bye bye Clinton inevitability...Your Iran vote is calling...Edwards, Obama moving up,

Huffington post has the Iowa Independent ratings for how the Iowa caucus will turn out on January 3rd. Based on information revealed recently on John Edwards' campaign, their rankings put him at the top for January 3rd.

as revealed Monday morning on a conference call, the former North Carolina senator has recruited multiple precinct captains in 87% of Iowa's precincts, demonstrating the continuing superiority of his grassroots organization.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chase-martyn/latest-iowa-power-ranking_b_75147.html

The report also mentions Bruce Baley, CD-1, Iowa, and his endorsement of Edwards.
They also show Hillary in spot number 2, however, I believe that result is very fluid.

Concerning Obama:

Obama's message resonates equally well among women as it does among men, and that's before Oprah Winfrey has even arrived. The gender and age gaps both show signs of closing, and his campaign's crowd-building skills are unparalleled. His subtle criticisms of Clinton over the past month have forced Clinton to issue less subtle criticisms of her own, perhaps demonstrating the direction her campaign sees the race heading.

...as in heading in a downward spiral - fast.

It is my opinion that a majority of Caucus goers who are picking John Edwards would not have Hillary Clinton as a second choice, with Barack Obama or Dennis Kucinich as their second choice. However, from what I have read in the polling, it seems that there is a potential that Barack Obama's supporters might tend to have Hillary Clinton as a second choice. I base this on stories such as this one from the NY Times...

With just four weeks before the Iowa caucuses, in an intensely competitive battle against Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Edwards, the Obama campaign is ratcheting up its women’s effort...
Some of the women supporting Mr. Obama — politically active Democrats, women who pay attention to the glass ceiling in politics — admitted that they had to overcome a few pangs to close the deal. “As a strong feminist most of my life, the question always is, How can you not support the woman candidate?” said Jean Lloyd-Jones, a longtime Democratic activist in Iowa. “And I frankly have been torn by that.”
In the end, Ms. Lloyd-Jones said she finally decided that Mr. Obama was the more progressive candidate, and her progressive instincts trumped her feminist instincts.

And this article, which highlights how Hillary's new negative attacks are costing her voters to Obama...

Curt Evans, of Joice, Iowa, who is torn between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama, said that her attacks were somewhat irritating to sit through. He is already uncomfortable with the domination of American politics by the Bushes and the Clintons; the idea of more years of Clinton-led attacks is unappealing, he said.

It is my hope that Obama's supporters, as well as other campaigns will see through Clinton's accusations of Edwards mudslinging, (while she herself is attacking Obama on his kindergarten memoirs - too good to be true) which will result in a mass exodus from her campaign as a second choice.
You get me here? I don't just want Hillary to not win Iowa, I want her to place no better than fourth.
Perhaps the Clinton campaign is sensing this to be an issue as her rhetoric indicates she is fishing for the second choice voters...

“The argument suggests that people like me, and Governor Richardson, and Senator Dodd and Senator Biden, are somehow disqualified from making the changes that America needs, even though we’ve been doing that for decades.”

These are the voters who are most likely, IMHO, to break towards Clinton for second, besides Obama, and we must try to prevent that from happening.

Are some of you thinking "Hillary hater"?
Sorry, there is more at stake than just that, it is a matter of making this election like the 1932 election, (as has been written about on this site)
which would usher in a decade plus era of democratic majorities in the house and senate, along with a democratic presidency, and hopefully 2 democratic presidencies in a row, repeating the era of FDR's progressive policies for working class Americans.

In addition to this, I read articles in the NY times, which raise the caution flag for our downticket candidates...

Mrs. Clinton is a long way from winning the Democratic presidential nomination, and over the last few weeks has struggled to hang on to the air of inevitability that she has been cultivating all year. But the possibility that she will be the nominee is already generating concern among some Democrats in Republican-leaning states and Congressional districts, who fear that sharing the ticket with her could subject them to attack as too liberal and out of step with the values of their constituents.while vulnerable Democrats like her are not likely to have an easy time even if Senator Barack Obama, John Edwards or any of the other Democratic presidential candidates wins the nomination, Republicans in Kansas say Mrs. Clinton’s presence on the ticket would unite their party in opposition to her and give dispirited conservatives a reason to get excited about the race...“Whether you are a moderate Republican or a conservative Republican in Kansas, you are pretty much of the same mind on Hillary Clinton,” Mr. Leopold said. “There is no question Hillary is going to be a drag...“The people I talk to, they just cannot imagine a worse scenario,” said Mr. Doperalski, a Republican who heads the county commission. “They just don’t think she can be trusted.”

It is time for us to do as Edwards says and make our voices stronger together, and unite to elect progressives.
If you are not for Hillary, I would suggest not making her your second choice, but instead choose John Edwards or Barack Obama. That way the dream of an Edwards and Obama 16 year presidency of progressive politics will be possible.

UPdate:
Another reason to have HRC finish 4th, is her support for Lieberman Kyl, a vote for bringing us closer to war than ever with Iran...
now we know that the Iranian nuclear program has been stopped since 2003,(thanks Tom P) revealing that not only did Bush/Cheney lie, but our own leaders, such as HRC bowed to neo-con pressure when it could have cost us the future...

"The new National Intelligence Estimate shows that George Bush and Dick Cheney's rush to war with Iran is, in fact, a rush to war."

- John Edwards

from NY times today:

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s national security director, Lee Feinstein, said the report’s findings “expose the latest effort by the Bush administration to distort intelligence to pursue its ideological ends.” He added that the report “vindicates” Mrs. Clinton’s approach, which he described as “vigorous American-led diplomacy, close international cooperation and effective economic pressure, with the prospect of carefully calibrated incentives if Iran addresses our concerns.”

In fact, in September Mrs. Clinton, Democrat of New York, voted in favor of a Senate measure declaring the Iranian Revolutionary Guards “proliferators of mass destruction,” a vote that was condemned by her rivals in the Democratic field. After the vote, her aides issued a statement saying, “The Revolutionary Guards are deeply involved in Iran’s nuclear program.”

Mrs. Clinton’s rivals used the release of the report on Iran on Monday to condemn the Bush administration, as well as to once again attack Mrs. Clinton’s vote on declaring the guards a terrorist organization. That vote, they suggested, was evidence of her hawkishness on Iran.

Comments

whose right? Is this bashing?

Can you guess who said these quotes?

Bush or Clinton?

"To me, the NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) provides an opportunity for us to rally the international community - to continue to rally the community - to pressure the Iranian regime to suspend its program," "What's to say they couldn't start another covert nuclear weapons program."

the Iranian Revolutionary Guards
(are) "proliferators of mass destruction," "The Revolutionary Guards are deeply involved in Iran’s nuclear program."

if you can close your eyes as I can and hear either Bush or Clinton saying these things, then that should tell you something important.

It should not be that hard to tell our nominee from President Bush...

wade norris

www.ultimatepoltics.net


"What's the use of a fine house if you haven't got a tolerable planet to put it on?"

Henry David Thoreau

praer.org

We don't have a nominee

We haven't even had a primary yet.


Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi

I know, I mean

This should help us decide who should NOT be our nominee

wade norris

www.ultimatepoltics.net


"What's the use of a fine house if you haven't got a tolerable planet to put it on?"

Henry David Thoreau

praer.org

I understand what you're trying to do

and can appreciate it, in a way.

I would rather make my decision based on who should be our nominee. Argue from strength and positives, not from weakness and negatives.


Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi