I like what Mark Kleiman said:
Unfortunately, although Obama's edge over Edwards and Clinton was nearly as big as Huckabee's over Romney, some media outlets are sticking to the "close race" narrative that came out of the entrance polls. (And wasn't even accurate about them; Obama had as big an edge there as he did in the final count.)And Steven Teles:
Obama won Iowa, very convincingly. In fact, had the race been run a few weeks later, he probably would have won even more, given his strength with college-age voters...Amen to that.
For those reasons, I think that, while some of the Republican noise machine will be directed against Obama--to believe otherwise is folly--it will be hard for conservatives to gin up quite the same fervor against Obama that they could against HRC. Republican voters won't have quite the same fire in the belly to turn out to vote and encourage their friends to do so. I now believe that the Republican vote in the general election, if Obama wins, will be considerably depressed (both because of Obama, because of the lack of a consensus candidate on the Republican side, and because of continued conservative distaste for how Republicans have governed)...
Finally, I think that Hillary and Edwards need to think very carefully before unloading with both barrels against Obama over the next few weeks, in an effort to get themselves back in the running. The Democrats just can't afford to damage their likely nominee via friendly fire. If they can get back in the game by playing this fairly straight, fine. But the importance (both for the Democrats, and as I have argued before, for the Republicans, over the long run, as well) to get the Republicans out of the White House is just too great to risk damaging the party's nominee. Party leaders should begin to make this clear, as soon as they can.
As I've said, I think Obama's ethics reform, transparency and integrity in government actions are one of my greatest motivators to vote for him. More on that at the bottom. Also, I just think that Hillary faces a serious challenge with her consistently high negatives, (55% unfavorability in Rasmussen Reports) in getting GOP crossovers and independents; Republican voters are most comfortable with Obama, and he thus faces no such problem. The "electability" card, then, makes more sense with him than with her...
Here's other stuff I've written re Obama and my support for him since a year ago.
From Obama's "fact check" site:
FACT: OBAMA HAS MADE A HABIT OF DISCLOSING MORE THAN IS REQUIRED, INCLUDING HIS BUNDLERS, EARMARKS, TAX RETURNS AND LEGAL CLIENTS...After the seemingly-endless corruption and scandal fatigue of the past 7 years, this is what America needs (and wants).Obama Committed to Disclose the Names of Bundlers. In 2007, Obama committed to name people who bundle campaign contributions. [Los Angeles Times, 2/9/07]
Obama Went One Step Further Than Other Candidates, Disclosed The Amount Of Money That His Bundlers Were Raising. "Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) on Tuesday disclosed the amounts his very top fund-raisers -- called bundlers -- are pulling in for his presidential campaign...Obama is disclosing more information than chief rival Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) is willing to reveal about the amounts her top players are raising." [Chicago Sun-Times, 11/14/07]
Public Citizen: Obama's Bundling List "Would Rank The Best." "In terms of just breaking out the amounts raised by superbundlers, compared with the other candidates, Obama's list 'would rank the best,' said Taylor Lincoln, research director for Public Citizen, a watchdog group tracking big dollar campaign fund-raising." [Chicago Sun-Times, 11/14/07]
Obama Was the Only Presidential Candidate to Release His Income Tax Returns. The AP reported, "In addition to filing financial disclosures, another common practice in presidential campaigns is the release of income tax returns. But so far this year, only Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., has released his 2006 tax returns." [AP, 5/15/07; ABCNews, 5/15/07]
Obama Reported All Clients On PFD, Providing More Disclosure Than Required. In 1998, the Chicago Sun-Times reported on lawmakers who did not disclose their firms' client. The Sun-Times wrote, "The state form does not require that information, and he refused to provide it to the center, citing attorney-client privilege. Other attorney-lawmakers, such as Sen. Barack Obama (D-Chicago), reported a full list of clients. 'My assumption is whenever there is a potential conflict of interest, my constituents have a right to know,' Obama told the Sun-Times." [Chicago Sun-Times, 3/29/98]
2007: Obama Disclosed His Earmark Requests. On June 21, 2007, Obama disclosed the earmark projects that he had requested for fiscal year 2008. [Obama Release, 6/21/07]
Chicago Sun-Times: Applaud Obama And Others For "The Courage To Disclose Every Earmark Request." The Chicago Sun-Times wrote in an editorial, "As valuable as it has already been to see the earmarks and their sponsors at the subcommittee stage, it's even more valuable to see the requests from members before they even make it that far. That's why we applaud Democratic Sen. Barack Obama, Democratic Rep. Rahm Emanuel and GOP Representatives Peter Roskam, Judy Biggert and Mark Kirk for having the courage to disclose every earmark request, whether successful or not. The sooner the public can start scrutinizing the earmarks -- which are, after all, demands for taxpayers to fund specific projects -- the sooner it can start separating the wheat from the chaff. We encourage every member of Congress to do the same. The more glare, the more scrutiny, the better the process will work." [Chicago Sun-Times, 6/27/07]
...AND WOULD BE THE DEMOCRAT MOST COMMITED TO TRANSPARENCYReason Foundation: Obama The Only Democrat Who Signed The Oath Of Presidential Transparency. The Reason Foundation wrote, "Meet the only three would-be chief execs who will dare to tell you how the government spends your money...The Oath of Presidential Transparency, a project spearheaded by the Reason Foundation, the nonprofit that publishes the print and online editions of reason. Joining together three dozen diverse groups ranging from the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons to the Electronic Frontier Foundation to the voter-rights outfit Velvet Revolution, the Oath provides voters with a crystal-clear understanding of the candidates' priorities when it comes to government spending...'Every American has the right to know how the government spends their tax dollars, but for too long that information has been largely hidden from public view,' says Sen. Obama, whose role in creating FFAT can't be overstated. 'This historic law will lift the veil of secrecy in Washington and ensure that our government is transparent and accountable to the American people. And I will be proud to fully implement and enforce this law as president.'" [Reason Foundation, 8/24/07]
Sunlight Foundation: Obama Was A Leader On Government Transparency, Willingness To Talk About The Issue Demonstrated Commitment. Ellen Miller wrote on her Sunlight Foundation blog, "Given the fact that Obama is a leader on government transparency issues in the Senate now, his willingness to talk about these issues demonstrates his commitment to them and his understanding that the public strongly favors more transparency by the government." [Ellen Miller, Sunlight Foundation, 6/26/07]
Public Citizen: Obama Would Be The Most Active Advocate For Good Government. TPM Election Central reported, "Craig Holman, the ethics lobbyist for Public Citizen, tells us the group endorses all the principles in Obama's speech. 'These are all things we've been advocating for several years now,' he says. 'Obama has been working on many of these reforms for the last year.' Asked if this meant Obama was really better than the other Dems on good-government issues, Holman said: 'Certainly in terms of his active roles. I would expect many of the Democratic candidates to endorse similar proposals. But Senator Obama has been actively working on these since even before he considered running for President.'" [TPM Election Central, 6/22/07]
