Print this story | E-mail story | This story has 23 comments Add your own | iPod friendly
Obama, Huckabee win in Iowa
Published Friday, January 4, 2008
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Sen. Barack Obama swept to victory in the Iowa caucuses Thursday night, pushing Hillary Rodham Clinton to third place and taking a major stride in a historic bid to become the nation’s first black president. Mike Huckabee rode a wave of support from evangelical Christians to win the opening round among Republicans in the 2008 campaign for the White House.
Obama, 46 and a first-term senator from Illinois, told a raucous victory rally his triumph showed that in “big cities and small towns, you came together to say, ‘We are one nation, we are one people and our time for change has come.’”
Nearly complete returns showed the first-term lawmaker gaining 37 percent support from Iowa Democrats. Former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina appeared headed for second place, relegating Clinton, the former first lady, to a close third.
Huckabee celebrated his own victory over Mitt Romney and a crowded Republican field. “A new day is needed in American politics, just like a new day is needed in American government,” the former Arkansas governor told cheering supporters. “It starts here, but it doesn’t end here. It goes all the way through the other states and ends at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.”
Huckabee, a preacher turned politician, handily defeated Romney despite being outspent by millions of dollars and deciding in the campaign’s final days to scrap television commercials that would have assailed the former Massachusetts governor. He stressed his religion to the extent of airing a commercial that described himself as a “Christian leader” in his race against a man seeking to become the first Mormon president.
Nearly complete returns showed Huckabee with 34 percent support, compared with 25 percent for Romney. Former Sen. Fred Thompson and Sen. John McCain battled for third place, while Texas Rep. Ron Paul wound up fifth and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani sixth.
With the New Hampshire primary only five days distant, Clinton and Edwards vowed to fight on in the race for the Democratic nomination.
“We have always planned to run a national campaign,” the former first lady told supporters at a noisy rally attended by her husband and their daughter, Chelsea. “I am so ready for the rest of this campaign, and I am so ready to lead.”
Edwards, the Democrats’ 2004 vice presidential nominee, told The Associated Press in an interview he would distinguish himself from Obama in New Hampshire by arguing that he is the candidate who can deliver the change that voters have shown they want. “I’’m going to fight for that change,” he said by telephone from his hotel room in Iowa. “I’ve fought for it my entire life. I have a long history of fighting powerful interests and winning.”
Not everyone was going on. Democratic Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut announced he was leaving the race, and officials said Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware would soon join him.
New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson said he would campaign in New Hampshire despite finishing in fourth place with a minuscule 2 percent support. Romney sought to frame his defeat as something other than that, saying he had trailed Huckabee by more than 20 points a few weeks ago.
“I’ve been pleased that I’ve been able to make up ground and I intend to keep making up ground, not just here but across the country,” he said.
The words were brave, but already, his strategy of bankrolling a methodical campaign in hopes of winning the first two states was in tatters — and a rejuvenated McCain was tied with him in the polls in next-up New Hampshire.
Iowans rendered their judgments in meetings at 1,781 precincts from Adel to Zwingle, in schools, firehouses and community centers where the candidates themselves could not follow.
With President Bush constitutionally unable to seek re-election, a wide-open race developed in both parties that resulted in campaign organizations that dwarfed anything in previous campaigns. Romney alone spent $7 million on television commercials. The result was a record turnout.
Projections estimated that 220,588 Democrats showed up on a cold midwinter’s night, shattering the previous mark of 124,000.
Turnout was also up on the Republican side, where projections showed about 114,000 people taking part. The last previous contested Republican caucuses in 2000 drew 87,666 participants.
In interviews as they entered the caucuses, more than half of all the Republicans said they were either born-again or evangelical Christians, and they liked Huckabee more than any of his rivals. Romney led handily among the balance of the Iowa Republican voters, according to the survey.
About half the Democratic caucus-goers said a candidate’s ability to bring about needed change was the most important factor as they made up their minds, according to the entrance interviews by the AP and the television networks. Change was Obama’s calling card in the arduous campaign for Iowa’s backing.
Obama also outpolled Clinton among women, and benefited from a surge in first-time caucus-goers. More than half of those who participated said they had never been to a caucus before, and Obama won the backing of roughly 40 percent of them. Edwards did best among veteran caucus-goers, garnering 30 percent of their vote. Obama and Clinton each got about a quarter of their support.
An AP analysis of Iowa’s Republican caucuses estimated that Huckabee would win 30 delegates to the national convention and Romney would win 7.
Obama’s victory was much narrower in the race for delegates. The AP analysis estimated Obama would win 16 delegates, compared to 15 for Clinton and 14 for Edwards. Clinton will win more delegates than Edwards, despite getting fewer votes, because of Iowa’s complicated caucus system.
In the overall race for the nomination, Clinton leads with 175 delegates, including superdelegates, followed by Obama with 75 and Edwards with 46.
While Republicans and Democrats both looked to Iowa to pass the first judgment of the election year, there was a key difference in the way they ran their caucuses. Republicans took a straw vote, then tallied the results. Democrats had a more complicated process in which one candidate’s supporters might eventually wind up backing another contender.
Clinton, Obama and Edwards had all urged voters to consider them if their own candidate fell short. Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio publicly urged his backers to line up with Obama on a second round, and two Democrats said aides to Richardson did likewise as the caucuses unfolded in hopes of blocking the former first lady. Those two spoke on condition of anonymity, citing private discussions.
In the campaign’s final days, Obama, a first-term senator, stressed a need for change. Clinton boasted of her experience as she worked to follow her husband into the White House. Edwards cast himself as the implacable enemy of special interests as he aimed to improve on last time’s second-place showing in the state. Strikingly, none of the Democrats ran television commercials attacking one another, and the result was a remarkably civilized race despite the stakes.
Romney stressed his background as a businessman and organizer of the 2002 Olympics, and he worked to persuade conservatives to ignore his earlier positions on abortion and gay rights. He ran the only commercials of the campaign critical of a rival, hitting Huckabee for his positions on immigration and the pardons he issued while governor of Arkansas.
For three decades, Iowa’s caucuses have drawn presidential hopefuls eager to make a strong first impression, and this year was no different.
Obama, Clinton and Edwards spent at least $19 million on television advertising among them. Romney told supporters in a final daylong swing around the state he had been in 68 of 99 counties since he began his quest for the White House, had spent 55 days in Iowa and spoken before 248 separate audiences.
Comments
Posted by beammeupscotty (anonymous) on January 4, 2008 at 4:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't like either of these canidates. Huckabee is a nut religious fanatic and Obama has never said what it is he stands for or what he plans to do if elected.
Posted by Incognito (anonymous) on January 4, 2008 at 7:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
In the words of a great philosopher (Patti LaBelle) "It's a New Day!"
Obama '08
F-I-R-E-D UP O-bama F-I-R-E-D UP HEY!!!!!!
Posted by Let_us_think (anonymous) on January 4, 2008 at 7:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I like that--"a nut religious fanatic." The problem with those candidates hanging their religion, whatever it is, out there like a Medal of Honor on a soldier's chest is that they (read Bush) think their opinions are inspired and shouldn't be subjected to rational evaluation. Facts be damned! Jesus Christ is my running mate!
Candidates should keep their religion private. Business and peoples' lives, freedoms and money are at stake. Decisions should be defended, and not based on religious inspiration or self-righteous, blind ideology, the kind that leaves us still in Iraq after five years with no goals.
Posted by beammeupscotty (anonymous) on January 4, 2008 at 8:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Incognito can you tell me what Obama stands for on the war, ecomomics, health care, social security energy crisis. Clue me in because so far I have heard him say nothing.
Posted by Let_us_think (anonymous) on January 4, 2008 at 8:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Beammeupscotty--you may be missing the point. Obama just rolled a bowling ball into Hilary's pins, and the Clinton machine--the one that was unbeatable. Obama is now in the wind, a huge political force of change in thinking. He's inspirational to scads of voters--the kind with high VISA balances in single parent households with no health insurance. And to others as well who are ashamed of Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. I'm not necessarily for him, but you've got to be in awe of a 46 year old with only 3 years behind him in the Senate, and black to boot, who can go out and change the entire nature of the campaign. You'd have to have a heart of stone not to be moved at the sight.
Posted by Username (anonymous) on January 4, 2008 at 8:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ron Paul smears Rudy.That's one crook out of the way.
Let's restore the constitution, Vote Ron Paul 2008
Posted by Incognito (anonymous) on January 4, 2008 at 11:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Let me apologize for the delay, and currently, I'm at work. My interpretation of Obama is that he brings purpose and hope, not just to blacks, but to all Americans. He is aganist the war, and has talked openly about the poor decisions made by the current administration in going to war.
At the present time, I feel that this country needs to be united, focused even. The morale is low and inappropriate decision are being made. Obama is working to unite democrats, republicans and independents involving them in the process. To me that's hope. He brings a certain decorum with authenticity that over the past 8 years this country has lacked (insert GWB).
Some may say that he does not have necessary experience. Well, how many tasks out there can actually be used to prepare one for leading this country? Besides, experience is what's in the White House now and look at the current state of this country.
You also spoke on the energy crisis. Our inability to adequately maintain this land can be linked to this current state. Obama has addressed this issue.
Time and time again, we've witnessed indivudals say they are going to do this, that, and the other, only for them to do neither.
I've go to run
Obama '08
Posted by beammeupscotty (anonymous) on January 4, 2008 at 1:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
letusthink, Obama got alot of first time voters and under 30 votes. I feel most of those are probably because he is black, young, and has no plans like most of them.
Incognito, you say pretty much the same thing Obama said, what you are against and that change is needed. But nothing about what your plans are to do about these problems and to bring about change.
Posted by freedom42 (anonymous) on January 4, 2008 at 1:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think Obama will be easier for the Republicians to beat than Hilliary - but I bet she gets the nomination. Ron Paul at least is saying what he thinks and wants to do, but he wants to much radical change for most people. I haven't seen anyone yet I feel really comfortable voting for and a lot than I would never vote for.
Posted by thelorax (anonymous) on January 4, 2008 at 2:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
TO : Beam me up Scotty and Let_Us_ Think.
"Candidates should keep their religion private"?
Pluhleezeeeeee
Why? Clinton sure didn't keep ANY of his ANYTHING private.
Perhaps the " religious nut" as you call him can do more than previous
President's ie: Clinton, with God by his side inside of worrying about when he can get his next cigar.
I like Obama myself, he has a fresh look at the our Country.. Will I vote for him? Who knows, time will tell.
Posted by Incognito (anonymous) on January 4, 2008 at 2:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Plans are just that, plans. If anyone establishes some type of strategy and expects to follow that strategy to the "T" that indivdual will place restrictions on progress. Many outside factors, uncontrolable even, may cause us to alter our original thinking. Having a plan of action is great, however, one must be tenacious enough to make those alterations in the midst of uncertainty (Katrina). Believe it our not, "uncertainty" can be the one word to describe the current state of the U.S.
Uncertainty:
War in Iraq---the reason for invaision changed so many times, I stopped keeping track.
Health care: you know, I could go on and on.
As it relates to only attracting the young "black vote", you may want to check your stats. Last night, I saw more beautiful white faces than black faces in Iowa.
Freedom, to be honest, I think the current administration has recked any chance of Republicans regaining the White House. If money talks, normally, one may automatically say Republican hands down. Well, Oprah is on the Obama wagon (Watch out!).
Posted by Morticia (anonymous) on January 4, 2008 at 2:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
So...what is Obama's plan?
Posted by mike8427 (anonymous) on January 4, 2008 at 3:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
not trying to defend Clinton, but it was Ken Star and the republicans that spent Millions of taxpayers dollars to get into the private business of pres Clinton with that investigation.
Posted by beammeupscotty (anonymous) on January 4, 2008 at 3:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree, Clinton was just as big a crook as the rest of them. Thats why change with plans is needed.
Posted by Baracuda (anonymous) on January 4, 2008 at 6:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Is'nt Obama a muslim and don't they beleive that all Americans should all die.
Posted by Negotiator (anonymous) on January 4, 2008 at 7:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Time and time again, we've witnessed indivudals say they are going to do this, that, and the other, only for them to do neither."
What, pray tell, makes you think Obama will be any different?
I have no faith in any of them.
Sure, he talks a good game, but can he do anything to follow thru on his proclamation that there will be, as he says "no blue states, no red states, but the United States."
Posted by drawpaintsing (anonymous) on January 4, 2008 at 7:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Barrack Obama is not a Muslim. From what I've been researching, he is Church of Christ. He belongs to the Trinity Church of Christ in Chicago, Illinois. I can see that by reading his name that you may think he is Muslim, but he is not one now. According to what I've read, he has been converted for a while now.
Posted by Incognito (anonymous) on January 4, 2008 at 8:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Negotiator, take a look at this current adminsitration. At least Obama is offering something, even if what he's offering is hope, that's more than what we have now.
I saw were you mentioned that your wife is an Alcornite. Should I expect to see the both of you at the "Mid-Winter Conference."
Posted by freedom42 (anonymous) on January 4, 2008 at 9:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Obamas father was a Muslim at one time. Supposedly he (Barrack) is Church of Christ, but there are many divisions within that denomination. And the question is, does he really attend and take part, or is he just on their roles? However, that is not the real question for me. Like Negotiator and beammeupscotty, I see no "plans". He talks a good line, but I have never heard or read any way he intends to carry out what he is saying.
Posted by Incognito (anonymous) on January 4, 2008 at 9:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
May be I'm missing something with all of these elaborate plans and strategies (that often will not come to fruition). Seriously, would we rather buy into just what sounds good with these plans (please see earlier post).
What was Bush's plan? Oh, I forgot, to surround himself with competent sounding people so he wouldn't have to speak. You see that didn't work. Elaborate plans (lol)!
Obama '08
Posted by NtzMom55 (anonymous) on January 5, 2008 at 2:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm just plain sick of Hillary "Rotting Ham" Clinton. Now she's trying to capitalize on the word "change" in preparation for New Hampshire. She will just be the status quo in Washington (or should I say, the status "cold").
Posted by ijohnson (anonymous) on January 5, 2008 at 9:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Good morning!!
WE'RE WIDE-EYED AND BUSHY-TAILED, I SEE!!!!!
((NtzMom55)), you've got Hillary pegged to the "t"!!
As for Obama, definitely better than what we have in the White House. I like the way he looks . . . tall, dark and handsome . . . and he wears very nice shoes!! *lol*
As for him having all that experience and standing for this or that, just HUSH . . . who wants to hear all that pumped up rhetoric! Bush had years of experience and a father who was also President of the U.S. and look at where that EXPERIENCE got us!!!!
I'll take a man with a nice pair of shoes any day . . . honesty and a geniune desire to serve the people and not fill his pocket with gold . . . is what I'm looking for.
And, if you don't love him now, you will grow to love him if he is elected President!!!!!!!! Don't worry about what your friends may think if you vote for him, noone will be watching when you pull the lever . . . vote for a "fresh" change!!!!!!!! ‹(•¿•)›
Have a good day and stay warm!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by freedom42 (anonymous) on January 5, 2008 at 7:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sorry but I couldn't possibly vote for someone so pro-choice that he agrees with late term and partial birth abortions. I don't care if he walked on water, that makes him a big NO in my book.
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)