This tells the story: Only 13 % Iowans said Iraq was most impt issue

[kerry-is-my-prez]

4th place behind economy, health care and education.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/19/elec04.prez.iowa.polls/

29 percent of those surveyed cited the economy and jobs as the most important issue, while 28 percent said the candidates' stand on health care and Medicare was the deciding factor.

Caucus-goers were surveyed before they entered 50 of the state's 1,993 caucus sites, in schools, private homes, YMCAs and other locations. The polls were conducted by two firms, Edison Research and Mitofsky International, for a consortium of major news organizations.

-snip-

Education was the main issue for only 14 percent of caucus-goers, and the war in Iraq trailed at 13 percent. Farm policy got the least attention, with only 2 percent of the Democratic caucus voters saying it was the most important issue.

Two qualities stood out when caucus participants were asked to chose the most important quality they were looking for in a candidate: 29 percent said the ability to take strong stands on the issues, while 27 percent said it was the ability to beat President Bush in November.

[acmavm]

1. Folks, that still makes Iraq the biggest problem, look at the cost of this

frigging war. The cost has gone up tens of thousands of dollars since I started typing this post. If they voters are too morally blind to see the deceit, lies, and the horrible deaths that this war is costing us, then let them see how it's hitting their dumb asses in the pocketbook.

edit: Poor grammar.

[GreenArrow]

4. you're pretty much right on

But I wouldn't necessarily call all of them dumb asses. There is a lot of fear, denial, ignorance, and selfishnes out there.

[DemBones DemBones]

2. Don't assume that means people don't care about the war.

It's very difficult to rank issues unless you're a one-issue candidate, I think.

People know we have to ELECT a Democrat to get anything done about the war or anything else.

[Guaranteed]

3. Jobs, eh? Gep got even less votes than Dean LOL.

Yeah, those wacky Iowans! :)

[ikojo]

9. Gephardt is a Washingtonian and really no

friend to working people. Oh yeah he likes union members because unions give him A LOT of MONEY. Where Kucinich found the time while campaigning to be in DC on July 10 to vote against shrub's overtime bill, Gephardt was too busy raising money and thinking only of himself to take a stand for workers. Was this because he takes a lot of corporate money and did not want to take a stand that was contrary to what corporate America wants? I think so.

I am GLAD Gephardt is finally out of politics. I am SO happy he did poorly in Iowa and look forward to punching the ballot for Kucinich on Feb 3 in Gephardt's state of Missouri!

[cprise]

5. Then they don't care who they kill

...as long as it's not thrown right back in their face.

I think Iowa could be atypical... but I won't hold my breath finding out.

[maxr4clark]

6. That doesn't fit what I've been seeing all night

What has been shown on the cable news channels has been 75% of the voters entering the caucuses wanted a candidate that opposed the war, but that among those who wanted an anti-war candidate, John Kerry was the top vote getter.

[CreekDog]

7. And maybe in terms of our voting, it should Be

I think with the exception of Lieberman, none of the Democrats as president would have launched a war with Iraq, especially in the way that Bush did. Ultimately, those who supported the Iraq War Resolution were supporting the president's show of force. In retrospect, it was a bad idea.

However, this vote doesn't really show what kind of president they would be. Had any of them been president, I see the same type of policy towards Iraq (probably even Lieberman --but I'm not confident on that one).

So, I don't see it as an appropriate litmus test. The other problem is that with such a 'zero-tolerance' policy, you eliminate some good candidates and with a 'zero-tolerance' policy, you eliminate any thinking that might convince you to support such a candidate even if they did vote for the war resolution. Hillary did too, by the way.

[stickdog]

8. They were merely following Kucinich's lead. (nt)

[HFishbine]

10. Are you sure about that link?

Your link has no mention of the job or medicare preferences you cite.

[spooky3]

11. Try this one. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3762614

[MoonRiver]

12. This war is symptomatic of the whole BFEE.

People care but in the meantime they have to have jobs, their kids need to get educated, and they don't want to come down with cancer or experience the hideous effects of global warming because of this corrupt adm. destroying our environment. The only way to stop *'s outrages is to get him out and get a decent Democrat in the WH, plus take back at least the Senate. Last night Iowans KNEW there wouldn't have been an Iraq if Gore, or any other Dem, had been in the WH. They want an electable liberal Dem in the WH who can clean up *'s mess. And of the group there Kerry looked the best. I totally agree with their decision. Next I want General Clark to win NH and elsewhere and get the nomination!

Gooooooo Clark!!!!! :kick:

[LynneSin]

13. Iraq is what cost us in 2002

When the economy was tanking and domestic affairs were in a shambles, we democrats lost focus and made TOO much of a big deal about Iraq right before the 2002 elections.

I hate what we are doing in Iraq and I hate the fact that we are spending billions of dollars in a country where we're not really wanted instead of spending that money here at home where we desparatly need it.

The Bush regime planned that Iraq vote well They know when it comes to patriotism and war, Americans will rally behind Bush and vote for his team. We progressives got so caught up in that vote that we forgot the one issue that will make voters turn away from Bush and that is the economy and other domestic issues.

It angers me that some democrats, including Kerry and my own senators Biden & Carper, were duped by what the repukes promised us. They said we would give the Bush admin the ability to go to war WITH the UN. That vote backfire us on many accounts, not only with the War but with the 2002 elections.

I'm a Dean supporter, but first and foremost I'm "Anybody But Bush" voter. I was shocked at the Kerry win, but then again alot of folks have won Iowa and then gone on to NOT win the nomination (including Clinton). But we will NOT win if we make the Iraq war our #1 issue. To do that will make folks forget how bad it is at home and support Bush in the election.

Clinton defeated Bush Sr. (with the help of Perot), by not focusing on the first Gulf War but instead pushing the domestic issues at home. It was almost like Clinton totally forgot that we had a war in Iraq and that Bush Sr. ended that war with a sky-high approval rating (it was at 90%). Whoever wins this nomination needs to do the same thing: We'll worry about Iraq when we win the election but we need to hammer away at domestic issues because that is what makes voters vote Democratic