<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Top Tier Dems Offer Three Visions of Electability</title>
	<atom:link href="http://iowaindependent.com/1754/top-tier-dems-offer-three-visions-of-electability/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://iowaindependent.com/1754/top-tier-dems-offer-three-visions-of-electability</link>
	<description>Iowa politics, news, and commentary</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 06:46:10 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: John Neff</title>
		<link>http://iowaindependent.com/1754/top-tier-dems-offer-three-visions-of-electability/comment-page-1#comment-12475</link>
		<dc:creator>John Neff</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Jan 2008 22:19:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://iowaindependent.com/1754/top-tier-dems-offer-three-visions-of-electability#comment-12475</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;Electability of Clinton &amp; Obama&lt;/strong&gt; i have talked to a lot of folks who doubt that Clinton &amp; Obama are electable who don&#039;t pay any attention to the Republican/Conservative hogwash. Problems that are frequently mentioned about Clinton are corruption and arrogance and for Obama primarily inexperience and lack of foreign policy credentials. Are gender (arrogance and gender are intertwined) and race also issues? Who knows they don&#039;t say. I think the people who say they won&#039;t vote for Clinton under any circumstances are telling the truth.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Electability of Clinton &#038; Obama</strong> i have talked to a lot of folks who doubt that Clinton &#038; Obama are electable who don&#39;t pay any attention to the Republican/Conservative hogwash. Problems that are frequently mentioned about Clinton are corruption and arrogance and for Obama primarily inexperience and lack of foreign policy credentials. Are gender (arrogance and gender are intertwined) and race also issues? Who knows they don&#39;t say. I think the people who say they won&#39;t vote for Clinton under any circumstances are telling the truth.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Neff</title>
		<link>http://iowaindependent.com/1754/top-tier-dems-offer-three-visions-of-electability/comment-page-1#comment-12476</link>
		<dc:creator>John Neff</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Jan 2008 22:19:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://iowaindependent.com/1754/top-tier-dems-offer-three-visions-of-electability#comment-12476</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;Electability of Clinton &amp; Obama&lt;/strong&gt; i have talked to a lot of folks who doubt that Clinton &amp; Obama are electable who don&#039;t pay any attention to the Republican/Conservative hogwash. Problems that are frequently mentioned about Clinton are corruption and arrogance and for Obama primarily inexperience and lack of foreign policy credentials. Are gender (arrogance and gender are intertwined) and race also issues? Who knows they don&#039;t say. I think the people who say they won&#039;t vote for Clinton under any circumstances are telling the truth.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Electability of Clinton &#038; Obama</strong> i have talked to a lot of folks who doubt that Clinton &#038; Obama are electable who don&#39;t pay any attention to the Republican/Conservative hogwash. Problems that are frequently mentioned about Clinton are corruption and arrogance and for Obama primarily inexperience and lack of foreign policy credentials. Are gender (arrogance and gender are intertwined) and race also issues? Who knows they don&#39;t say. I think the people who say they won&#39;t vote for Clinton under any circumstances are telling the truth.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Benny</title>
		<link>http://iowaindependent.com/1754/top-tier-dems-offer-three-visions-of-electability/comment-page-1#comment-12477</link>
		<dc:creator>Benny</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Jan 2008 16:24:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://iowaindependent.com/1754/top-tier-dems-offer-three-visions-of-electability#comment-12477</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;I read a Clinton Precinct Captain Said that about Obama&lt;/strong&gt; But I&#039;ve not heard that from Edwards supporters, ever. &lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>I read a Clinton Precinct Captain Said that about Obama</strong> But I&#39;ve not heard that from Edwards supporters, ever. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://iowaindependent.com/1754/top-tier-dems-offer-three-visions-of-electability/comment-page-1#comment-12478</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Jan 2008 16:07:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://iowaindependent.com/1754/top-tier-dems-offer-three-visions-of-electability#comment-12478</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;And Kucinich goes with&lt;/strong&gt; Obama</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>And Kucinich goes with</strong> Obama</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://iowaindependent.com/1754/top-tier-dems-offer-three-visions-of-electability/comment-page-1#comment-12479</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Jan 2008 16:07:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://iowaindependent.com/1754/top-tier-dems-offer-three-visions-of-electability#comment-12479</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;Partial agreement&lt;/strong&gt; Edwards&#039; economic message is part of an electability arument: that mill-worker populism can win back people who&#039;ve voted against their own economic interests because 1) the GOP has played the God Guns and Gays issues so hard while 2) the Democrats have abandoned economic populism.&#160; He also argues, explicitly, that he can win red states that Obama and Clinton can&#039;t.&lt;p&gt;&lt;br&gt;Personally I think all three -- heck, all six -- of the top Dems could win a general election, though Clinton&#039;s margin would be narrower.&#160; But I repeat.&#160; I have heard Edwards supporters -- usually people who aren&#039;t deeply involved, and never campaign officials or the candidate -- say privately, with a tone of regret, that they are concerned some voters would not vote for a woman or a black man.&#160; Is it racist or sexist to worry about the potential racism or sexism of others?&#160; Good question.&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Partial agreement</strong> Edwards&#39; economic message is part of an electability arument: that mill-worker populism can win back people who&#39;ve voted against their own economic interests because 1) the GOP has played the God Guns and Gays issues so hard while 2) the Democrats have abandoned economic populism.&nbsp; He also argues, explicitly, that he can win red states that Obama and Clinton can&#39;t.
<p>Personally I think all three &#8212; heck, all six &#8212; of the top Dems could win a general election, though Clinton&#39;s margin would be narrower.&nbsp; But I repeat.&nbsp; I have heard Edwards supporters &#8212; usually people who aren&#39;t deeply involved, and never campaign officials or the candidate &#8212; say privately, with a tone of regret, that they are concerned some voters would not vote for a woman or a black man.&nbsp; Is it racist or sexist to worry about the potential racism or sexism of others?&nbsp; Good question.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: BobFred</title>
		<link>http://iowaindependent.com/1754/top-tier-dems-offer-three-visions-of-electability/comment-page-1#comment-12480</link>
		<dc:creator>BobFred</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Jan 2008 15:41:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://iowaindependent.com/1754/top-tier-dems-offer-three-visions-of-electability#comment-12480</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;FWIW - Nader throws support to Edwards&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7647.html&quot;&gt;http://www.politico....&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;&#160;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>FWIW &#8211; Nader throws support to Edwards</strong> <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7647.html"></a><a href="http://www.politico..." rel="nofollow">http://www.politico&#8230;</a>.
<p>&nbsp;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: desmoinesdem</title>
		<link>http://iowaindependent.com/1754/top-tier-dems-offer-three-visions-of-electability/comment-page-1#comment-12481</link>
		<dc:creator>desmoinesdem</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Jan 2008 13:53:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://iowaindependent.com/1754/top-tier-dems-offer-three-visions-of-electability#comment-12481</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;I strongly disagree&lt;/strong&gt; Edwards is the most electable because 1) his message, particularly on economic issues, resonates with a broad segment of the public, 2) he is the strongest communicator, and 3) he has been through a long, tough election and there will be no surprises thrown at him.&lt;p&gt;&lt;br&gt;He is talking about the real excesses of corporate power, and this is not just red meat for Democrats. Even Huckabee is trying to steal some of this rhetoric.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br&gt;I&#039;ve noticed that Obama supporters (and I don&#039;t know if you are one) are quick to imply that I and others only think Edwards is more electable because he&#039;s a white man. Obama has never been through a tough election, and he has gotten kid-glove treatment by the national media, which will not last during a general election campaign.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>I strongly disagree</strong> Edwards is the most electable because 1) his message, particularly on economic issues, resonates with a broad segment of the public, 2) he is the strongest communicator, and 3) he has been through a long, tough election and there will be no surprises thrown at him.
<p>He is talking about the real excesses of corporate power, and this is not just red meat for Democrats. Even Huckabee is trying to steal some of this rhetoric.</p>
<p>I&#39;ve noticed that Obama supporters (and I don&#39;t know if you are one) are quick to imply that I and others only think Edwards is more electable because he&#39;s a white man. Obama has never been through a tough election, and he has gotten kid-glove treatment by the national media, which will not last during a general election campaign.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://iowaindependent.com/1754/top-tier-dems-offer-three-visions-of-electability/comment-page-1#comment-12482</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Jan 2008 13:42:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://iowaindependent.com/1754/top-tier-dems-offer-three-visions-of-electability#comment-12482</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;I&#039;ll stand by it&lt;/strong&gt; It&#039;s certainly not something the Edwards campaign is promoting, but it&#039;s a real subtext that&#039;s out there among rank and file Dems who aren&#039;t racist or sexist themselves -- but are afraid that racism and sexism will be a factor in November.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>I&#39;ll stand by it</strong> It&#39;s certainly not something the Edwards campaign is promoting, but it&#39;s a real subtext that&#39;s out there among rank and file Dems who aren&#39;t racist or sexist themselves &#8212; but are afraid that racism and sexism will be a factor in November.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Benny</title>
		<link>http://iowaindependent.com/1754/top-tier-dems-offer-three-visions-of-electability/comment-page-1#comment-12483</link>
		<dc:creator>Benny</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Jan 2008 13:17:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://iowaindependent.com/1754/top-tier-dems-offer-three-visions-of-electability#comment-12483</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;Can&#039;t Believe what I just Read&lt;/strong&gt; John, most of the time I have appreciated your reporting and you did a good job on C-SPAN this morning.&#160; But you stated something that is disturbing to me:&lt;p&gt;&lt;br&gt;&quot;Implicit in the argument as to why Edwards can win red states is the reasoning that a black man or a woman can&#039;t. &quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br&gt;That is not true--&lt;i&gt;whatsoever&lt;/i&gt;.&#160; In my mind, the reason why a Southern man would win the south or red states is just that: he&#039;s from the South.&#160; Southerners (with the exception of Florida) are suspicious of Northerners, just as Northeasterners are not crazy about Southerners because they still believe they talk funny, are implicitly racist and sexist, etc. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br&gt;Elizabeth Edwards laid out what happened in the 2004 race very well in Boone, IA the other day.&#160; John Kerry ran zero ads in red states, including NC.&#160; You cannot win your own home state with little or no organization and no ads. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br&gt;I hope you will reconsider that comment you made.&#160; I still cannot believe you wrote it.&#160;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Can&#39;t Believe what I just Read</strong> John, most of the time I have appreciated your reporting and you did a good job on C-SPAN this morning.&nbsp; But you stated something that is disturbing to me:
<p>&#8220;Implicit in the argument as to why Edwards can win red states is the reasoning that a black man or a woman can&#39;t. &#8220;</p>
<p>That is not true&#8211;<i>whatsoever</i>.&nbsp; In my mind, the reason why a Southern man would win the south or red states is just that: he&#39;s from the South.&nbsp; Southerners (with the exception of Florida) are suspicious of Northerners, just as Northeasterners are not crazy about Southerners because they still believe they talk funny, are implicitly racist and sexist, etc. </p>
<p>Elizabeth Edwards laid out what happened in the 2004 race very well in Boone, IA the other day.&nbsp; John Kerry ran zero ads in red states, including NC.&nbsp; You cannot win your own home state with little or no organization and no ads. </p>
<p>I hope you will reconsider that comment you made.&nbsp; I still cannot believe you wrote it.&nbsp;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Benny</title>
		<link>http://iowaindependent.com/1754/top-tier-dems-offer-three-visions-of-electability/comment-page-1#comment-4983</link>
		<dc:creator>Benny</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://iowaindependent.com/1754/top-tier-dems-offer-three-visions-of-electability#comment-4983</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;Can&#039;t Believe what I just Read&lt;/strong&gt; John, most of the time I have appreciated your reporting and you did a good job on C-SPAN this morning.&#160; But you stated something that is disturbing to me:&lt;p&gt;
&quot;Implicit in the argument as to why Edwards can win red states is the reasoning that a black man or a woman can&#039;t. &quot;&lt;p&gt;
That is not true--&lt;i&gt;whatsoever&lt;/i&gt;.&#160; In my mind, the reason why a Southern man would win the south or red states is just that: he&#039;s from the South.&#160; Southerners (with the exception of Florida) are suspicious of Northerners, just as Northeasterners are not crazy about Southerners because they still believe they talk funny, are implicitly racist and sexist, etc. &lt;p&gt;
Elizabeth Edwards laid out what happened in the 2004 race very well in Boone, IA the other day.&#160; John Kerry ran zero ads in red states, including NC.&#160; You cannot win your own home state with little or no organization and no ads. &lt;p&gt;
I hope you will reconsider that comment you made.&#160; I still cannot believe you wrote it.&#160;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Can&#8217;t Believe what I just Read</strong> John, most of the time I have appreciated your reporting and you did a good job on C-SPAN this morning.&nbsp; But you stated something that is disturbing to me:
<p>
&#8220;Implicit in the argument as to why Edwards can win red states is the reasoning that a black man or a woman can&#8217;t. &#8220;</p>
<p>
That is not true&#8211;<i>whatsoever</i>.&nbsp; In my mind, the reason why a Southern man would win the south or red states is just that: he&#8217;s from the South.&nbsp; Southerners (with the exception of Florida) are suspicious of Northerners, just as Northeasterners are not crazy about Southerners because they still believe they talk funny, are implicitly racist and sexist, etc. </p>
<p>
Elizabeth Edwards laid out what happened in the 2004 race very well in Boone, IA the other day.&nbsp; John Kerry ran zero ads in red states, including NC.&nbsp; You cannot win your own home state with little or no organization and no ads. </p>
<p>
I hope you will reconsider that comment you made.&nbsp; I still cannot believe you wrote it.&nbsp;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
