1
   

Michael Moore congratulates Iowa

 
 
Reply Fri 4 Jan, 2008 10:46 am
"It's the War," Says Iowa to Hillary -- And a "Happy Blue Year" To All!
...from Michael Moore
January 3, 2007

Friends,

There was no doubt about it. The message from Iowa tonight was simple, but deafening:

If you're a candidate for President, and you voted for the war, you lose. And if you voted and voted and voted for the war -- and never once showed any remorse -- you really lose.

In short, if you had something to do with keeping us in this war for four-plus years, you are not allowed to be the next president of the United States.

Over 70% of Iowan Democrats voted for candidates who either never voted for the invasion of Iraq (Obama, Richardson, Kucinich) or who have since admitted their mistake (Edwards, Biden, Dodd). I can't tell you how bad I feel for Senator Clinton tonight. I don't believe she was ever really for this war. But she did -- and continued to do -- what she thought was the politically expedient thing to eventually get elected. And she was wrong. And tonight she must go to sleep wondering what would have happened if she had voted her conscience instead of her calculator.

John Edwards was supposed to have come in third. He had been written off. He was outspent by the other front-runners six to one. But somewhere along the road he threw off the old politico hack jacket and turned into a real person, a fighter for the poor, for the uninsured, for peace. And for that, he came in a surprise second, ending up with just one less delegate than the man who was against the war from the beginning. But, as Joshua Holland of AlterNet pointed out earlier today, Edwards is still the only front-runner who will pull out all the troops and do it as quickly as possible. His speech tonight was brilliant and moving.

What an amazing night, not just for Barack Obama, but for America. I know that Senator Obama is so much more than simply the color of his skin, but all of us must acknowledge -- and celebrate -- the fact that one of the whitest states in the U.S. just voted for a black man to be our next president. Thank you, Iowa, for this historic moment. Thank you for at least letting us believe that we are better than what we often seem to be. And to have so many young people come out and vote -- and vote for Obama -- this is a proud moment. It all began with the record youth turnout in 2004 -- the ONLY age group that Kerry won -- and they came back out tonight en force. Good on every single one of you!

As the only top candidate who was anti-war before the war began, Barack Obama became the vessel through which the people of this Midwestern state were able to say loud and clear: "Bring 'Em Home!" Most pundits won't read the election this way because, well, most pundits merrily led us down the path to war. For them to call this vote tonight a repudiation of the war -- and of Senator Clinton's four years' worth of votes for it -- might require the pundit class to remind their viewers and readers that they share some culpability in starting this war. And, like Hillary, damn few of them have offered us an apology.

With all due respect to Senator Obama's victory, the most important news out of the caucus this evening was the whopping, room-busting turnout of Democrats. 239,000 people showed up to vote Democratic tonight (93% more than in '04, which was a record year), while only 115,000 showed up to vote Republican. And this is a red state! The Republican caucuses looked anemic. The looks on their faces were glum, tired. As the camera followed some of them into their caucus sites, they held their heads down or turned away, sorta like criminals on a perp walk. They know their days of power are over. They know their guy blew it. Their only hope was to vote for a man who has a direct line to heaven. Huckabee is their Hail Mary pass. But don't rule him out. He's got a sense of humor, he's downhome, and he said that if elected, he'd put me on a boat to Cuba. Hey, a free Caribbean vacation!

Bottom line: People have had it. Iowa will go blue (Happy Blue Year, Hawkeyes!). Whomever your candidate is on the Dem side, this was a good night. Get some sleep. The Republicans won't go down without a fight. Look what happened when Kerry tried to play nice. So Barack, you can talk all you want about "let's put the partisanship aside, let's all get along," but the other side has no intention of being anything but the bullies they are. Get your game face on now. And, if you can, tell me why you are now the second largest recipient of health industry payola after Hillary. You now take more money from the people committed to stopping universal health care than any of the Republican candidates.

Despite what your answer may be, I was proud to sit in my living room tonight and see you and your family up on that stage. We became a bit better tonight, and on that I will close by saying, sweet dreams -- and on to that other totally white state of New Hampshire!

Yours,

Michael Moore
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 522 • Replies: 15
No top replies

 
jasonrest
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2008 08:28 pm
MM always on cue.
Did you hear that Hillary and Obama are tied in New Hampshire???
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2008 09:19 pm
jasonrest wrote:
MM always on cue.
Did you hear that Hillary and Obama are tied in New Hampshire???


Not any more they are not.

Did you see the debate?
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2008 09:20 pm
I'm watching it now, what's your take?
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2008 09:40 pm
I think that Hillary went too far on her attacks on Obama, and then got smacked down by Edwards saying "Agents of the Status Quo always attack change.

I also think Hillary's theme for the debate is summed up with the oxymoronic phrase "35 years of change". In truth she doesn't have 35 years of relevant experience, nor has she often been a real champion for change.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2008 09:44 pm
ebrown_p wrote:
I think that Hillary went too far on her attacks on Obama, and then got smacked down by Edwards saying "Agents of the Status Quo always attack change.

I also think Hillary's theme for the debate is summed up with the oxymoronic phrase "35 years of change". In truth she doesn't have 35 years of relevant experience, nor has she often been a real champion for change.


Laughing I saw that. First I thought, why did he (the debate questioner) tee that up for her, basically asking her to please go ahead and attack Obama. But I thought Edwards did the best. He was the one to give her the smackdown, even getting in a dig about how you didn't hear these attacks form her when she was ahead. Obama is never as stellar in these debates as he could be, but he held his own.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2008 09:47 pm
I think Obama is making a conscious effort to be presidential. It was good that Edwards covered his flank because he didn't need to enter the fray as much.

He already has the "charismatic" tag... he wants to look like a statesman.

I think he did a good job.
0 Replies
 
jasonrest
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2008 10:28 pm
Well, Iowa probably left the Clinton campaign a little sore, especially struggling with Edwards for third; so her gloves are off.....she didn't know what they were for anyway.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2008 10:41 pm
I was suprised that Edwards so clearly came to Obama's defense - especially when Hillary very obviously had created an opening for him to pile on Obama.

In fact, one of the things I commented to my wife on during the debate was the lack of disagreement on almost anything between Obama and Edwards - for some reason it seemed almost too cozy to me.

And I "got" the thing about Obama being "too nice" that I've often heard - I think he's getting better (and I think he himself recognizes the need for a little more pugnaciousness), and I think he has plenty of bite when he really needs it. He has a tendency to be a little too measured in his debate responses, but when I weigh that beside the fact that I actually understand the specifics he outlines and agree with his take on most things, the ability to draw blood gets into perspective.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2008 10:45 pm
snood wrote:
I was suprised that Edwards so clearly came to Obama's defense - especially when Hillary very obviously had created an opening for him to pile on Obama.


I was afraid, for a minute, that he would take that opening. But she's the one who's wounded, so he needs to knock her down as much as possible. Obama already has a win, so if he brings him down, he's just giving Hillary a win. Obama 1, Hill 1, Edwards nothing. He needs a win or at least another 2nd place finish, and she's the one who's vulnerable.

Of course, I don't think it's likely that the debates have that big of an effect, but I think that's the thinking behind it.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2008 10:48 pm
intresting take, duck.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2008 10:52 pm
I agree with FreeDuck... and in hindsight it makes sense.

Hillary is the most vulnerable of the three. A wounded Clinton leading to a Obama v. Edwards race may be Edwards best shot.

Obama and Edwards are the progressives facing the centrist Clinton. A bit of teamwork between the two makes sense. The problem with Clinton is that this leaves her with the rather unimpressive Richardson.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2008 10:54 pm
Do we all agree that if Obama wins NH, Clinton is in real trouble?

This debate (and particularly any press from this exchange) could be just that little push to win NH which would make it more impactful than most.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2008 10:57 pm
I think it depends on how close the race is, but yeah, I basically agree with that. If it's a nail biter with a 1% difference, then she still has a chance, but it'll only get harder.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2008 11:05 pm
Well Miller is on another thread saying that New England area radio stations are calling Hillary the winner of the debate, and saying polls are showing the boost.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2008 11:30 pm
Does she have links to back up this claim about New England Radio stations?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Michael Moore congratulates Iowa
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 09/30/2024 at 12:28:39