The news today from Iowa is outstanding. Regardless of who you want to win the elections, the fact than an African American wins the Democratic Iowa Caucus is a historical landmark in the United States. Furthrmore, Obama took 38% of the votes in a 95% white state like Iowa with almost 10 percentage points above the Clinton campaign machine with all of its experience and expertise.
This is something to make you proud to be American. Time will tell whether Obama can continue the momentum against the Clinton powerhouse, but the times have definitely changed and are changing. Think about it.
Grave Error 
Yeah it is a historical event. I am surprised that no one is talking about it.
The other big piece of news is that H. Clinton got 3rd place.
It was the big talk on CNBC and Fox this a.m. It really got my attention before Obama’s speech at the end of the night when a republican senator was asked about Obama’s inexperience on a I think it was FOX. The senator’s first response was to mitigate that with the comment that in his two years in the senate Obama was always willing to work with the republicans. Then in his speech that was one of Obama’s main themes. That really resonated with me and I’ve heard no other candidate really take that theme. I hate to always sound like I’m oversimplifying, but where our country is right now (so divided) that’s just about No. 1 on my list. How can you be a leader without that being at the top of your list. The dominant conservative talk show types have us all tagged as Conservatives or libs. I’m loooking for someone who will listen and work with all Americans.
Was it the big news on the talk shows this morning? I am sincerely asking b/c i haven’t seen TV today, so i was basing my comments on TV late last night and the internet today.
and the internet today they are just saying that he won, but not that it is a big (historical) deal. I was thinking that maybe they are scared of overplaying that issue as they may be considered racists if they sound too surprised that an African American won in Iowa.
I think you make a good point about seeking a candidate that isn’t polarized. I think H. Clinton in her speak last night had to say what she said, which was the result was a victory for Democrats.
At the end of the day we need a candidate that represents us and not corporate interests. H. Clinton clearly represents corporate interests, as does the majority of the Republican candidates.
Obama is not as entrenched a Hillary Clinton in corporate interests, but I am still suspicious of him.
The Center for Public Integrity, a non-partisan organization, puts out a book for every presidential election called “The Buying of the President” which goes through each candidate and where their money comes from. Here is the link to some of their research: http://www.buyingofthepresident.org/
A couple of more tidbits I picked up through the day that I think is worth mentioning-
Ron Paul is the only non-major candidate from either party that won a county in Iowa. Getting 10% of the vote while being excluded from debates is pretty amazing.
Another semi-interesting fact is that Obama and Romney won very similar counties in Iowa. That backs a theory I expressed months ago- H. Clinton would have a much harder time head-to-head w/ Romney than Rudy G. And the opposite goes for Obama. Huckabee is a one hit wonder.
I think what this tells us is that the trend of effeminate social behavior in this country is reaching an apex.
No longer do we question the caliber, credentials and character of a candidate, as long as said candidate fulfills the social want of blind conformity to an effeminate state of mind.
Obama is not a good candidate, and certainly not good for the country. Strangely, it has nothing to do with his race. But as always, flash a card in front of the American publics eyes, and the squirming masses of irrational sheeple with follow without question.
The only candidate that comes close to being useful is Ron Paul. Not because he, himself, is worthy of the Presidency, but that any success by him represents the slight possibility of change of ownership of the government, away from the corporate owned candidates.
The rest of them, are all exactly the same, especially in mindless obfuscating of any issue that requires a direct answer. Drivel, banality and vascillating vagaries do not a good candidate make.
I mourn the death of the philosopher kings of antiquity. Niccolo and Aristotle writhe in their graves.
You are correct, they probably are rolling in their graves… in part b/c of some of the latter reasons you mentioned (about “corporate owned candidates), but also b/c of your misogynistic rhetoric.
But I guess I shouldn’t be surprised at this point by your conclusory statements which lack any (objective) facts to back them up. I am sure you will follow this up w/ some inductive study you have done (it’ll read something like- “I know two people from Iowa and they saw Obama cross dressing and witnessed Huckabee getting a manicure”) or a quote from a manly grave roller.
I hope the US isn’t at it’s “apex of effeminate social behavior” as they certainly could benefit from a lot more effeminate social behavior at all levels of leadership.
And objectively speaking the nation over the past decade has certainly moved away from supporting “effeminate social behavior” (things like gay rights, women’s right to choose, etc). And the Iowa caucus, particularly w/ Huckabee winning the Republican ticket, was anything but a display of “effeminate social behavior.” Nor is Obama the most pro-gay/pro-women candidate in the Democratic field. But yes the unlikely success of Ron Paul in Iowa (who you expressed support for) may be considered by misogynists to be a display of the effeminate leanings of American society. Woops.
LMAO, how typically predictable of you.
“Social effeminacy” is a philosophical position in regards to the condition of male weakness shown to be growing under the social contract distortion of the PC culture, and not a matter of misogynistic proclivities or leanings.
You’ll probably find this hard to believe, but your personal stance on social policy, isn’t one of only two possible. There are ….. wait for it ….. “other” possible positions.
I know no one from Iowa, but shameless sarcasm duly noted. (Sorry, I worked in the same corporation for five years that had a very diverse demographic … obviously, my error, for actually inquiring of ethnically disparate hominids about their world views and life in their former country. Truly, it makes me an asshole.)
Reading Obama’s own dodgey, dissimulative statements, (along with those of Billary/Guiliani/Romney/Paul), makes certain points clear: he doesn’t have the nation’s best interests in mind; he has a Marxist agenda that is deeply rooted in an aberrant personal philosophy of victimhood.
Barak Obama says, “I simply believe that those of us who have benefited most from this new economy can best afford to shoulder the obligation of ensuring every American child has a chance for that same success.”
LOLOLOLOL, “Capital is therefore not a personal, but a social power,” Marx wrote in “The Communist Manifesto.”
Yes, I am utterly in error of the facts. Then again, according to some, I’m not that intelligent to begin with, so perhaps your view should be adopted.
I wasn’t aware of your definition of “Social effeminacy” which i guess is one who supports Marxism.
The funny thing is that no real Marxist would support Obama as he is one of the least Marxists candidates in the race. Kucinich would probably be considered the most Marxist and of the major candidates it would be John Edwards. Obama’s policies are probably be the least Marxist of the Democratic candidates.
And the US certainly is not heading in a Marxist direction. Bush, as Ron Paul states, has brought the US closer to fascism (or what he refers to as “soft-fascism”). And Obama’s victory in Iowa does not necessarily signal an end to such policies. Only the following candidates offer a significant change from what we have seen the past 25 years (and you could probably go back for my entire lifetime): Kucinich, Gravel, Paul & Edwards. The rest do not present a major difference.
Nice strawman, entertaining as usual. I didn’t draw any parallels between Marxism and the social distortions created by the PC subversive culture.
Color it however it pleases you, anyone advocating taking away personal right of securing wealth/property and assessing it to be an overarching social right to do so, is expressingly Marxist philosophy/ideology. Obama has consistently shown that his ideology is just so. Not withstanding he has claimed Jimmy Carter as a major influence, LMMFAOROTFL, anti-semitic/muslim sympathiser, nuff said.
Although Bush is a complete and utter moron, with a fundamentalist agenda, he would never be able to bring actual fascism to hold in this country; that’s tinfoil hat material and conspiracy theories are summarily uninteresting.
No knowledge of Gravel. Kucinich/Edwards represent the same as the rest, standard idiotic politics … they just choose different vehicle appearances for their agendas. (still find it impossible to believe he held at all in Iowa … lolz, sheeple)
Paul, as previously stated, is not the right person for the job. He simply represents the possibility of change of attitude in the American voter.
Have you seen that Hillary has changed her campaign slogan to “On the Road to Change”. That’s pathetic.
Not surprising in the least.
I’m sure her campaign manager took a serious thrashing after Iowa.