For those of you who watched the CSPAN, the lesson about politics:

[AP]

You have to reduce the meaning of your entire campaign -- all your ideas and policies -- down to a paragraph, and then a sentence, and maybe even an image and few words. And those abridged representations of your ideas has to make sense to people. They have to be logical.

It isn't the "massive information dump" which persuades people. It's distilling that massive information dump down to a few points which people feel are true and which make sense to people's lives.

There was the old guy who talked about Kucinich and Edwards in the same breath as talking about living through the depression trying to sell corn for 5 cents an ear. He didn't think the other candidates had any appreciation of what that was like.

There were the Kerry people talking about dignity, organization and valor.

The Kerry and Edwards people talked about electability.

Nobody talked about IWR or Patriot Act.

The Gephardt people talked about simply keeping their guy alive to the next round, as if that were sufficient reason to caucus with him.

The Dean people were horse trading, promising the Kucinich supporter a delegate postition from which he could vote for K at the county level.

The Kucinich guy was anti-establishment.

Some of these ideas were better than others. Some weren't ideas. But that's how people vote.

[KoKo]

1. AP do you support the Patriot Act and were you supportive of IWR?

I'm asking because you have mentioned twice tonight that people aren't focused on this.

[AP]

7. My feeling about the IWR: a trap Bush set for Democrats.

To vote no on that was to step into the trap.

The whole thing was fucked up, but an up or down vote on that piece of legislation wasn't going change the fact that Bush was going to invade that county or destroy the Democratic party, or both.

I guarantee you there were plenty of good reasons to be concerned about Hussein (I'm not saying the whole thing wasn't exaggerated, though). If Dems had voted no, you'd be hearing abot the good reasons, and there'd be a total media crackdown, and we'd be hearing great stories about progress in Iraq.

I was relieved as hell when the Democrats I wanted to win in November all voted yes. And I think the way they (Edwards in particular) have explained their vote is right on. No American is going to elect a president whom they think doesn't put their safety first.

The Patriot Act? Are you kidding me? That act has a few good things and a lot of crap. Right after 9/11, nobody who voted against that would be able to explain to America a no vote. And they don't have a line item veto. The Democrats did the best they could without, again, stepping into a trap.

All the Dems say the same thing about that bill. Get rid of the crap keep the few good things (which were needed due to new technologies). If you're complaining about Dems who voted for that bill, you need to find yourself a new party altogether. But, like I said, any party that obstructed a bill like that so soon after 9/11 would have committed ritual political suicide.

I value principle. But I value intelligence in politicians. I value getting elected the most.

And it's delusional to think that any Dem WANTED those things, or would have done the same thing. They're dealing with dangerous, insane, evil Republicans, and they're trying to get elected in this insane atmosphere to undo that shit. Isn't it obvious to you?

Finally, priorities. Any Dem running on these two issues alone and is NOT talking about middle class opportunity is an idiot. And, furthermore, I'd be more worried about the intentions of a politician doing that than I would a politician like Edwards. Anyone using their anger at those things as an EXCUSE NOT TO TALK ABOUT WALL ST'S TAKEOVER IS AMERICA IS WAAAYYYYY MORE DANGEROUS IN MY OPINION.

[pasadenaboy]

10. I'm sure the families of 500 dead american soldiers

will be very happy to hear that we were smart enough to avoid a republican trap.

Are you really serious, that you will send 500 americans to their death to avoid falling into a political trap? Real people died and have been maimed because of this decision.

[AP]

12. What about the 250 million Americans whose lives are being ruined every

fucking day by George Bush because of his immeasurable greed.

Do you known that over a million kids have dropped out of college since Bush has become president because they don't have the money? Their lives have just been ruined. Their opportunites will be diminished, their political power diminished. All or lives diminished. They won't get what they lost. All for money for George Bush.

Our society is being destroyed by Bush.

Do you think that if we weren't in Iraq, Bush woul be a great president and America would be fine?

And those kids would be dead even with a no vote. Bush would have found a way in there.

[AP]

14. Looking for a reply.

You going to make me wait?

Raise your hand if you want a candidate who meets a purity test even though you KNOW it's going to give Bush a second term and a free pass and to destroy even more of a generation of Americans' lives just so that he and his friends can get richer?

Raise your hand if you think ANY of these Democrats aren't going to do their best to undo the damage Bush is goind to America?

And again, do you think Bush would be a decent president but for the IWR and Patriot Act? List for my the other things you think he does bad, and then will rank them.

[pasadenaboy]

21. I disagree

I don't want a purity test, I want a leader that will stand for what is right, and not let innocent people die for his own political future.

I must have missed the crystal ball that said John Edwards is the only candidate we can field against Bush. This idea that democrats couldn't oppose the war and be strong is absolutely ridiculous. We still got killed in the midterm elections, particularly people that voted for the war resolution, so this idea that voting for it somehow saved people is asinine. Ask Max Cleland. That type of political advise has led us to loss after loss in the house and senate the past 8 years. We should have articulated a cohesive democratic foreign policy to compete with W, instead we had all these congressional guys sellling out to W as quickly as possible to make sure he wasn't mad at them.

Edwards still hasn't retracted his support for the war or his vote, so I am assuming he thinks this is the correct way to conduct foreign policy. If so, I don't know what to expect from him. Since his experience is only less than one term as a senator and no other elective office, I have no idea how to evaluate him.

I want a leader, not a poll watcher.

[AP]

23. How is it right to make IWR/PA MORE important than middle class ...

...opportunity?

Edwards has said about the war that they were given intelligence that justified the vote. If the intelligence was wrong, they need to look at it. It's good that SH is gone. It's now time to let Iraq be run democratically by Iraqis so that the wealth of that nation flows back to the people who own it -- Iraqi citizens (who were, incidentally, deprived of that wealth, and their lives in some cases, when SH controlled Iraq).

He says that democracy in Iraq will be the measure of America's success, and he does not want Iraq to be an excuse for ploghing taxpayer wealth into corporate pockets.

What is there to apologize about in that?

[The Magistrate]

24. It Is Not Right, Sir

Leftists in this country have loaded so much onto their plates they have lost sight of what lays at the root of the cause, namely an equitable distribution of the value produced by labor. This is the reason the left has progressively lost standing down the years among the people. Leftism is not about being against war; leftism has traditionally been a revolutionary fighting creed, willing to pick up the stick and the gun and despising the preacher's advice to turn the other cheek. Leftism is about changing how the swag is divied up, and forgets this at its peril....

"There are two Spains: one that works, and one that eats."

[AP]

25. I couldn't have said it better.

I could have said it with a few more swears and a few misspellings, but I coudln't have said it better.

[The Magistrate]

16. Well Said, My Friend

An excellent analysis of those two concerns, and the real politics, as opposed to naif's cries for purity, surrounding them.

You are quitye correct also that these things do not matter a tinker's damn to the great preponderance of the people. You do not move people to your side by carrying on about what they consider trivial, and when you verge into telling they are foolish not to share your concerns, you only move them to reject you.

"I am a man of principles, Sir, and chief among them is flexibility."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[AP]

18. I think that's one of the lessons we learned from Iowa.

I saw a man talking about selling corn for 5 cents an ear to desperately poor people during (I presume) the Depression, and using that as an argument to vote for Kucinich and Edwards.

I didn't hear anyone complaining about the Pariot Act or blaming Democrats for Bush's Iraq War Extravaganza.

[AP]

19. Furthermore, the things Dems see in Kerry -- valor, dignity, grace,

all in the person of a Yes-Yes voter -- seem to have resulted in a warm embrace from people who do put Iraq and the War on Terror in the forefront of their thoughts.

And that makes infinite sense to me.

[The Magistrate]

22. And Besides That, Sir

As a founder of Viet Nam Veterans Against The War, Sen. Kerry has rather good credentials in that line....

[SangamonTaylor]

26. .

i agree completely.

[AP]

8. Incidentally, I resent your implication that I support those things,

and I know you know what my point was and that was that voters are not going to trust a politician who tells you those two votes are more important than trying to stop the one-way transfer of wealth to the idle wealthy.

You know that. I know that. And Republicans want you to think otherwise.

[ewagner]

2. Glad you posted this

I watched on CSPAN and saw a lot of what you mentioned.

In a sense, what happened in Iowa tonight is politics at its best. I enjoyed every minute of it and, for a long time, forgot that I had a favorite in the race.

[bhunt70]

3. good post.

That Kucinich kid, man he gave that girl who was trying to help gephardt a hard time...then he started wheeling and dealing. Good job seeing young people trying to manouver their candidate into a winning position.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

4. "as if that were sufficient reason to caucus with him."

Yes. It's called loyalty. I guess part of politics is convincing people that you are the one they should be loyal to.

[RichV]

5. Sure...

But what was she thinking? I don't see why you would expect the other candidates' supporters to vault you into delegate-level support out of charity. Seems like exactly the opposite of what they'd want... fewer surviving opponents.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

6. well I didn't actually see it so

I may very well not know what I'm talking about.

[AP]

11. The one thing she was good at was persistence.

[DjTj]

13. I loved that girl.

She was definitely the best part of the caucus. Her and the Kucinich guy that wouldn't give up.

They cared deeply for their candidates and they did everything they could.

With Democrats like that, we can't lose.

[AP]

15. Me too.

Those two need a reality show.

[AP]

9. Loyalty in an of itself is not a compelling idea. You need a reason to be

loyal.

As you note, she was trying to convince other people who didn't care that they should caucus with Gephardt because SHE was loyal. That ain't going to cut it.

[Clark Can WIN]

17. The Gepharrdt girl was awful and did her candidate no justice

although I'm sure she was trying very hard, she was wholly unprepared.

[AP]

20. Her candidate didn't give her much to work with. Give her a better ....

... candidate and she would have been worth her weight in gold.

[stickdog]

27. It's how people caucus. Voting is a very different dynamic. (nt)

[AP]

28. People have those same dialogs in their heads when they vote.

What you heard them say to each other is what they've said to themselves to convince themselves to vote for their candidates.