The subtext of Iowan voters is "we're not racist, we're hip and cool"

[I was just saying...]

and we'd like all that media attention (read money) back in four years.

America needs a better way to pick candidates other than a state known only for
hyping itself. Here's to PRIMARY elections in the next go round.

[Cameron27]

1. I'm not sure that was their motivation,

but I don't like caucuses either.

[sniffa]

2. do they know how to do the Hustle though?

[Inspired]

3. Your thread is just silly. n/t

[Bitwit1234]

4. American Idol is coming back on the air they'll forget this distraction

as soon as it does and their "hip and cool" will gravitate toward that. See where they loaded up some of the busses to take the students back to Illinois, wonder if they'll vote there also. CNN had it on their show this morning.

[beberocks]

5. Amen to that! Here is to letting other states have a crack at being first!

As a Californian, I am disgusted by how much importance was attached to the Iowa primary. So few people vote that the results can be manipulated by the number of bodies a candidate gets to the caucus. Is is time for bigger states to have the first primaries!

[CoffeeCat]

13. I agree with you...

I am in Iowa, and I am totally for a system in which states are on a rotating
basis, so that all states experience what it's like to be one of the first states to
have their primaries.

I am a firm believer in the one-state-at-a-time method at the front end of the primary
season. States can really test candidates, ask them questions and challenge them. This
process forces politicians to be real and accountable. It is more likely that an
authentic, viable candidate passes these one-state test--and the weaker, dishonest,
puffed-up politicians are weeded out.

This would enable candidates with fewer dollars and less name recognition to go out
and prove themselves. Isn't that what America is all about?

I would gladly give up my state's "first" status in order to preserve this amazing
process that truly puts "We The People" in charge of democracy!

[Teaser]

6. So you were "just saying" that,huh?

Try not to "just say" anything else.

[Sparkly]

7. Huh??

Why isn't it possible that a larger percentage liked Obama than the others, as a politician?

[9119495]

8. Umm...us Iowans aren't racist on the Democratic side...

So what is your point?

Is the free republic site down this morning or something?

[BeyondGeography]

9. The subtext of your post is "my candidate lost last night"

[Bitwit1234]

11. So Dean won in 2004 and Kerry got the nomination and bush didn't

even show up to campaign and McCain won Iowa. What's Iowa prove they are a red state who have never gone democratic. And they can cross over party lines to vote, in the primaries. If they hadn't and the bus upon bus load of students hadn't shown up, hard to tell how much Edwards would have won by.

[NYCGirl]

15. Hey, Einstein. Dean didn't win Iowa in 2004. NT

[emulatorloo]

21. Um, Iowa went "blue" for GORE in 2000

and it was damn purple in 04 for Kerry.

[9119495]

22. Bitwit?

or nitwit? Iowa was Blue in 2000, '96, '92, and '88.

Perhaps you were thinking of South Carolina.

[CoffeeCat]

10. You are misguided and mistaken...

No one in Iowa is saying or thinking what you just said.

Lovely straw man argument you built up---and tore down yourself.

You don't know what in the hell you're taking about.

Iowans take the caucuses very seriously. We meet the candidates. We take time off from work
to attend their events and we make the effort to ask them questions and test them.

This is not about Iowa, you nimrod. This is about democracy.

I could care less if Iowa is "first". We don't want your money. We want a system in
which candidats are forced to be "real" and answer tough questions. I would rather have
this system have states rotate every four years--so ill-informed whiners like yourself
stop making this about one state.

We absolutely must have a system that allows single states to test these candidates and force
them to answer to "We The People."

Primary elections foster an impersonal, vacuous system of campaigning. Candidates don't
have to answer questions from voters. They can read their canned speeches, conduct their
orchestrated media events and barely get next to an American citizen. Is that what you're into?

Relying on fluff television ads that push poll-tested soundbytes---yeah, right. That's so much
better than "We The People" getting in these candidates' faces and asking them questions about matters
that directly impact their lives.

You are advocating a position that leverages candidates who have the most money (most likely obtained
from special interests and lobbyists) and denouncing "retail politics"---which is one of the
last vestiges of democracy that this country still has.

Just what exactly is your agenda? Because it's sure not anything that is in the best interests
of "We The People".

[I was just saying...]

16. Oh please. "Iowans take democracy seriously" , you don't care

if Iowa is first.

Give me a break. So the rest of the country DOESN'T take democracy seriously.
I don't consider 'caucusing' democracy. If caucusing was all that important
why is process in Republican and Democratic so different. In fact, the
Republican process is far more DEMOCRATIC that the Democratic process which
could be construed as institutionalized intimidation.

And you actually don't care if Iowa comes in 'first'. If this Iowa Caucus Noise
wasn't if our faces for two plus years, if the caucus was held two weeks later
after the real primaries in big states, do you seriously believe that YOU
would care let alone the 12 journalists that might show up.

[DrFunkenstein]

12. Subtext: We Participated in Active Democracy in Record Numbers

Especially people who never participated before. Obama inspired people to take part in democracy and will remain a call to service for as long as he serves.

[Lurking Dem]

14. Pathetic.

[youthere]

17. Actually I think the subtext was...

"we're sick and tired of the way things are going and we want the candidate that is our best chance for true change."
Jeebus...if you're wondering what that bad taste is in your mouth, it's sour grapes.

[Sulawesi]

18. Wow, you just psychoanalyzed an entire state because you're in the minority politically

[emulatorloo]

19. This is insulting and absurd -- you need to shake yourself out of your fantasy world

that Iowans are racist. Or full of misogyny. Or whatever the stereotype of the month is.

Quite frankly the majority of Iowa Democrats are damn progressive.

As to Iowa Republicans, that is a different story.

[LanternWaste]

20. I'm sure you're basing that statement...

"The subtext of Iowan voters is "we're not racist, we're hip and cool"

I'm sure you're basing that statement on some rather in-depth analysis. Maybe you could post that analysis here to validate what appears to be nothing more than a mere opinion erroneously stated as fact... no?

Maybe you're well acquainted with the majority of Iowa democrats? No?

Wait-- I got it! You somehow got a hold of the one of the last three Soviet miond-reading machines left and during the night when they were asleep, you placed them on all the Democratic voters in Iowa, like a sleepy version of Santa Claus.




"America needs a better way to pick candidates other than a state..."

Hmmmm.... you do know that Iowa is only part and parcel of a larger process? That Iowa isn't in fact the only state involved in the election process, yes? You are aware that a few other states pplay a pretty relevant factor in deciding the eventual nominee, yes?