Top Stories

Open letter to readers: Today and tomorrow

By Lynda Waddington | 11.17.11

Wednesday was a difficult day for The American Independent News Network, which is the larger entity that operates The Iowa Independent. Our chief executive and founder announced two of our sister sites would close and their content would be moved to The American Independent.

ACS lockout continues; plan emerges to repeal sugar protections

crystal_sugar_80
By Virginia Chamlee | 11.15.11

A recently introduced bill could have far-reaching impact on the U.S. sugar industry, including American Crystal Sugar, a farmer-owned cooperative that locked out 1,300 Midwest workers on Aug. 1.

Cain campaign: Farmers know more about regulations than EPA

hermancain_80x80
By Andrew Duffelmeyer | 11.15.11

The chairman for Herman Cain’s Iowa effort says the campaign “relied more on the word of farmers than Washington regulators” in deciding to run an ad containing claims the Environmental Protection Agency says are false.

Mathis wins, Democrats maintain Senate control

Liz Mathis
By Lynda Waddington | 11.08.11

The Iowa Senate will remain under the control of a slim 26-25 Democratic majority when it reconvenes in January 2012.

Press Release

PR: Nation should work to address veterans’ challenges

By Press Release Reprints | 11.11.11

BRUCE BRALEY RELEASE — As US involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan ends, it’s more important than ever that our nation works to address the challenges faced by the men and women who fought there.

PR: Honoring veterans, help in hiring

By Press Release Reprints | 11.11.11

CHUCK GRASSLEY RELEASE — A difficult job market is challenging the soldiers, sailors and airmen who have protected America’s interests by serving in the Armed Forces.

PR: In honor of America’s veterans

By Press Release Reprints | 11.11.11

TOM LATHAM RELEASE — No one has done more to secure the freedom enjoyed by every single American than our veterans and those currently serving in the armed services.

PR: Honoring and supporting our nation’s veterans

By Press Release Reprints | 11.11.11

DAVE LOEBSACK RELEASE — Veterans Day is an opportunity to reflect on the service of generations of veterans and to honor the sacrifices they and their families have made so that we may live in peace and freedom here at home.

Wesley Clark Event Cuts Across Supporter Lines

By Lynda Waddington | 12.06.07 | 9:43 am

A mid-day event Wednesday in Marion was billed as a stop for the campaign of New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and, without a doubt, the vast majority of the 40-some people in attendance were Clinton supporters, but there were also those Iowans who came just for the privilege of seeing her surrogate, Gen. Wesley Clark.

Susan Bremer of Marion is not only a supporter of Clinton, but a frequent volunteer for her campaign in Linn County. Coming to see Clark speak on Clinton’s behalf was important, she said, because it adds to her knowledge base of the candidate.

“I want to know as much as I can about the people who are involved with her and her life,” she said. “He’s known her for 24 years. That gives you a good idea of what her personality is if she has friends like that.”

Dale Todd of Cedar Rapids, who signed up early on with the campaign for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, didn’t come to the event to learn more about Clinton.

“[Clark] is an incredibly neat and gifted public servant,” Todd said after the event. “I worked and volunteered for him. There were a lot of us who were involved in his campaign — or maybe we should say ‘the campaign that could have’ — here in Iowa. We encouraged him to campaign in Iowa and, we think that if he had, the last election would have came out a bit different. We just saw huge support those last few weeks. If he had just came to Iowa, who knows what type of impact that might have had.”

Todd came today, he said, “because Wes is a good friend.”

“I don’t think you’ll find anybody who’s got the depth and the breadth when it comes to foreign policy and the culture of the military,” he said. “He’s a hard worker and just has an incredible work ethic. And, really, he’s just a down to earth guy. While he is outspoken and against the war, he commands a huge respect among the military. He’s a force to be reckoned with — one, of course, we would have loved to have on our side.”

Bremer agrees and says she knows the Clinton campaign is fortunate to have such an important surrogate and supporter.

“He is unbelievable vocal and very charismatic,” she said. “He is a presence. I met him last night at headquarters and while he was just standing there, he exudes professionalism and believability. You can tell he has honesty and integrity.”

Clark spent the bulk of his prepared remarks listing the reasons why he is supporting a Clinton candidacy. The question and answer period, however, turned to foreign policy — Clinton’s vote to label the Iranian Guard as a terrorist organization, former military efforts in Bosnia and the current state of U.S. relations throughout the world.

“It is difficult for him to bring down the war into terms that the general public can understand, but he did very well today,” Bremer said. “He was able to tell us about some of the Iran and Iraq issues that we are having and that they are having. He actually made me feel more comfortable wit the war just in those few minutes. I was looking at him and it is people like him who are commanding procedures over there. I feel confident — especially with Hillary in as president — that we are going to be able to pull out of this war with maybe less casualties that we expected originally.

“But, all that being said, he’s just a super nice man and, of course, he’s supporting Hillary because he’s super intelligent smart,” she added with a wide smile.

Bremer said that, like Clark, she has lots of reasons for her support of Clinton, even if she’s never met the candidate face-to-face.

“I saw her and [former President] Bill [Clinton] at a park in Cedar Rapids on 4th of July,” she said. “I got goosebumps — the hair stood up on me. I’ve never seen anyone so warm and so loving and so kind, but at the same time very articulate about what she wants. She’s going to be a tough candidate and I want her to be tough. We need to clean up this mess we are in now. I have kids and I don’t want to leave the world this way because I was never wanting it the way it is now — with Bush not caring about middle class people, the people that do all the work. They are the crux of the American society, economy and community. Hillary knows that they’ve been overlooked for the past eight years, and she’s going to make sure that this doesn’t continue.”

Her words echo what Clark told the audience at the event.

“She wants the job to do something for the United States of America — for our people — and to use America’s power to help people all over the world,” he said. “I think that’s the right reason and the right character to seek this office.

“So, Hillary Clinton. Smart. Experienced. Great character. Tough minded. She’ll stand up for America. Let’s make her our next president.”

Video of Clark’s prepared remarks is also available.

Follow Lynda Waddington on Twitter


Comments

  • Jack

    Coordinator, “Give ‘em Hill in ’08″ People always respond to emotion. This is why the mud and slime propoganda of the Republicans has always worked.

    Psychologists, especially therapists, have been aware of this for a long time.

    One of the key reasons Dukakis lost was because Crystal, by embelleshing the Willie Horton situation aroused the fear among Southern White Democrats that the Dems were going to encourage more black violence.

    Another excellent example was the 2000 race. During a key debate with the Texas “cowboy” from Mass,The “cowboy” took statements out of context, and made some flat out lies concefrning the contents of Gore’s latest book. Gore, just so happened to have a copy of his book. He proceeded in his usual cerebrel manner to spank “the cowboy”. When the moderator asked  Bush to comment on Gore’s lengthy diatribe.
    The “cowboy” completely destroyed Gore’s arguement withy two simple words; “fuzzy math”. He went on to become declared the winner, and the rest is history.

    Fortunately Hillary,as did Bill,announces, or responds with quick sound bites.

    Jack

  • Mr. Kentucky

    I just posted this comment at Taylor Marsh’s Website. I just posted this comment at Taylor Marsh’s Website in response to a few idiots. Looks like I hit on something:

    It is interesting (also sad at times) to see the emotional commitment exhibited by the “Drive by Obamamaniacs.” Pay attention, for a second, to the composition of Obama’s electoral constituency. What emerges is a group of followers attracted to his (false) “hope mongering” to quote the Obama man himself. Now, a lot of these voters are well-educated, “party elitists” and college students, etc. These people are unlikely to be affected by the growing income disparity, the subprime lending situation, family in Iraq, and/ or a host of other issues related to the troubled times. (Interestingly, the opposite is exactly true of Clinton’s supporters.) In other words, Obama’s voters are low-involvement voters in this primary election.

    The social psychologist Dr. Richard Petty (no not the NASCAR driver) of Ohio State University has conducted quite a bit of research throughout his distinguished career on just this topic. What he has shown is that low-involvement consumers (voters) are unlikely to be persuaded by strong arguments, the kind being advanced by Dr. Paul Krugman. Now, if you read Dr. Krugman’s posts on the top Democratic contenders’ healthcare plans, you will also notice that there is in no way an endorsement of Hillary Clinton. He is equally rosy toward Edward’s plan. Dr. Jonathan Gruber of M.I.T. makes similar points (campaign Obama misquotes him too incidentally) in a separate post. Drs. Krugman and Gruber layout the economic theory, use analogies to explain said theory, and back up their claims with facts. In other words, Drs. Krugman and Gruber present strong arguments. As demonstrated by Taylor’s posters with a bent towards Barack, these types of arguments are not working. What would have worked much better would have been for Dr. Krugman to say something like, “I’m a past winner of one of the most distinguished prizes in economics (the John Bates Clark Medal – and he is), so you should be listening to me on economic issues and not some wet-behind-the-ears Jr. Senator).” Obviously, he doesn’t do that. Why would he? He is not invested in a particular campaign. He’s just giving expert opinion.

    Let’s touch on Oprah in light of her campaign appearances and Petty’s theory. Sad to say, Oprah will probably be effective for Obama. As Petty’s research shows, low-involvement and uncommitted voters are probably going to be persuaded by endorsers (see Petty et al. 1983 – Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 10, #2). I think team Clinton knows this and I think that they will try to blunt this by stressing the experience thing even more. Candidate Clinton has been saying this over and over to uncommitted voters. Essentially, she is trying to counter Obama’s weak argument of “hope” with a weak argument of “experience.” That message could actually work under different circumstances and I think it will work against Obama if he is the Democratic nominee. This is exactly the reason that Obama is unelectable. Dick Morris, and I hate to agree with him, sums it up best: “Democrats are going to be reluctant to nominate someone . . . who has been senator for 104 weeks before running for president.”  Why Hillary’s weak message of strength fails to blunt Obama’s weak message of hope has nothing to do with some proverbial threshold of experience that the MSM has been pedaling. Experience as a weak message only works if you can stimulate anxiety (e.g., via a war). This is why Obama will lose in a general election because the Republicans will find a way to make the electorate anxious. And, this is less likely to work against Hillary (and Republicans know it).

    The theoretical reason that people choose experience over change when anxious has to do with risk-aversion. People are risk-averse (i.e., choose experience) when they think some sort of loss looms large. Americans felt this during the 2004 election because we were at war. This finding has been consistently demonstrated elsewhere by Dr. Daniel Kahneman (Dr. Krugman’s Princeton colleague) and won him the 2002 Nobel Prize in Economics. Unfortunately, low-involvement Democratic voters aren’t feeling anxious. Under this current risk-less/ low anxiety scenario, someone saying “hope” all the time and trotting out Oprah Winfrey fits will look attractive (and I think the Obama people know this).

    Since Taylor Marsh is a Hillary Clinton supporter, I will close this post by expressing how I think Hillary can successfully combat what is going on politically:

    In order to combat the upswing in Obama support, Clinton should remind people that there are a lot of bad things happening in our country right now. There are and people should be aware of this. Now, Democrats can try to deceive themselves all they want on this, but the Middle East situation is still a disaster. Iran may not be actively pursuing building the superficial aspects of nuclear weapons, but they are still pursuing nuclear enrichment. You Democrats that have a hard time hearing that, ask yourselves why does Iran feel that they need nuclear energy when they are sitting on oodles of oil? This and other facts that people should know will make people feel anxious. The issue of Obama’s corporate-Democract leanings that dblhelix raises is another example of an anxiety-provoking truth. At the same time, Hillary should continue to stress change versus experience. As a result, these anxious low-involvement voters will be attracted to her candidacy.

    The other way Hillary can play this is to turn low-involvement voters in to high-involvement voters. She can do this by bringing experts to Iowa that can explain the issues to voters. Hillary has taken positions favored by a lot of Americans. She is on the right side of the immigration debate, social security, and national healthcare. Why not invite Iowans to information sessions where Clinton surrogates can explain the issues to them? In fact, I would argue that she should invite Iowans regardless of party affiliation or preferred candidate. If voters are focused more on the issues, a point made by former President Clinton, Hillary wins. This is the strong argument pathway of persuasion.

  • Mr. Kentucky

    I just posted this comment at Taylor Marsh's Website. I just posted this comment at Taylor Marsh's Website in response to a few idiots. Looks like I hit on something:

    It is interesting (also sad at times) to see the emotional commitment exhibited by the “Drive by Obamamaniacs.” Pay attention, for a second, to the composition of Obama's electoral constituency. What emerges is a group of followers attracted to his (false) “hope mongering” to quote the Obama man himself. Now, a lot of these voters are well-educated, “party elitists” and college students, etc. These people are unlikely to be affected by the growing income disparity, the subprime lending situation, family in Iraq, and/ or a host of other issues related to the troubled times. (Interestingly, the opposite is exactly true of Clinton's supporters.) In other words, Obama's voters are low-involvement voters in this primary election.

    The social psychologist Dr. Richard Petty (no not the NASCAR driver) of Ohio State University has conducted quite a bit of research throughout his distinguished career on just this topic. What he has shown is that low-involvement consumers (voters) are unlikely to be persuaded by strong arguments, the kind being advanced by Dr. Paul Krugman. Now, if you read Dr. Krugman's posts on the top Democratic contenders' healthcare plans, you will also notice that there is in no way an endorsement of Hillary Clinton. He is equally rosy toward Edward's plan. Dr. Jonathan Gruber of M.I.T. makes similar points (campaign Obama misquotes him too incidentally) in a separate post. Drs. Krugman and Gruber layout the economic theory, use analogies to explain said theory, and back up their claims with facts. In other words, Drs. Krugman and Gruber present strong arguments. As demonstrated by Taylor's posters with a bent towards Barack, these types of arguments are not working. What would have worked much better would have been for Dr. Krugman to say something like, “I'm a past winner of one of the most distinguished prizes in economics (the John Bates Clark Medal – and he is), so you should be listening to me on economic issues and not some wet-behind-the-ears Jr. Senator).” Obviously, he doesn't do that. Why would he? He is not invested in a particular campaign. He's just giving expert opinion.

    Let's touch on Oprah in light of her campaign appearances and Petty's theory. Sad to say, Oprah will probably be effective for Obama. As Petty's research shows, low-involvement and uncommitted voters are probably going to be persuaded by endorsers (see Petty et al. 1983 – Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 10, #2). I think team Clinton knows this and I think that they will try to blunt this by stressing the experience thing even more. Candidate Clinton has been saying this over and over to uncommitted voters. Essentially, she is trying to counter Obama's weak argument of “hope” with a weak argument of “experience.” That message could actually work under different circumstances and I think it will work against Obama if he is the Democratic nominee. This is exactly the reason that Obama is unelectable. Dick Morris, and I hate to agree with him, sums it up best: “Democrats are going to be reluctant to nominate someone . . . who has been senator for 104 weeks before running for president.”  Why Hillary's weak message of strength fails to blunt Obama's weak message of hope has nothing to do with some proverbial threshold of experience that the MSM has been pedaling. Experience as a weak message only works if you can stimulate anxiety (e.g., via a war). This is why Obama will lose in a general election because the Republicans will find a way to make the electorate anxious. And, this is less likely to work against Hillary (and Republicans know it).

    The theoretical reason that people choose experience over change when anxious has to do with risk-aversion. People are risk-averse (i.e., choose experience) when they think some sort of loss looms large. Americans felt this during the 2004 election because we were at war. This finding has been consistently demonstrated elsewhere by Dr. Daniel Kahneman (Dr. Krugman's Princeton colleague) and won him the 2002 Nobel Prize in Economics. Unfortunately, low-involvement Democratic voters aren't feeling anxious. Under this current risk-less/ low anxiety scenario, someone saying “hope” all the time and trotting out Oprah Winfrey fits will look attractive (and I think the Obama people know this).

    Since Taylor Marsh is a Hillary Clinton supporter, I will close this post by expressing how I think Hillary can successfully combat what is going on politically:

    In order to combat the upswing in Obama support, Clinton should remind people that there are a lot of bad things happening in our country right now. There are and people should be aware of this. Now, Democrats can try to deceive themselves all they want on this, but the Middle East situation is still a disaster. Iran may not be actively pursuing building the superficial aspects of nuclear weapons, but they are still pursuing nuclear enrichment. You Democrats that have a hard time hearing that, ask yourselves why does Iran feel that they need nuclear energy when they are sitting on oodles of oil? This and other facts that people should know will make people feel anxious. The issue of Obama's corporate-Democract leanings that dblhelix raises is another example of an anxiety-provoking truth. At the same time, Hillary should continue to stress change versus experience. As a result, these anxious low-involvement voters will be attracted to her candidacy.

    The other way Hillary can play this is to turn low-involvement voters in to high-involvement voters. She can do this by bringing experts to Iowa that can explain the issues to voters. Hillary has taken positions favored by a lot of Americans. She is on the right side of the immigration debate, social security, and national healthcare. Why not invite Iowans to information sessions where Clinton surrogates can explain the issues to them? In fact, I would argue that she should invite Iowans regardless of party affiliation or preferred candidate. If voters are focused more on the issues, a point made by former President Clinton, Hillary wins. This is the strong argument pathway of persuasion.

  • Jack

    Coordinator, “Give 'em Hill in '08″ People always respond to emotion. This is why the mud and slime propoganda of the Republicans has always worked.

    Psychologists, especially therapists, have been aware of this for a long time.

    One of the key reasons Dukakis lost was because Crystal, by embelleshing the Willie Horton situation aroused the fear among Southern White Democrats that the Dems were going to encourage more black violence.

    Another excellent example was the 2000 race. During a key debate with the Texas “cowboy” from Mass,The “cowboy” took statements out of context, and made some flat out lies concefrning the contents of Gore's latest book. Gore, just so happened to have a copy of his book. He proceeded in his usual cerebrel manner to spank “the cowboy”. When the moderator asked  Bush to comment on Gore's lengthy diatribe.

    The “cowboy” completely destroyed Gore's arguement withy two simple words; “fuzzy math”. He went on to become declared the winner, and the rest is history.

    Fortunately Hillary,as did Bill,announces, or responds with quick sound bites.

    Jack

Switch to our mobile site