PRESS during the convention when we had a nominee for the presidency and a vice president, both of whom had voted for the war. And so it, it probably was the wrong time for me to be making a strong case against our party’s nominees’ decisions when it came to Iraq.
MR. RUSSERT: Some involved in the anti-movement have said that in 2004, 2005, 2006 Barack Obama voted to fund the war. Every time there was a proposal to have a fixed date withdrawal you said no, it would be a slap in the face to the American troops, it may create bloodshed and more division, that American credibility was at stake, that you were not a leader in trying to stop the war until you ran for president and got to Iowa and got to New Hampshire and had a sense of the anti-war, war fervor in the Democratic base.
SEN. OBAMA: No.
MR. RUSSERT: Where was the leadership?
SEN. OBAMA: I, I, I disagree with that. You know, throughout I was a constant critic. The first hearing that I had was with Condoleezza Rice in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. This was a few months after I had been sworn in as senator. And I told her at that point, we need to wind this war down. It is true that my preference would not be to end this war simply by cutting off funding. My preference would be for the president to recognize that we needed to change course, and that was what I continually pushed for. At the point where we realized the president was not willing to change course, I put forward a very clear timetable for when we should remove our troops. And, when that was vetoed, I then suggested that the only way to get the president to the table to negotiate how we’re going to move in a different direction in Iraq is by not giving him a blank check when it comes to funding.
But, look, throughout this process my views have been consistent. The question has been, given the situation on the ground, how can I be most constructive not in scoring political points, but making sure that we have the best possible outcome after what I considered to be a tragic strategic mistake in the region.
MR. RUSSERT: But you have changed in your support now of withdrawal. You have changed now in your support of cutting off funding.
SEN. OBAMA: But I haven’t changed in my opposition to the war. Look, you know, at the time when we were trying to convene a government in Iraq that would work, it was important, I think, for me and others who opposed the war to hope for the best possible outcome in Iraq. You know, I’ve never rooted against success in Iraq, I’ve just been skeptical that this was the right approach for us to take. I have also been very clear throughout about why this was such a strategic mistake. The president now is talking about the grave threat that Iran faces, and he’s absolutely right that Iran is a serious threat if they develop nuclear weapons, their support of Hezbollah and Hamas. The biggest beneficiary of our invasion of Iraq has been Iran. And it gives some sense of why we’ve got to have a president in the Oval Office who’s making decisions not based on ideology, but based on knowledge of the region, based on the players that are involved, based on what’s good for our long-term national security. And that’s something that I believe I can provide as president.
MR. RUSSERT: I had asked you in one of the debates whether you’d make a commitment to have all American troops out of Iraq by the end of your first term, and you said you couldn’t do that. You said you had to fight al-Qaeda, had to make sure there was not genocide, try to secure the country. How, how many troops do you envision would have to remain in Iraq for some time to come?
SEN. OBAMA: Here’s what I’d do as president: We can get one to two brigades out per month safely. At that pace, we would have all our combat troops out in about 16 months from the time we initiate it. I would like to see it start now. It is not clear that that’s possible, given George Bush’s posture. But 16 months from the time we initiate it, we could have our combat troops out.
The only troops I would have in Iraq would have a very limited mission. Number one, to protect our embassy and our civilian, diplomatic corps. I don’t want Blackwater to be providing that security; I want our U.S. military to providing—to provide that security. I’m very skeptical about the use of private contractors when it comes to our national security. The only other mission, and this is a very narrow one, would be to engage in counterterrorism activity. If al-Qaeda in Iraq is reforming bases there, we should have the capacity to strike them. That would be it. Those would be the only troops that we would deploy.
MR. RUSSERT: How many would that be?
SEN. OBAMA: Well, you know, I’m going to leave that up to the, the commanders on the ground, because my job is to set a clear mission for them. Their job is to then tell me, “This is what we need to achieve that mission.”
MR. RUSSERT: But, but—yeah, but we have 165,000 there now. Are we talking 150,000?
SEN. OBAMA: There, there—here’s what I’ll say, Tim. We will have the vast majority of the troops who are there gone. This war will be over; there will be no permanent bases. So when I hear, for example, others say, “I will have all troops out,” well, the fact of the matter is who’s going to protect our embassy? Who’s going to protect our civilian forces? Are these folks suggesting that we’re just going to leave them to wander around the streets and rely on the Iraqi military to do that? Obviously not.
And in—there is a difference, though, between myself and Senator Clinton on a couple of these issues. Number one, she hasn’t given a firm timetable in terms of executing the withdrawal, and I think that’s a problem. I think we have to provide certainty to the Iraqi leadership, so that they know that we are serious about changing course. She’s also suggested that the mission on the ground would be more expansive than the one that I’ve envisioned. And that includes, by the way, at least in an article that she—an interview that she gave in March, that, for example, dealing with Iran and making sure they don’t have influence in Iraq would be one of the missions of our military. I think that is a mistake, and so—because what, what happens is that then presents the possibility of a mission creep, an expansion that would involve more troops than I think is necessary.
MR. RUSSERT: I want to talk about Iran, because there’s been a discussion about a vote she cast that you mentioned earlier. Back in March there was a resolution in the Senate, and here’s what it said: “The Secretary of State should designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.” And you voted for that. Now, The Washington Post analyzed your position and Senator Clinton’s, and this is what they editorialized: “So is there any real difference between Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton on Iran? Mr. Obama contends that one distinction lies in Ms. Clinton’s acceptance of language in the September 26, ‘07” “resolution that ‘it is’” “‘critical national interest of the United States’ to stop Iran from creating a Hezbollah-like force in Iraq. Mr. Obama claims that such language is ‘saber-rattling’ that could be used by the Bush administration to justify an attack on Iran. This is hard to fathom. Not only is there no mention of the use of U.S.” forces “in the resolution, but last year Mr. Obama gave a speech in which he said it ‘is in our national interest to prevent’ Iran or Syrian from using Iraq as ‘a staging area from which to attack Israel or other countries.’”
So if you have the same concern about using—Iran using that as a staging area, you would have a position very similar to Senator Clinton’s.
MR. RUSSERT: You’ve been talking a lot about lobbyists and money in politics. This is The Boston Globe in August: in eight—“Obama’s eight years in the Illinois Senate, from 1996 to 2004, almost two-thirds of the money he raised for his campaigns came from” political action committees, “corporate contributions,” “unions, according to Illinois Board of Elections records. He tapped financial service firms, real estate developers, healthcare providers, oil companies, and many other corporate interests, the records show.” You now talk about, “Well, I’m not taking any money from lobbyists.” You do take money from state lobbyists. You took $1.5 million from federal lobbying—employees who work for federal lobbying firms. There seems to be a real inconsistency between the amount of money you raise and where it’s coming from, and your rhetoric.
SEN. OBAMA: Well, Tim, look, I, I have said repeatedly that money is the original sin in politics and I am not sinless. I have raised money in order to bankroll my campaigns. But what I have been consistent about is fighting to reduce the influence of money in politics at every level of government. I am the only candidate in this race who has really pushed hard to reduce the influence of lobbyists. When I was in the state legislature, I passed the first campaign ethics reform legislation in 25 years. When I was in the United States Senate working with Russ Feingold, we passed the toughest ethics reform since Watergate—eliminating meals, eliminating gifts, eliminating the use of corporate jets by congressmen when they’re given by lobbyists. So I’ve got this track record, and the way I’m conducting this campaign, I think, reflects that interest in reducing money in politics.
MR. RUSSERT: But it’s all new. You did it all this...
SEN. OBAMA: No, no, no, no, no. As I said, Tim, this interest, this support of public financing of campaigns, the support of changing the ethics rules, promoting robust disclosure when it comes to how campaigns are financed, those are all laws that I have written and I have passed. So my commitment extends beyond just not taking lobbyists’ money and taking PAC money. It’s absolutely true that, in the past, there have been times where I received lobbyist and PAC money. But the interest in reducing money in politics is one that has been consistent and that I have consistently fought against. And that, I think, is the kind of track record, of being willing to take on not only Republicans, but oftentimes taking on leaders in my own party who are resistant to change that I think gives me credibility to say when I am president I am actually going to take this seriously and use my political capital to deal with it.
MR. RUSSERT: But if you say you don’t take federal lobbyist but you take state lobbyist money...
SEN. OBAMA: Well, Tim...
MR. RUSSERT: ...or you take money from people who work for federal lobbying firms, or you take $2 million from people who work on Wall Street or hundreds of thousands of dollars from people who work in pharmaceutical companies, isn’t it just a word game?
SEN. OBAMA: Tim, I mean, this is the problem when you want to try to fix Washington is if you take certain steps to improve the process, then people will say, “Well, it’s not perfect.” Well, of course it’s not perfect. That’s the problem for running for president right now is you’ve got to raise millions of dollars in order to compete. We’ve got more small donors than every other candidate on the Democratic side combined. We have set out admittedly imperfect rules to try to reduce the influence of money in politics. But you are absolutely right. Most of the people that are writing $2300 checks are wealthy people, and that’s one of the problems with our political system. That’s something that I am intent on changing, and I’ve got a track record of actually bringing about change that I believe nobody else has.
MR. RUSSERT: You talked about Senator Clinton having records released from the Clinton Library regarding her experience as first lady, and yet when you were asked about, “What about eight years in the state senate of Illinois,” you said, “I don’t know.” Where, where are the—where are your records?
SEN. OBAMA: Tim, we did not keep those records. I...
MR. RUSSERT: Are they gone?
SEN. OBAMA: Well, let’s be clear. In the state senate, every single piece of information, every document related to state government was kept by the state of Illinois and has been disclosed and is available and has been gone through with a fine-toothed comb by news outlets in Illinois. The, the stuff that I did not keep has to do with, for example, my schedule. I didn’t have a schedule. I was a state senator. I wasn’t intending to have the Barack Obama State Senate Library. I didn’t have 50 or 500 people to, to help me archive these issues. So...
MR. RUSSERT: But your meetings with lobbyists and so forth, there’s no record of that?
SEN. OBAMA: I did not have a scheduler, but, as I said, every document related to my interactions with government is available right now. And, as I said, news outlets have already looked at them.
MR. RUSSERT: Is your schedule available anywhere? Are—the records exist?
SEN. OBAMA: I—Tim, I kept my own schedule. I didn’t have a scheduler.
Read more from Tim's meet the press, msnbc
First Iowa then NH then South Carolina and then the U.S.!!
Why do some of you give Edwards such a hard time? He wasn't born with a trust fund nor a last name that made his life easy, like the current President. He worked hard to make something of himself. The majority of American voters cannot say the same thing. Yes, he is freakin' loaded, but he earned it. If he can manage his own life this well, then why would he not be able to manage this country?
I just heard an individual who most likely does not make more than $20,000 a year say he was afraid of a Democrat being elected because his taxes would increase. In reality, taxes would be increased if a Democrat is elected, but only for those households earning more than $350,000 a year. Yet this individual, who is most helped by the Democratic party, repeats sound bites he heard from the Republican party.
Elect Edwards and end the elephant's twisted PR for good! If you are not an informed voter, do us all a favor and don't vote.
Ugghh, definitely not Edwards, definitely not Hillary. Go Obama! OBAMA '08!!!
Typical name calling Lib....shut up and get back in line to beg for your handouts.
If you had any kind of life you would want the government out of it.
Sorry, but John Edwards' expression is one of honesty, integrity and courage. His demeanor is also candid, even though he wears a suit (whatever that has anything to do with it). :-)
To Evan Estevez "Mitt the twit, Fooliani, Bushie McCain" How very adult of you. And your supposed to be a police officer, right?
It is going to be a great day after the Iowa primaries, when Hillary drops to third. And all the reporters start asking HER if she would be willing to be Obama or Edwards vice president. And her answer will probably be "I don't support being VP, but I support the idea of being VP!"
I like Obama and I like Edwards. But Hillary is looking as sneaky as the corrupt Republicans who've already screwed up America and tarnished our once honorable nation.
I don't know if Edwards or Obama will finish first in Iowa, they could certainly finish first and second in either order. Clinton lacks the experience and leadership needed to rally her party around her. She is no Bill Clinton.
Obama campaign web site bloggers did a self survey of about 100 supporters to gauge their ideology. It is intersting:
–104 of you responded;
–Together, those in the center of the spectrum - identified as Centrist Democrats, Conservative Democrats and Moderate Republicans – comprised the largest pool of respondents, at 34.6%;
–The second-largest number of respondents – 30.7 % - described themselves as Independents;
–Liberals or Liberal Democrats comprised 27.8 percent of respondents;
–Respondents who said they were independents were slightly more likely to describe themselves as ideologically conservative-turned –Democrat just for Obama than to say they were left-leaning. Other self-described Independents said they were ideologically eclectic, likely to vote on different sides of the aisle depending on the type of issue in question.
Come on Iowa lets turn this election on it's head. Don't let the media lead us to a candidate. We are counting on you all to turn things around!
Thank you Kim from Portland, OR. Simply put: "Stupid is as stupid does" and if you throw around enough "stupid", you'll probably vote that way. Isn't that how we ended up with Shrub?
My advice: Get your news from somewhere other than the mainstream (read: corporate) media. It's the age of information sheeple and the treasures abound regardless of your political leanings.
Obama can and will win the general election. Many conservatives are ready for a new direction and a uniter. Mrs. Clinton is not someone they trust or believe in. For whatever polls are worth, she is ranked as number one amongst least liked candidates- with 50% saying they would never vote for her. Democrats must concentrate on winning the overall election and with Obama we can!
Posted By Shannon, Nashville, TN : November 14, 2007 11:11 am
If you want to vote for Obama by all means vote for Obama...please don't sit on here and preach what the RNC is preaching and playing on democrats in hope of meddling in our parties decision. Conservatives are looking for change and a uniter...and they are gonna leave their partys agenda and vote for Obama cause he is such a good guy who is opposite everything as a conservative they stand for...I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt that you are a Republican masquerading as a Democrat because the other alternative is that you are politically ignorant and I hope thats not it. The whole unelectable thing is so insulting to me because the premise is not to vote for the candidate you may believe in because the REPUBLICANS don't like him/her. Am I the only one who sees how ridiculous that is.
Hillary Clinton will be the next President of The United States.
Just wait 1 year and you will see!
I HAVE TO COMMENT ABOUT THIS PERSON'S STATEMENT ----------
Those who have an evil hatrid of those who have worked harder than them and have taken full advantage of the unlimited success available in the greatest nation ever vote Democrat. These nasty, hateful, evil, dishonest libs want to take money from those who are not as lazy as they are and want to punish them for working hard. If you don't support this, then you cannot vote Democrat. Remember the truth next November, the decent, good, honest Americans who make this country great will be depending on you, thank you.
BTW, notice that Osama's recent tape is the exact same message available on the liberal Democrat internet bible, Moveon.org. He knows his allies, don't be one of them.
Posted By Doug, New Jersey : November 14, 2007 11:49 am
Are you kidding me dude? This has to be the most rediculous statement I've heard yet. I don't even know where to begin with your "Democrats' Link to terrorist ideals". That's just rediculous.
–As for the rich being targeted by Democrats, look guy, I'm sorry but tax breaks for the rich do not appeal to me or the majority of America. I honestly feel more for the working class American that has to struggle on his wage to feed his family and fuel his car over a wealthy guy having to decide whether to get a 30 foot yacht or a 40 foot yacht. Seriously if America's wealthy were more curtious and put money back into the worker's hands then i would have more sympathy but America has the worst kind of wealthy people in the world. You're all greedy and you only care about getting wealthier. THE WEALTHY OF THIS NATION ARE WHY THE ECONOMY IS STRUGGLING! It's the working class and the middle class that actually spend and spur the economy, not the upper class. Republican theory of putting more money in the hands of the wealthy so that it will "trickle down" to the little guy simply doesn't work because the rich horde that extra money and don't pass it down.
–MY SINCERE hope and from what I see right now, no matter how this election turns out, a Democrat will be the next president, and I HOPE, they tax the heck out of the rich. The rich are the ones that drove up the housing market, the rich are the ones that fail to pass their tax breaks down to their workers and it's the rich that should pay for the economic troubles we're facing. AND!!! to continue this rant, Don't try to act like you worked harder to get the money you have, because VERY FEW people are able to go from rags to riches in this country, it takes a wealthy family to put their kids through school. I've watched those who come from lower class families struggle to get a decent education and they never quite get to "wealthy" despite being smarter and better qualified than their "wealthy from birth" counterparts. Also it is the American working class that put in the long hours and have the harder jobs. So don't even try to act like you work harder, I work ten times harder than my bosses and they make twice the wage, explain that one RICH GUY!
Just like to throw this out there for all the Donkeys and Elephants. The Independent voter will determine this election
Polls say we constitute roughly 19% of the electorate and whichever candidate apppeals to us the most (moderate, centrist, populist) will be the next POTUS.
It is unfortunate that Paul will not get the GOP nod but such is life.
Seriously WHERE DO THESE PEOPLE COME FROM?~~~~?~?~~~~?
"Those who have an evil hatrid of those who have worked harder than them and have taken full advantage of the unlimited success available in the greatest nation ever vote Democrat. These nasty, hateful, evil, dishonest libs want to take money from those who are not as lazy as they are and want to punish them for working hard. If you don't support this, then you cannot vote Democrat. Remember the truth next November, the decent, good, honest Americans who make this country great will be depending on you, thank you.
Posted By Doug, New Jersey : November 14, 2007 11:49 am"
Doug From Jersey, you have GOT to be kidding me, Dem's are terrorists and if you vote for them you're a terrorist? is that it? \
-Doug, NOBODY has simpathy for the rich, the rich have neglected America for as long as I can remember. It's not the rich that carry America's flag to foreign lands and it's not the Rich that fight for it's freedoms, It's the rich that drag down this country and do everything they can to maintain their wealth without giving back to the people that got them there. I HAVE NO SYMPATHY FOR THE RICH AND I HOPE WE ELECT A DEM THAT TAXES THE HECK OUT OF THE RICH. Those of us that aren't rich know and understand that we work twice as hard to obtain a lesser wage and it's mainly because rich people don't pass down the tax breaks they've been given by the republicans that have had power the pass 8 years. The working and middle class of this country are the ones that spur the economy and work hard for our civil liberties whereas the wealthy of this nation have shown repeatedly that if there is no profit in it they won't lift a finger. I say, with fairly strong confidence that a Democrat will be our next president and I sincerely hope they start taxing the wealthy and putting it back in the hands of the real Americans, the ones that will actually spend it and bring back the economy.
This forum is retarded and does not post anything I am sending because it i guess is controversial. All i was saying was that Doug from Jersey is a retard and he must be completely indoctrinated with Republicanism. Sickens me that people are so extreme. Also the wealthy ARE what's wrong with this country, they never fight for our personal liberties or defend our Nation's interests on foreign soil. It's the working and middle class that do that. Without us the rich wouldn't have an America to be wealthy in. So i hope the Dems win and tax the heck out of the rich. They never did pass down the tax breaks they got onto their workers now did they Doug. So why put money in the hands of the wealthy when they aren't going to spend it and spur the economy. Quit crying you rich yuppie, i'm sure your 30 foot yacht will be okay instead of the 50 foot one. I'd rather give a tax break to a family choosing whether or not to feed their family or put gas in their car for work than get you a new boat.
Edwards is gonna take it. Bottom line. He's a white male, and no matter how much support we have for Hilary and Obama, the truth is we're not ready for that strong of a change. This is a landmark election, it gets the idea out there finally. But Edwards will take it. Doesn't matter if its the right or wrong thing to do.
Posted By Tim, Lawrence KS : November 14, 2007 11:51 am
You must be an old white male of the time of the later day saints lol
Obama is hitting big in Iowa, just watch that history unfold....
WHY AREN'T ANY OF MY POSTS MAKING IT TO THE BOARD!
Thank you for changing the photo.
On Iowa First
'1st in the nation status' is a privilege for those of us who currently live in Iowa, because we have the opportunity that many citizens don't... the chance to be courted and to stand toe to toe and meet eyes with those who may well next lead the free world. It is so easy to jab and make blanket (oft times ignorant) statements about why Iowa should not be 1st.
A caucus is a communal face-to-face discussion where you can simply stand and be counted for who you support. You can also engage in debate on who is the best person for the job and possibly even sway other voters to support your candidate. It'd be great to see all candidates downselected this way. Incidentally, I caucused for Edwards in 2004 and am happy to say he's been unequivocally upstaged by both Obama & Clinton.
It is simple. Those of us who feel it is our right to steal from others because we can't support ourselves will vote Democrat, and honest, hard working people who believe in self responsibility and don't wish to steal from others will vote Republican. Gee, I don't know, ya think that might just give the right moral superiority?
There is a reason why conservatives give far more of their money to charity than Liberals, and yes we are talking percentages of a persons wealth so the fact that conservatives have more to give is irrelevant. There is a reason why a liberal Democrat politician like Alan Hevisi can talk about shooting the president between the eyes but if a Republican did that about any President, he would lose all of his support. Ideology has a lot to do with one’s character, many republicans are bad people who have made bad decisions but in comparison with liberal Democrats, all of them come out honest, respectful, morally superior, and much much more tolerant. Now ask yourself, what is in your heart?
And you have the gall to make this statement after your preceding paragraph, Miriam?