All true. We need these "kids" back. Give them back Barack!
What Howard Fineman failed to recall was the organization Gary Hart had in Iowa back in 84. The pre caucus polling had him back where Biden and Dodd were last night.

So what ?
The media is show how foolish they are again.

Rory Steele... former Washington State Labor Council legislative/political intern.

Taught him everything he knows.

A number of my friends are in Iowa and some are going on to New Hampshire, for all the candidates.

From my viewpoint, Sen Obama represents the 21st Century, Sen Clinton represents the pre-Bush 20th Century, and Sen Edwards would like to be the 21st Century but just somehow it doesn't feel the same.

Regardless, the party of the 18th Century is not doing well, even if the 8th Century is represented well by Gov Huckabee.

(the images for your picture are still too dark)

obama? really? i could not find anything about his stance on anything. all anyone does is talk about his charisma, or oprah. what are his views on immigration, the war, underwater basket weaving, anything

Start digging, Mark. Obama has the most detailed policy papers of any candidate out there.

To those - including Clinton - who will surely suggest Obama lacks the skills to run a country; He sure demonstrated the EXACT kind of skill and leadership a president needs in the way he ran Iowa.
What is a leader, if not one who attracts the most capable to his team, then motivates and empowers them to do their best work.
From the Seattle kids to (yes, even) Oprah, it was a masterful campaign by any standard.
All charisma and style?
Perhaps we're beginning to discover just who and what this guy is.

To all you cliché-driven and ridden "money irrevocably pollutes the political process" types out there, consider this: the richest candidates in either party were losers, while the candidates with the greatest number of feet on the ground were winners.

The message: shoe leather beats wallet leather every time. A corollary: Tim Eyman knows this, and that's why he wins a lot.

The American people aren't stupid, and you cannot simply "buy" an election. Those who claim otherwise never seem to win elections on that theory, which only goes to show that money doesn't always go to the smartest.

I haven't seen anyone talk about it, but a great story coming out of the Iowa caucuses is how they prove the hollowness of the argument that American democracy will survive only through publicly financed campaigns.

Isn't it typical of the advocacy of "publicly financed" anything, that it always seems to come from those who lack imagination? They can't see any other solution to a problem other than to toss $$$ at it, they lack the $$$, so they insist that the public provide the $$$, and when they're unfortunately successful, the end product usually is mediocre beyond belief!

How dumb is that?

The better ground game, organizational skills, devoted campaign workers, and a message that motivates and inspires is worth way more than fat cats with checkbooks.

There's more truth to Mr. Smith Goes to Washington than talking heads care to admit; ideals still have a place in American politics, and they still move people.

Of course, then there's John Edwards, the venomous snake of the '08 campaign. That he's the golden Hey-Boy of the SEIU, a cynically corrupt union, and a get-rich-off-the-misery-of-the-masses trial lawyer who never saw a mirror but what he didn't want to spend an hour or so looking into it admiring the view, is the dark side to all this.

Edwards is living proof that the evil spirit of Huey P. Long is alive and vicious in America. But not for long. Look for him to do very poorly in New Hampshire, and, if he stays in the race, embarrassingly poorly in South Carolina, a state neighboring his own; in his case, familiarity does indeed breed contempt.

Much the same can be said for HRC since the more you get to know her, the less you like her or you remember why you didn't like her when Bill was in the Oval Office. Isn't she the worst of your ex-wife or the nightmare of your nasty mother-in-law? Of course she is!

To all you Dems out there who seem ready to make inauguration reservations in D.C., remember that there are still 10-months to go, and anything can happen! At this point in 1992, who would have predicted that some silly-sounding governor from Arkansas could ever be elected President?

Not that I'm a Huckaboy - far from it; I want someone who will deconstruct the federal government and return power to the people, while aggressively pursuing and killing terrorists abroad.

The point is that the snarky attitude of those without a historic sense of politics or who think it's all fresh and new because it's fresh and new to them need to settle in and study the history of every single presidential campaign in American history. Dewey DID NOT defeat Truman.

It’s not written in stone that the candidate of any party will be the next President.

But it’s sure going to be fun for us junkies over the next 10-months!

The Piper

PS: I agree with Will that the Captcha is unreadable much of the time...including this time.

"The message: shoe leather beats wallet leather every time.."
Not exactly, and a rather precipitous conclusion based on this one phenomenal caucus, given a HISTORY that proves otherwise. And in fact, Obama actually out spent most on TV ads. As for your Eyman corollary, paid signature gatherers beat folks who don't want to wear out their shoe leather, every time.

"...you cannot simply "buy" an election. Those who claim otherwise never seem to win elections..."
Money does indeed buy elections, and HISTORY proves it. And it may end-up buying this one. History starts earlier than last week's extraordinary set of dynamics, that led to an unusually disgruntled mid-west rejecting Romney's and Clinton's contrived, money-rich CEO approach to winning.

"...the advocacy of "publicly financed" anything...can't see any other solution to a problem other than to toss $$$ at it, they lack the $$$, so they insist that the public provide the $$$,.."
The case for publicly financed elections is mostly about limiting the big bucks that buy elections, not to finance otherwise hopeless causes that can't raise money on their own. First you say you can't buy an election, then argue in favor of a campaign finance system that allows the rich campaigns to do so?

"How dumb is that?"
Quite.

"...HRC...the more you get to know her, the less you like her or you remember why you didn't like her when Bill was in the Oval Office. Isn't she the worst of your ex-wife or the nightmare of your nasty mother-in-law? Of course she is!..."
Sounds like a personal problem to me. Do you resent not having married someone who could become our next President. "Nasty mother-in-law"? That's incredibly sexist and shallow, even for Piper. Not all of us buy that low-life, screaming-midget AM radio blather.

"I want someone who will deconstruct the federal government and return power to the people, while aggressively pursuing and killing terrorists abroad..."
Talk about a Ron Paul-ism. I personally want it to rain whiskey.

" ...the snarky attitude of those without a historic sense of politics or who think it's all fresh and new because it's fresh and new to them..."
Given how that describes your snaky take on Iowa's "fresh and new" unprecedents, me thinks you protest too much.

Jim D...

My conclusion isn't just based upon the Iowa caucus since I've seen it many times before. Witness the phenominal election victory Linda Smith back in 1995.

If you have a highly disciplined, motivated, dedicated, and commited corps of ground supporters, you can beat money. Money doesn't turn out voters...voters turn out voters.

I don't think the disgruntlement you mention is all that unusual. HRC isn't beloved by anyone, and to call me sexist for belaboring the obvious is disingenuous. Obama inspires people, even Edwards stirs passions, albeit vengeful and divisive ones, but I don't find all that many who are ready to die on any hill for HRC.

She's scripted, cloistered, cold, and calculating. If that's not your ex-wife or mother-in-law, then I don't know what is.

HRC has extraordinarily high negatives, and if pointing out what they are and how she comes across to people is sexist, then she's not up to the job.

BTW...watch her to start playing a race card against Obama: "Is he really electable?" This assessment courtesy Dick Morris who knows her personally and knows exactly what she's capable of doing.

Less money is spent on Presidential electoral politicas by all the candidates combined than Procter & Gamble spends in a year selling soap. If there's a money problem in politics it's that there isn't enough. Public financing isn't the answer.

If a candidate can't get out and hussle sufficiently to raise necessary funds or organize sufficient supporters, that tells me the candidate isn't up to the task. If you think running for office is nasty, try holding office!

It's personally offensive to me that even one red cent of my tax dollars might be spent to advance the cause of political ideas that are anathema to me.

The people I hear who complain about too much money or "bought elections," are usually disgruntled themselves because they haven't figured out a way to win. And this doesn't just apply to so-called "crackpots." We need less government involvement, not more.

Again...just because you raise the most money doesn't mean you're guaranteed a win. But that doesn't mean there should be a restriction on how much money you raise. It's still, and ought to be always, a free country. I prefer wide open fund raising with contributions only from individual human beings. No limit on amounts, but contributions publicly reported on the Internet immediately. Then let the public decide what's enough and what's too much.

I trust the people of the United States to make wise decisions and sort all this stuff out. Do you?

Comparing the signature gathering process with an intitiative campaign is an apples and oranges thing. So what that Tim Eyman uses paid signature gatherers to get an intitiave qualifed? Who doesn't?

But during a campaign, the efforts that usually oppose him outspend him by a significant amount...even though they lose most often. He wins elections because people on the ground talk to other people on the ground. And those people believe Tim speaks for them whereas the forces that oppose him speak for special interests.

Deconstructing the federal government and killing terrorists isn't a Ron Paulism. He's not my kind of guy at all. I simply believe we have too much government, not enough personal liberty, and those on the left don't take the threats against this country seriously enough.

Democrats have more in common with Ron Paul on the issue of terrorism than either would like to admit.

My sense of Iowa unprecedenteds isn't all that new. Everything in my previous post is a statement of belief I've had for a long time, and they come from experience, both personal and historic.

"There is nothing new under the sun." Eccl. 1:9

The Piper

For what its worth, I think your reply post - post temper tantrum - makes some excellent points.
I actually disagree with little:

You first said money does NOT win elections. Now you say ground support CAN beat money. The latter of course is proved by history. The former is not.

I think you underestimate the public's average sophistication with the premise that a candidate must be "beloved" to be considered best able to perform the job. Obama's inspiration and Edward's angry passions have everything to do with their standing to date. More qualified have fallen for lack of an emotional connection, for sure. But as the race narrows and we get closer to the national, the stark differences between each party's agenda will rule the final outcome, not whether Clinton reminds you of your mother in law, or McCain feels like a favorite uncle. This isn't American Idol, and most folks - the ones who will vote - not only know the difference, but have recently been burned by electing the guy they'd most like to have a beer with. This election in particular, will revolve around the direction folks want to take our country, and the democrats have three candidates that are virtual triplets on policy compared to whatever the republicans come up with. Cold and calculating may be more of a qualifier than a negative, given the mess the next president will face after Bush's rampage.

Dick Morris is an azz - but usually hits it dead on. Problem is, HRC already floated the race card and it sunk. Remember? And frankly - dissing the race card while playing the gender card..? THAT's disingenuous.

I agree that public financing of elections isn't the answer. But neither is the ability of huge financial power to buy a government that best serves their corporate interests. Edwards may not be very good at articulating this (his main problem) but he (and Huckabee) have it right. Corporations buy politicians and their policies with lobbying and campaign financing. It is, in effect, a political monopoly that puts corporate profits ahead of all other civic considerations. Capping campaign spending, and perhaps mandating that broadcast outlets (which btw belong to the public and held in trust by the govt) provide free air time as a public service... there are many alternatives to the existing campaign financing rip-off that's resulted in corporate governance of our country, without spending one red cent of your tax dollars on someone with whom you disagree. Your proposal to eliminate such corporate financing by restricting campaign contributions to individuals (rather radical for a hard-core conservative, I must say) works for me.

The Ron Paulism I was referring to was the EXTENT to which you propose re-designing the government from the ground up. Our country's in serious peril in virtually every respect - domestic and international. This simply isn't the time to rip it apart for a hasty re-model. Like a home in the path of a deadly storm, better we shore-up our protections and make due with what we have for now, and save the deconstructing for better times.

Your sense of the Iowa primaries came across as a little hysterical and defensive, as if the passion the country is feeling toward these showdowns is better left to the more experienced political observers. I don't blame you for lashing out, as the power shift in progress would be expected to trigger some resistance to change among those now adrift in what must seem like a frightening political future. But I must say - you're perhaps the most provocative poster on this site, and I appreciate the opportunity to engage with you in these academic discussions.