Just a question. I think they meant to at least slow down Dean, and they have, but this blowout in Iowa is ridiculous. On what basis did the voters of Iowa decide to vote for...Kerry? Edwards? Huh?
UPDATE: I haven't actually gone out and looked for evidence of this kind of interference, but I am very aware that it happens all the time - on both sides - sometimes it's very organized, sometimes not. But just ran across an interesting tidbit while tearing through some Salon.com articles. This one, about the Mary Matalin/James Carville, Republican/Democrat-type relationships, had this to say:
Hiram [a Democrat] quickly clarified that his wife's presence in the Gephardt camp doesn't mean that she'll be voting Democratic come November. Julianne, 57 and a real estate agent, is a staunch Republican, and has been throughout their 37-year marriage. " I guess they [the Republicans] want the weaker people to win the nomination so that they'll go up against the Republicans," said Hiram, with what sounded like a shrug.
So, question is, how many Republicans were in the Gephardt camp? And with that, how many Republicans and contributors are there in the Kerry camp? The Pretty-Boy camp?
UPDATE: I just ran across this link on a posting from bartcop. It's floating the theory that voter fraud, using electronic voting machines, which are not verifiable, played a part in the huge Iowa upset of Dean. I dunno...it was an awfully big upset. I'm inclined to believe that this was not a case of voter fraud, but I'm sure that we will see rampant electronic voter fraud in the general election - starting with the Pentagon's vote-stealing machinations.
