Iowa Democratic Party

[ShariJH]

This was posted on the BSI site last night by a member there. She said to pass the word and ok'd my posting it here.

"I just came from giving the Iowa Democratic Party hell for cheating Joe Biden and Chris Dodd out of their votes and denying those of us in the caucuses the right to vote for the candidates of our choice. Feel free to dump on them yourselves at: [e-mail] The more dumping the better in my opinion."


Later in the evening, she elaborated on what she in a subsequent post. Man, she let 'em have it!

Rock on!

[monmouth]

1. The fact that one of his precinct captains immediately left for Edwards

leaves a very bad taste with me re Iowa. They stabbed Joe in the back, then twisted the knife. I shall never forgive them.

[youthere]

25. In my precinct the captain immediately bailed for Richardson. Sad.

[PatSeg]

43. Ouch, that's gotta hurt

I'm so sorry. It must have been a devastating moment for you.

[youthere]

53. Yep. She didn't even make an attempt at an argument for him...

or even try to cut a deal with another precinct captain. Once the intial count was made the only words out of her mouth were "I'll go for Richardson".

[Debi]

2. Please explain how they were 'cheated' out of their 'votes'

since a caucus is not a primary but a measure of presidential preference of the electorate as a whole? The caucuses were never designed to be one-person-one-vote and yet people continue to try to measure them that way. It is interesting that neither Joe Biden nor Chris Dodd are claiming they were 'cheated' of votes, only people who have tried to bend the caucus rules around a primary perspective.

They were not cheated - their supporters went in with the ability to stand for their candidate. Since their candidate did not receive enough 'votes' (which would have ended their chances in a primary) to be a 'winner' their supporters had the opportunity to ask others to join the Joe Biden group or they themselves had the opportunity to seek out another candidate. They also had the opportunity to stay put. No primary gives the voter/candidates a second chance. The caucuses do.

[demommom]

3. Debi:

Were you at every single precinct in the state? Just asking?
I thought you said your fairwells a few days ago.

[Debi]

4. Oh, you are correct.

Anyone who disagrees with the bullshit 'Iowa cheated our candidate' must no longer post on the JBSG

Too bad Joe Biden isn't carrying on the meme of this group.

Go ahead and bash the process - it's an incredible process that people would rather complain about than learn about.

Ban me from your fucking pity party after I received so many 'Debi please come back' PMs earlier. Now that I'm from Iowa and I defend the process you want me gone.

Bunch of fucking whining.

What did Joe Biden say? "No excuses and no explanations...just get up" Be proud of your behavior.

[1corona4u]

6. One thing...

It doesn't matter how many votes a candidate gets in a primary. If they get one vote, they're not immediately disqualified.

[Debi]

7. Since we have agreed to disagree regarding primary vs. caucus

I will only say this. Biden made it clear that he would have dropped out had he came in lower than a close fourth. With the amount of support he had prior to realignment (or even as people were walking into the caucuses) he would - and we would - all be in the same position we are in today.

Except that the very Iowans that the people on this board were embracing and praising up until 7:00 PM January 3rd are now being vilified because of the process that Joe Biden praised and agreed to participate in.

I ask that folks who are bemoaning the process here look at the much bigger picture - if this tidal wave of new voters continues (and Bill Gardner has eluded to that very thing happening in New Hampshire) the Party is going to explode with new energy and new enthusiasm and VOTERS! Joe Biden may not be headed for 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. now, but he'll be swept up in the wave of Democratic vitories all over the country. He sees it and he's ready to lead from his highest level in the Senate.

[demommom]

10. You know what Debi?

I am sorry, Bidenites, but I have kept my feelings to myself for quite a while now and I'm not going to anymore.

Debi:
When you first showed up here,everyone including me,thought, how helpful you were and appreciaterd it much.

Then before too long Debi was telling all of us how to behave ,what to not do,what to say and how to say it,etc. I did not post much then,because I felt that I was not free to say what I wanted to say,it seemed you had pretty much control and that was not why I thought we formed this group. People began to say it was not as pleasureable to come here,and for me it sure wasn't. We had agreed that rather than fire off on GDp, we would come here and vent to and on each other. Now that was not permissible either,ala Debi. And then one day some kind of fired back and you threw a tantrum and left. Even I said what a shame and hoped you would cool off and come back. But then I noticed that the board kind of went back to normal and now here you are telling us what we should and should not feel about the caucuses. Sorry, that is how I feel.

If you guys don't want me here because I said it , so be it.

[PatSeg]

12. We are all still in a state of shock and grief

and I cannot think objectively about the Iowa caucuses right now. Maybe at a later time I will get a clearer picture, but the Biden people here who did caucus painted a picture of a process far different than most of us expected. Evidently different than Joe expected as well. I think we are right in being a bit critical, but I am assimilating all the information before I make an absolute judgment. Meanwhile, I have to think changes need to be made.

[Debi]

13. As if in my entire lifetime I will give a flying fuck what you say about me on an anonymous message

board. :rofl:

Many on here will tell you that we stayed in contact by PM and email after my 'tantrum' and leaving, my knowing that posting garbage about other candidates was being read by their supporters AND the media as well as the Biden for President staff. Your behavior wasn't just a disappointment to me, it was a reflection upon your candidate and an embarrassment to him and his staff.

But please, go ahead and get all pissy now - call me names and whine away about a process that you obviously cannot comprehend and will never be able to embrace. Go hide behind a fucking curtain and pull a little lever and call yourself a political activist. Whoopdie-fucking-doo. You clearly have too thin of a skin to be truly politically involved.

I don't care if you are here or not - your presence doesn't make my day and your absence would not disappoint me. You truly have no impact on my life.

I thought it would be nice - since I had just a little more contact with the players in the campaign than you - to post some pictures and make a few more comments. Then, after the incredible record blowing caucus, I thought I'd see how everyone was feeling. And there all the posts were. "It's all Iowa's fault", "Joe would have won if it weren't for realignment" OH MY GOD. He would have come in fifth behind Bill Richardson and he would have dropped out of the race and then I'm sure there would have been a dozen or so posts about how Iowa shouldn't be first - but please name me ONE state that he could have competed in with as little money as he could raise? It would have all ended up the same.

So I post an appeal, don't blame the process - the very process that folks here were praising throughout the process - that is until JRB dropped out of the race. So what? He lost. He made no excuses - his staff made no excuses - he held his head high. You blamed the process - and I defended it. At least some here were adult enough to agree to disagree. Some, obviously can't and need to respond to posts that aren't addressed to them and thread-stalk in order to get their juvenile selves noticed.

What will you do next? Post a whiny post about how mean I am? Follow me over to the Iowa Forum and complain about me there? Or maybe just shut the fuck up. I really don't care what it is you actually do, It won't change my plans in the least.

[elleng]

14. Your language is

not very encouraging.

[NCarolinawoman]

16. The language looks very strange juxtaposed with the

"hospitality" stuff in the signature
line.

[Debi]

19. You are correct. However, even the most 'hospitable' person must draw the line somewhere

Continually reading about how horrible the process is in Iowa (and some how THAT being the reason Joe Biden came in a very distant fifth in Iowa) gets very very old. Especially coming from the very people who only hours earlier were praising that very same process.

Their explanation? Their sadness over the loss made them speak so hatefully and forcefully. Okay. Yet when I defend the state I live in and the process involved I'm dictatorial and rude. Nice.

Now, go PM each other about how mean and nasty I am. I'm aware of how this board works.

[Debi]

17. I agree, it is not.

After 90 days of attempting to keep a positive outlook I have given up on some of the people in this group. I have come to the conclusion that they are they type of people that will not be happy under any circumstances. Whining, crying and snivelling are much better companions to them than being positive and productive.

They are the type of people that I need not align myself with. I consider it their loss.

[Eurobabe]

18. Wow, Iowans really curse like that?

Who woulda thunk it!

Debi, your reaction is really out of line. I think you are the one with the thin skin.

[Debi]

22. Well, after reading the comments posted since 9:00 PM on January 3rd

It seems, Iowans cheat, Iowans are stupid, Iowans don't know how to 'vote'.... seems none of us here know anything about anything, those damn Iowans. But I'm supposed to just smile sweetly and agree. Joe Biden got screwed by a bunch of Iowans. Please, hammer away at Iowa and Iowans, I'll just wait here.

When I defend the process I'm personally attacked and reminded that I left the group (although I don't see posts reminding others that they also left the group and in fact left all of DU but are still here posting and posting rude, insulting comments about other candidates - such a nice reflection on Joe Biden and his campaign).

All of this, of course, excused and explained away by the sadness felt over Biden's loss in Iowa.

The candidate nor the campaign have blamed the process - just out-of-state supporters who don't want to hear the 'why' only want to create a false enemy to focus their anger upon.

You may think I have a thin skin, but I read these responses with more amusement than animosity. After all, what it the long-term outcome of these back-and-forths? Complete strangers that I'll never meet in person will no longer be my 'on-line friend'? Well, if they ever considered themselves my friend then they would have considered what they were saying to me (and this entire board) and not expect me just to dismiss it as a result of their grief. I'm sure had I insulted their state repetitively and their process repetitively (after falsely praising both over the last three months) I would have been drummed out of here (kind of like what is happening now). Had I from the get-go acted the way others acted toward me these conversations would have occurred on Halloween, not now.

I like that. I'm supposed to just read garbage typed about me and the state I live in and 'take it'. Got it. What a great compromise.

Now, you go ahead and PM the others on whether or not to respond to this post. I'll wait here.

[Eurobabe]

23. I'm not PM'ing anyone to respond to your post

At this point, you know what I think and have thought of Iowa and New Hampshire dominating the primary process. It needs to change. This is my personal opinion. Of course Iowans are entitled to theirs. Perhaps if the primary was held in my state and I didn't want to relinquish it, I would be protective too.

These internecine battles between Biden supporters and Debi from Iowa don't accomplish anything. Debi, I am still very grateful for the time you took to send me Biden swag, and I won't ever forget that.

The only way for the rest of us to effectively channel our disappointment is to email our Reps and Senators to support the Levin/Nelson bill for rotating Interregional Primaries, aka “Fair and Representative Presidential Primaries Act of 2007”



More print info available here:
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/mi12_levin/PR090607.shtml

[Debi]

26. I will agree - any state that is first will do anything to retain that position

Bill Gardner almost set his primary for December 11th 2007 just to stay first!

Carl Levin wants one thing only - that is to be first. Michigan SO messed up their early 'caucus' in 2004 (it was really a primary but they called it a caucus in order to move up in the process - the state party was so unprepared that they didn't have polling places in precincts...incidentally the problems occurred in 6 mainly african-american precincts and never did end up with a clear 'count' b/c of lack of ballots) that the DNC pretty much laughed when they applied to be one of the early states. Levin has a true hatred of New Hampshire (and only slightly less of a hatred of Iowa) going back decades.

Attempting to put my feelings for Iowa aside, I worry about 'regional' primaries b/c I think we'll still see the smaller states over-looked for the more voter-rich states in those regions. And then because larger populations cost more to run in (not only tv/radio time but office space, apartment rental, food and supplies) we'll see less retail politics and more of tarmac-to-tarmac and tv ad campaigns (even with public financing - costs will be high and personal contact with the voters will suffer - but at least every candidate will be equal in their endeavors).

I'd rather see a few small - contiguous states go first (allowing candidates to have a centralized campaign HQ and travel time between the states and media coverage will be overlapping which will save in costs too) and then one large state go with a couple of weeks before and a couple of weeks after, allowing for campaign time and recovery time. (As long as the small state delegate count isn't over-shadowed by the large state delegate count - or again the small states would be ignored and campaigns would only focus on the large state - ask Rudy Guiliani about that).

One other thought - and only a thought. I don't think Congress will every be allowed to govern the state parties in the primary process. Sure, a bill can be presented (and they have been several times) but unless their state is first or at least in the early running - what state party will support their representative/senator in that vote? Can anyone see the state parties of PA, IN, WI,SC, KA, KB, MT, WY, ND and SD supporting going last? Won't they press their congressional representatives to create a bill that has them going first? And as long as there are competing bills will there ever be resolution? I really see this as up to the DNC and the calendar commission. Which I think means - to affect change everyone should be finding out who is on their platform committee (or you get on your platform committee). Get a resolution passed that changes the calendar or instructs change to be made in the calendar. Then stick with either as a delegate or on the platform committee all the way to the state/national level and THEN elect DNC representatives and National Delegates who promise to follow through. Then the new Chair of the DNC and the new calendar commission of the DNC have a mission. To change the calendar. (Of course this is exactly what Carl Levin and Jennifer Gandholm did at the National Convention in 2004).

[gateley]

31. I read an interesting blurb about the history of caucusing in Iowa -- and Iowa's

and NH's status as being 'first'. I honestly don't remember if it was in support of the current situation or against it.

Anyway, apparently Iowa and NH were used as "training grounds" for national campaigning. If the candidates didn't do well there, they'd know to tweak their approach before hitting the road. Isn't that interesting? (I don't recall when it was implemented, but it was WAY before TV and instant news).

I don't know how it got to the point where the results there became the decision-maker as to whether a candidate would have a chance in the GE or not.
I AM curious as to how it would play out if so much "make or break" wasn't an accepted given.

Regardless, the bottom line this time is that Joe just didn't have enough people. If he'd had the level of support of any of The Three, this would be a non-issue. When we get down to pointing to ONE WOMAN who would have made him viable in a particular precinct, that's pretty desperate.

I honestly don't know if the caucus is a good process or not, or if it would have made a difference if it was a straight vote. What I do believe, and it pains me deeply, is that he just didn't have the support because of the media attention to the others, and as a result, didn't have the funds needed to compete equally with the others.

:shrug:

That being said, it's not over 'til it's over! :7

[Debi]

41. You're dead on - IA and NH were supposed to be easier to compete

for the 'little guy', And also allow for the messages of the candidates to be honed and allow for mistakes to be made and cleaned up. (The front loading of the calendar and the 24/7 MSM/internet attention have both messed that up). Iowans have continually argued against us being 'kingmakers'. We never wanted to be the decider in the matter. Our preference was only to be used as a suggestion moving forward - that since we had the opportunity to be one-on-one with the candidates and to test them vigorously - that we felt those who fared the best in Iowa would be OUR best recommendation to lead the party.

Biden's strongest areas were in Dubuque and Scott counties (Black Hawk County was also considered a good spot for him). He was blown away (in the first round of the caucuses before realignment) in each of those counties. The influx of 115,000 new voters destroyed Biden's chances (especially b/c the majority of that group were in the 18-29 year age range and Biden never targeted them and never polled well with them).

New Hampshire's voter turnout will show whether or not Iowa was a 'fluke'. If NH turns out 400,000 voters for it's primary it may mean that the historically apathetic 18-29 year-old voting group has become energized (like in 1960 with JFK or in 1992 with Bill Clinton) and Biden would have never stood a chance with the 'younger' crowd.

Moving forward I truly hope Obama is the nominee and asks Biden to jump on the ticket as his VP choice. Biden could continue his race in Delaware for his senate seat (Lieberman did so in CT in 2000) and when the O/B ticket is elected the Governor of Delaware would be able to appoint the new Senator for the state (Heh, hopefully the brilliant Beau Biden).

[gateley]

27. I had to look up internecine. :-) nt

[AspenRose]

33. Thank you for your reasoned post.

And for the info about the Levin/Nelson bill. I'm going to read up on it.

[1corona4u]

24. Debi

Maybe it's time you stopped reading here. If everything we say has to be defended/argued with you, it's going to get on everyone's nerves. Perhaps your time would be better spent with like minded people? Say, in the Iowa forum??

Just a suggestion.

[Debi]

29. Are you asking me to leave?

I had the very great honor of spending time with the Senator and his family over the last seven months. I am wondering if there is another Joe Biden group on DU that I should be at? We are like minded in our feeling toward Joe Biden, where we disagree is our feelings toward the state of Iowa and that state's political process. It's not as if I wandered in here and advocated voting for John Edwards.

If you truly think I should leave please send an email to the administrators of this site and ask to have me removed. That is the process here on this board.

Also, you do not need to argue with me. I know as well as you do that the process of the posters here is to gossip behind other's backs about whether or not to respond to posts and to plan the responses so it looks like all are in agreement. You are not required to respond to my posts.

[1corona4u]

54. I'm not asking you to leave...

but you seem hell bent on defending your 'state' even if it's not necessary. We get it. Continuing to defend something that a lot of us don't agree with, just creates more tension. You're picking the battle Debi. Let us discuss our feelings, whether or not you agree with them. That's all.

I simply meant, if you don't read here, you have no reason to be offended, or defend anything. If a topic bothers me, I usually have my say, and move on.

Now, I have said it before, we all appreciate what you have done for Biden, and I mean that. But your defense of your state right now, kind of overshadows all that you did for him.

Let it go. Let us talk about our thoughts. We know how you feel about it.

[Debi]

60. Got it - I don't talk about Iowa and we all get along.

I hoped some of the feelings about the loss could be separated from the state where the loss occurred. Because I'd sure like to hash out losing Biden w/folks without feeling attacked for living in the state where he lost.

Where else should I go to talk about Joe Biden? There is no other group.

Kind of like all the shitty threads in GD where somebody posted something nice about Biden and all the freaky Anita Hill and Bankruptcy Bill folks jumped on. Except for I'm sitting here in the 'safe' group. The Biden lovers group. And it really doesn't seem any better.

[1corona4u]

63. Well, your state caused it...

whether or not it was because they bought the media hype of Obama, Hillary, or Edwards, or whether not no one 'bought' what Joe was selling. IT's a FACT you need to come to grips with. They didn't go for Joe, a stupid, myopic mistake if you ask me.

Are YOU everyone IN IOWA?? NO. Stop playing the martyr.


IOWA, and it's people ARE RESPONSIBLE for Joe not being in this ELECTION. That's a fact, regardless of the REASON.


I will NEVER forgive Iowa. Never. Don't ask me to 'exempt' them from my anger, or my blame. How you can sit there and ask us to dis-associate what happened to Joe, with Iowa, is beyond my comprehension. Connect the dots. It all leads back to IOWA.

[Debi]

65. You post reminds me of the Blame Canada song from the South Park movie

[1corona4u]

67. And your refusal to admit your state fucked up

reminds me of this;:banghead:

[Debi]

70. But you said I wasn't every Iowan

now I am :crazy:

C'mon, you can do better than that.

[Steely_Dan]

69. Corona...

I respect what you are saying and you know how much I support Biden....And I too, would like to place the blame somewhere (not that Iowa doesn't share in some of that responsibility). The fact is, Joe's campaign also must share some responsibility...but not all of it. I have spoken with a dozen people on the "inside" over the past several days. Almost all of them have placed at least some blame on Biden's campaign team. I won't list where they screwed up...but trust me, if you think about it, there are a number of missed opportunities, organizational issues, etc. etc. For me, it was the combination of things that resulted in a very poor showing.

Once again...I understand where you are coming from and I also believe that the system in Iowa was flawed. However, we have to be willing to accept the fact that Joe's campaign team was not perfect.

-Paige

[1corona4u]

72. Steely....

Iowans did NOT go for Joe. That's a fact. Joe is no longer in this race, BECAUSE Iowa didn't go for him. People can spin it all they want, but that's the reality. The majority of Iowa 'caucusers' did not vote for Joe. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation. The reality is, they did not see the MERIT of Joe Biden. They did not CARE about his experience. They did not care that he could repair the US faster than any other candidate. They did not CARE about foreign policy. They didn't care that he was the only honest, straight forward candidate. None of that mattered.


Iowa, alone, is responsible for Biden being out of the race. There is no other reason. Iowans bought the Obama, Hillary, and Edwards shit, hook, line and sinker. Whether the campaign screwed up or not, is irrelevant. Look at this map, which I posted before;



Look at the counties he lost;





It's not like Joe didn't try to get their votes. They just didn't buy into him, for whatever reason. Therefore, they should own up to being the cause of Joe being out of the race. Despite why/why not. Maybe they listened to the media, maybe they didn't believe him, maybe they didn't think he could win, maybe they didn't like him(hard to imagine, but whatever)maybe they liked Clinton, Obama, and Edwards better. Whatever the reason, his 'campaign' died because IOWA failed to get behind him. Nothing more. Nothing less.

If this would have happened in Florida, do you really think I would be sitting here defending Florida? Fuck no. I'd own it. I'd be honest about it. I'd be condemning Florida for being so fucking naive about the other candidates.

[AspenRose]

30. A little short-sighted

It's not just folks on this message board who hold that opinion. Although I think the MSM holds a great deal of responsibility in this.

http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080106/OPINION05/801060317/1106/OPINION

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-littman/joe-biden-for-president-_b_80212.html
(scroll to comments)

http://www.fixtheprimaries.com/problem/

[Debi]

32. Yep, these articles show up every four years

and if Delaware had the chance to be first in the nation they would switch to a caucus in a heart beat.

Joe Biden did not denounce the process, neither did anyone involved in his campagin.

[AspenRose]

35. I think Biden and Dodd are smart enough not to do that in public

Who knows what they really think :shrug:

Edited to add that "Fix the Primaries" is based out of Maryland (near DC) and is bipartisan.

[Debi]

48. Are you saying they lie?

That's really not right.

[AspenRose]

58. OK, now you are being unnecessarily hostile.

Why are you projecting and putting words in people's mouths? I think it was clear what I said. I'm not a mindreader, nor do I claim to be. Therefore I don't know what other people may or may not be thinking. If either of those candidates had a problem with the process, I doubt they'd make it public and subject themselves to criticism of "sour grapes" when they may have had legitimate concerns. I could be wrong; it wouldn't be the first time.

And why are you so angry that other people are angry? Do they not have a right to that anger? Why are you so invested in letting someone else's anger affect you personally? It doesn't make sense.

At least with me, you are looking for a fight where there isn't one. :shrug:

[Debi]

61. No, I'm not looking for a fight

But Joe Biden and Chris Dodd have defended Iowa and did not blame Iowa when they dropped out. But you have implied that they said one thing in public but may have felt something in private. They've given no indication of that. Why even say that? If you're not a mind reader why try to be one now? Why not take these two gentlemen at their word?

If we are all supposed to let out our feelings about this loss tell me how Iowans are supposed to do that? We're being blamed for it.

I've told Corona I'll stop posting threads that defend the Iowa Caucuses -but I ask that attackers of the process think about those of us sitting in Iowa - those of us who had so much wonderful times with the Bidens - when they post stories about cheating and manipulation and about candidates saying one thing but probably meaning another.

[AspenRose]

66. Maybe I haven't read up enough on their final statements, but

not blaming Iowa once they've dropped out is not the same as defending Iowa, in my mind anyway. Which left room for speculation, in my mind.

Maybe it's wrong of me to assume that if someone like me could speculate, that anyone else could....

If anyone else in the JBSG could point me to Biden and Dodd's final statements, where they've defended the caucus process, please let me know so I can read it for myself.

If either of them said that they defend the caucus process, then I'll stand corrected. Fair enough?

PS-I still don't understand where the latent hostility is coming from. I was not trying to 'attack' anyone.

[Debi]

71. No hostility n/t

[Eurobabe]

42. I was pissed about the primary process in 2004!!

Wes Clark chose not to compete in Iowa, and then placed 3rd in NH. He too was marginalized by the media, because he wasn't a "story" other than in the beginning when he jumped into the race and shot to the top. :shrug:

Count me among those who have been railing against the current system since March 2004.

:banghead: :nuke: :banghead: :mad: :grr:

[Debi]

51. As a Clark supporter you should be pissed at the Clinton's and their supporters

They egged Clark to get into the race (and funded him as long as he hired their consultants - so basically they were paying themselves to push a candidate who was not prepared to take on John Kerry/John Edwards/Howard Dean) and advised him not to run in Iowa as Clinton had chosen not to do in 1992 (w/out explaining the reasons for Clinton's absence in the state when our Favorite Son Tom Harkin was running). As soon as he performed poorly in NH they bailed on him fast leaving him with an enormous campaign debt that they did not help him clean up.

In 2007 as he contemplated entering this race they all ignored him. He's still in debt and was poorly used and tossed aside. He's an incredibly smart man and I hope the next Democratic President can find a way to work him into their cabinet (even though I think he needs a couple more years out of active service before he can serve as Sec. of Defense).

[Eurobabe]

55. I'm more annoyed that he endorsed Hillary n/t

[Debi]

57. I have a strange feeling there is a quid pro quo at work there

Clark still has campaign debt and could sure use work to get it paid off. I have a feeling that will be headed his way if Clinton prevails. His support of here certainly wasn't evident earlier in 2007. Reeks of the 'deal' made between Clinton and Tom Vilsack after he dropped out, his debt paid by her supporters and his allegiance pledged to her campaign.

[Eurobabe]

59. I don't like to think Clark is that calculating

but after he endorsed Hillary, nothing would shock me anymore. I gave SO much money to the Clark campaign. :grr:

[Debi]

62. The General is too good of a man to be like the Clintons

but his only income is his pension and the money his consulting firm makes (and like I said - he is saddled w/a good sized debt from 2004). I think the Clinton folks made him an offer that he could not refuse. Now my opinion of Tom Vilsack......

[PatSeg]

36. I haven't received any PM's

I'm trying to be objective here and my opinions mostly come from what I've heard from Iowan Caucus goers themselves. Their stories do not coincide with what I had expected. I got a picture of disorganization and chaos. Then I stepped back and looked at the big picture and I'm beginning to think this system doesn't work well, especially when so many states will not be able to vote for the candidates they campaigned for.

Now my vote doesn't count and on top of everything else, that really hurts. There is a lot pain here and you should have taken that into consideration when you came here to post. People came here to get and give support to those of us who were shocked and devastated that everything was over in a couple of hours. That is a bit hard to absorb in such a short time. And sadly I will never look at the caucuses the same again.

[AspenRose]

39. Eloquently stated

And for the record I'm not getting PMs either.


A lot of people are angry that they are not going to get the chance to vote for their chosen candidate. A lot. Nationwide, not just in Delaware or Connecticut.

[gateley]

40. I think ABC effectively pulled the plug on Dodd's and Biden's campaigns by

eliminating them from the debate. Regardless of the Iowa outcome, that exposure may have garnered more support.

[Debi]

45. I am sorry about the loss as well - and I came here for comfort too

I hope you can see through my eyes what I saw. I got on this board - wanting to grieve and wanting to heal. What did I see? Well, we both know what I saw.

I met Joe Biden on May 28th, 2007. The day I met him and Jill and Missy Owens and Danny O'brien I walked in a Memorial Day parade for him. That is how long I have followed Joe Biden's Iowa campaign. I had the honor of spending both public and private time with him and his family. I watched my son be treated with much kindness and respect by the Biden staff and the Senator himself.

I spent the evening on January 3rd with the Biden staff - and watched Biden's chances crumble. I didn't even know he had dropped out until one of the kids asked me what they should do next. I asked if he was going to NH. That's when I heard the news.

I still believe that JRB would have dropped out if Iowa would have been a primary - because he would have still come in 5th. If he didn't drop out after Iowa he would have dropped out after New Hampshire - because the same thing is happening there that happened here - thousands of new voters are jumping in - and they are not jumping in for Joe Biden.

[cbear70]

74. not all iowas curse like that

geesh... since when did having an opinion about the caucus become so freaking heated...i am not sure i understand why we are not allowed to not like the caucuses..i understand and still don't like them, I am from Iowa and still find that something was not right. It was not ran like the other caucus years ago...uggggg.

[demommom]

77. Debi

I do not want to start another brawl, but I do not recall my behavior being such that I or anyone on this board would have to worry about it having a negative effect on Joe's campaign. I did not just fall off the turnip truck, I have followed and supported and voted for Joe Biden for 35 years. I would never do anything that would reflect on his campaign
I did not leave the group or Du and I am not a lurker. I was one of the first to join this group and I did not call you any names.

[BenV]

5. Doesn't seem to me

Like the process is broken, it is just that presidential politics have become a popularity contest. Most Biden supporters firmly believed he is the best candidate in the race, but we all did a ton of research and found him on our own (because God knows the media wouldn't have helped)

It seems to me that the caucuses worked perfectly for weeding out the least popular candidates, as most people have only heard of or care about the big three. We can't really complain about the process, we knew our guy was a long shot who had almost no chance of winning from the very beginning. I still stand by the fact that he is the most qualified and would make the best president, but we can't really blame the process in Iowa which Joe himself has often praised. In Iowa at least a few more people have heard of our guy, as opposed to nationally where nobody even has a clue who he is...

[cbear70]

8. can someone point me to the BSI group?

I was just reading the biden blog and their caucus experience... interesting... it was from Kelly's husband Chris.. that was the take of our caucus too ... I won't elaborate because I really don't want to start another disagreement here... but really interesting to hear about others caucus experiences.

thanks so much for sharing this.

[elleng]

15. cbear and all,

contact Steve Fallon at [e-mail]

[1corona4u]

21. I contacted him last night, and have not heard back yet...

[gateley]

9. At this point I'm just thinking that Joe didn't have enough people, period.

Bottom line -- if he had, he'd have come in higher.

Again, I think the ultimate "blame" lies with the MSM and the $$$$.

[Eurobabe]

11. The media, lack of $$$ and high Dem turnout

wonder what would have happened if the Iowa Dems did a balloting system like the Cons? None of the arm-twisting... :shrug: just asking.

[Frustratedlady]

38. Joe would have received 14 of 231 votes.

We got him up to 21, but needed 35. There were TOO many Democrats (good thing) that showed up, and TOO few votes (bad thing).

You can't get blood out of a turnip, but we damned well tried!

[1corona4u]

20. Well, I found all of the counties online...

Joe was deemed 'inviable'(if I counted right) in 48 counties. Of course, those numbers were after realignment. But have a look;

Interesting the counties that he did do better in.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21228593/

[jillan]

37. That was interesting - and in a weird way, made me feel better.

[youthere]

28. I don't believe Joe would have benefitted from a straight up or down vote...

In fact the only candidate that I believe would have benefitted from a straight vote was Edwards...he might possibly have won. Much of the realigning went in Obama's favor.

Joe was a solid candidate whom most people liked immensely...he was overwhelmingly THE second choice candidate. Unfortunately the "first" choices had allready locked in much of the vote. If the support had been dispersed more among the candidate field I believe Joe would have won Iowa...but unfortunately the support was concentrated among the top three. It was unlikely any of the top three WEREN'T going to be viable, so the majority of caucus goers didn't have to realign.
It's just that simple. Joe did not have the realignment advantage in this caucus.
It wouldn't have changed in an up or down vote. Joe would have shown a higher "percentage" of support, but just because the cake would have been "cut" in a different way, he wouldn't have gotten a bigger share. Do you see what I'm saying? Joe still would have finished fifth behind Richardson and pulled out of the race. One dollar is the same as four quarters.

[jillan]

34. You are right....except..

If the story is true about Obama making a deal with Richardson, Biden *might* have come in at a whopping 2% instead of Bill.

Biden said that unless he came in a strong 4th, he would have dropped out. There was that interview with him that the DMR printed saying he was going to stay until the end of January...so maybe he was changing his mind. We will never know.


If Biden come in better in Iowa - do you really think he would have been able to win the nomination?
Against the Obama movement and the Clinton machine?

[gateley]

46. I figured his "staying in until the end of January" was based on the assumption

that he'd come in 4th or higher in Iowa. I think lots of us believed it was pretty much a given.

[Frustratedlady]

50. We were set, if we hadn't been inundated by Dems appearing beyond normal.

We had the numbers going in, but we were overwhelmed...mainly by the Obama people.

The last caucus would have required 13-14. We had 14 with an easy 6 or 7 sitting there, prepared to join us. (Only 1 of those being a Richardson person.)

[Eurobabe]

44. I blame most of this on the media

they create the story line, and mold the players in their daily game. The days of journalism, objective reporting are over. They died when my Dad left the newspaper business in 1979, partly because the paper's editor was trying to tell him and his staff to write. He said screw you and left to do media consulting for colleges and universities.

[gateley]

47. Agree.

[Frustratedlady]

49. Good for your father.

[jillan]

75. I love your dad!

[Debi]

52. Clinton would have 'won' in our precinct

out of 69 'votes'

Clinton 18
Edwards 16
Obama 16
Richardson 8
Biden 5
Dodd 4
non-committed 2

I'm afraid that the new voters (who were overwhelmingly out for Obama and then went for Clinton) changed the entire structure of the process. Good for Iowa (come Novmeber) but bad for Biden. Looks like New Hampshire is headed in the same direction.

[Eurobabe]

56. Actually I am glad that she who would be queen

is not so inevitable after all. Kudos to the high Dem turnout for that move! :applause:

[Debi]

64. Yeah - young women sunk her battleship!

She received the majority of the over 65 vote (including new voters - which was true in my caucus - the older new voters went to Clinton and Richardson..scratching my head on Richardson). But that number could not compete with the youth vote for Obama and the established younger women vote that also went Obama. We all saw something we didn't like in her.

If the trend continues - the same will be happening on Tuesday. Independents are breaking 60/40 for voting Dem/Rep Tuesday and the younger voters are going to Obama where the older voters are going to Clinton. Of course polls are polls are polls and who knows what will really happen. Except the damn polls were right last week. x(

[Eurobabe]

68. I think Clinton is sunk in NH. My Dad has been giving me

daily reports, and alot of people who were with Richardson have switched to Obama, and the undecideds are breaking for Obama, Edwards or Ron Paul as well.

[PatSeg]

73. And John McCain unfortunately

Independents are looking for a "grown up".

[gateley]

76. Sigh.