His face scares me. And no way does he look 10 years younger than Obama. Ok, superficial things aside...is Iowa to go to place to start political campaigns now? Interesting yet predictable. Now they're trying to start their own 50-state strategy. Original.

"Apparently, they are there to conduct "citizen diplomacy" -- blissfully unaware that if they weren't serving as useful idiots for the Iranian regime, they'd probably be stoned to death for their overall personae and behavior."

Gotta love code pink. We love your country, even though we could never exist like this here.

Iowa as a starting point is nothing new, indie. Since their caucus is the first of the primaries...

Iowa has always been an important place for presidential campaigns, since they're one of the first states to hold their primary. (Well, caucus, but you know what I mean.) That has nothing to do with any "50-state strategy".

(And if we want to talk about originality, should we criticize Obama for having a 50-state strategy after Reagan? There are very few truly original ideas in politics. (Note that I said politics, not policy.))

I swear I posted that before I saw TS' comment! I am just a slow poster.

Whatever, biter.

_{(Was that a thing for anyone else in middle school? If you copied someone else you bit off them, you were a biter.)}

@ TS

We did not use that in middle school, but I think I am going to start using it now!

I know he is the Republican Obama, but he is not as cute as Obama....

Just had to put it out there.

And he has little boys, not little girls, everyone knows little girls are better is you are a politician! (Piper and Sasha rocked this elections)

I like Jindal, Jindal would give any Democrat a run for their money IMO.

Wow, this is early!!!

Iowa gets political love all the time anyway, this really isn't new.

"Jindal’s considered by many in the Republican party to be a rising star and his trip to Iowa, the state that kicks off the presidential primary season, is raising speculation that he might be interested in making a bid for the Republican Presidential Nomination in 2012. But Jindal says such talk is misplaced and that he has no plans to make a run for the White House."

I don't understand how someone can be the frontrunner for the next presidential election when we haven't even sworn in the winner from the last election.

If he is prepping for a 2012 run, it'll be interesting to see how the extreme right-wing arm of the Republican party responds to him - specifically, the rabid evangelical Sarah Palin groupies - since Jindal (who is Catholic) is of Punjabi Indian heritage (read, not white). I just can't see Jindal on the campaign trail, standing on an elevated podium in rural Kentucky, speaking to an audience full of proverbial rednecks. If they won't vote for a black man, will they throw their support behind Jindal who isn't black, but who certainly isn't white either?

What makes you think Republicans won't vote for a black man?

What makes you think that these "rednecks" are so abundant that their vote would matter? As many people who didn't vote for Obama because of his race, there were as many and more who voted for him solely because of his race. I think the Republican party needs to spend a little more time rethinking where they stand, and what their fundamental beliefs are, before they raise up the next potential president.

I don't think any Democrats are going to spin anything and call Jindal a Muslim. That's just not our style. I find it peculiar that an Indian man converted to Catholicism. In my opinion, Indians are very loyal to their religion, which is usually Hinduism. Anyway, I guess it shows that he's not one to follow the crowd. I'll give him that.

"I think the Republican party needs to spend a little more time rethinking where they stand, and what their fundamental beliefs are, before they raise up the next potential president."

I agree. I think on the whole. Republican are far more loyal to their cause than Democrats are to theirs. If Jindal is the next Republican Presidential nominee, they will stand behind him, I'm sure. Doubtful that race would matter much.

"And if we want to talk about originality, should we criticize Obama for having a 50-state strategy after Reagan? There are very few truly original ideas in politics."

Obama is truly savvy, I love that about him. He surrounds himself with the right people so he can get where he needs to go. The fact that he took a page out of Reagan's book on this and succeeded shows sheer brilliance(I give his team, Plouffe and Axelrod, most of the credit), in my opinion. And I thought that Reagan's biggest admirer was McCain. If Reagan was his true inspiration, he would have jumped on that bandwagon a long time ago. Maybe it wasn't as easy as that though. *shrugs*

Obviously McCain couldn't have employed a 50-state strategy because he didn't have the money. It is interesting that when you thought Jindal was using the same idea as Obama, you joked about his originality, but that when Obama used the same idea as Reagan, it shows his sheer brilliance.

Hahah...you got me!

And if employing good political strategy shows sheer brilliance, I guess George W. Bush has sheer brilliance, as well. There are few, if any, reasonable people who would deny that Bush and Rove ran two amazing campaigns. (In terms of getting votes.)

Touche, lilkimbo.

Yes, I do think it's brilliant that Obama used Reagan's strategy...he did his research very well. They're from different parties yet the Republicans didn't pick up on this rather amazing strategy from the jump? Did Bush use this? I honestly don't know. They should have realized that this was the recipe for success ages ago! Only now they got the hint, and that's why I made that comment about Jindal. That lightbulb took an awful long time to flicker on. That is my point. Howard Dean deserves a ton of credit for the use of the 50-state strategy also.

Everyone picked up on the 50-state strategy decades ago. The key is that it can only be used when you have enough money to use it. So, while it was a good strategy for Obama, it would have been a horrible strategy for McCain, who needed to focus his money in states that he felt he had a realistic chance of winning.

Ok, I get your point. McCain didn't have enough cash. I can accept that answer...I concede.

"I concede."
Now if we could've gotten Obama to say that about a month ago...

I don't think the 50 state strategy is solely based on money. Obama organized many volunteer groups through his website that didn't require campaign funding. You don't need an offical headquarters to get to work...you just need a park, or someone's living room, or a coffee shop!

I also have to point out that long before Obama was the nominee, Howard Dean recommended implimenting the 50 state strategy. I think Obama's brilliance was in how he carried it out through community networking and organizing.

Every political campaign (presidential) has offices and volunteers in every state. The reason he was able to be competitive in as many states as he was was because he had a lot of money to spread around. All of the volunteers in the world aren't going to get you ads on tv. If we're talking about community networking, then Bush used it in a very similar way to Obama.

And of course Dean recommended implementing the 50-state strategy. As I stated, it has been around for decades. Recommending implementing it and actually implementing it are two very different things.

Further, the political climate obviously helped Obama immensely. It would have been next to impossible for any Republican to win this year. I think Obama's primary wins are much more impressive than his general election win.

Yeah, but did Bush have the 'following' that Obama did(does)? Were they as passionate about him doing great things for America as they were(are) about Obama?

Also, unless they were campaigning illegally, those volunteers needed money to buy the literature they dropped and to pay for gas to get them to their lit drops and to pay for pens to write notes on the lit. They needed money to configure the lists that told them which neighborhoods to canvas and which doors to knock on. Even maintaining a large corp of volunteers requires money.

Yes, people who worked on Bush's campaign were incredibly passionate.

But, if we're talking about passion, that has nothing to do with the 50-state strategy and everything to do with message. (And, as I've mentioned, the political climate.)

"I think Obama's primary wins are much more impressive than his general election win."

Why do you think so?

All in all, he gave all those so-called political veterans a run for their money and won. Changed the entire political landscape in America. The electoral map had been changed and not just by a mere handful of states. Missouri was even too close to call until a few days ago, which McCain narrowly won. I don't find this to be underwhelming in the least. Then again, my guy won so why wouldn't I find it nothing short of MAGNIFICENT?

"It would have been next to impossible for any Republican to win this year."

Well, I agree on that.

"But, if we're talking about passion, that has nothing to do with the 50-state strategy and everything to do with message. (And, as I've mentioned, the political climate."

Point made.

Well Bush and Rove got lots of votes, but I don't think when you consider tactics like smearing McCain and the chaos with ballots in Florida and Ohio that they ran campaigns that anyone would want to emulate. They fulfilled the Cheney 'it just takes one vote' standard, but hardly could be considered brilliant.

I explained why in my initial comment, but maybe you missed it. As I said, it would have been next to impossible for any Republican to win this year. I also think Clinton was a much more formidable opponent than McCain. Additionally, Clinton and Obama are similar in terms of policy, so primary wins obviously required a lot more political savvy than a general election win.

And, you are free to find this all magnificent, but before you do, I would suggest looking at the presidential races of the last 50 years or so. These things tend to be very cyclical. Nixon won by a huge margin, as did Reagan. (Both won by a larger margin of the popular vote than Obama.)

Actually, Steph, putting aside some of the scandals, Rove and Bush ran campaigns that just about anyone would want to emulate, especially when you consider how they mobilized volunteers and how organized their ground game was. Actually, Obama used a lot of the same tactics they did, he just took out the dirty tactics they used.

"unless they were campaigning illegally, those volunteers needed money to buy the literature they dropped and to pay for gas to get them to their lit drops and to pay for pens to write notes on the lit."

I disagree. Calling your friends, walking door to door, or organizing efforts at your college do not require money. Obama had a superior volunteer organization in Iowa, long before he started bringing in record breaking fundraising. He utilized the "talk to people you know" strategy, and that requires ZERO dollars. I do think he used the money he had very wisely to support the volunteers once they reached that level, but the volunteers started long before he was breaking records with fundraising.

Anyway, this is not even worth arguing. Obama used some great campaigning tactics, but, with the exception of using the Internet/technology in new ways, he certainly didn't invent any of the tactics he used. I'm not faulting him for it in any way. Of course it was smart of him to hire the best minds and use tactics that succeeded in the past. It makes me think of the quote from Sex and the City about how fashion and politics are both about recycling old ideas and making them seem new again. With that, I am off for the night. Have a great evening, everyone!

"These things tend to be very cyclical. Nixon won by a huge margin, as did Reagan. (Both won by a larger margin of the popular vote than Obama.)"

Is that it? Come on...I expected more. Dazzle me.

It is quite apparent to me that some of you can't admit that a virtual newbie beat out the vets and he did so not by sheer luck. I think I've been more than gracious in not rubbing salt in the wounds but I'm starting to get fed-up with some of the insanely resentful comments around here.

Then those people really weren't campaign volunteers, they were people talking to their friends. And, they weren't really part of the 50-state strategy, they were part of the message strategy of the campaign.

I am not resentful that Obama won. As I admitted, he employed some intelligent tactics. I don't think I am in any way not admitting that he beat out the vets. I am just saying that these things are cyclical and that (as you have already agreed to) it would have been next to impossible for any Republican to win this year. Seeing as you have already agreed to it, I don't understand why you are implying that I am resentful for saying it, as well.

And I don't have any wounds. I admitted long ago that I was fairly certain Obama would win.

Without the dirty tactics, Bush & Rove ran the risk of losing close races.

I'm giving him credit for inventing any new 'tactics'. He improved on the old in grandiose and immensely effective manner. Even I can admit this. Just give credit when credit is due and let that be that. Let go once in a while.

And I have to say, I expected more from you than your thinly veiled insults. Thanks for at least trying to keep it civil for some of the discussion. (Although, I don't know why I expected it to last.) Also, you have yet to dazzle me with any information about why Obama's win is not part of a pattern that has been going on in U.S. politics for some time. As I admitted, it is impressive that Obama took on Clinton and beat her. But, I think it is less impressive that he beat McCain. I have explained why several times. I don't see how that makes me resentful.

Steph, that may be true, but they also used a lot of other great tactics. I don't understand people who can't admit that the other side does anything right. Obama used a lot of similar ground organization as Bush and Rove. If you can't admit that, you are either unwilling to see it or you are just trying to pick a fight.

Gotta disagree big time on that lil. Your definition of "volunteer" seems based on money spent, and IMO you haven't provided enough support for that very narrow definition. You can still take direction from the larger organization, even if you aren't using supplies that need to be bought and paid for.

Indie, I have let go. I admitted several times over the course of this conversation that Obama ran a great campaign. I think you are seeing only what you choose to see.

"Without the dirty tactics, Bush & Rove ran the risk of losing close races."

So close they were.

Jill, my definition of volunteer is in no way based on money spent, please don't put words in my mouth.