My nominee decision:

Senator Barack Obama.

For several reasons, but two dominate:

First and perhaps foremost, Senator Hillary Clinton's vote to empower President Bush to invade Iraq.

Understanding who Saddam Hussein was - his revulsion of al qeda and all Islamic militants, the failure of reputable researchers to find *any* material evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the long desired acquisition of Iraqi oil by American oil interests and George Bush, and the desire to fatten the pocketbook of Dick Cheney's employer Halliburton - giving the multinational corporation the bidless contract to rebuild the destroyed invaded nation for billions of American tax dollars and many more billions borrowed from other nations like China and India, not to mention the US National Intelligence Estimate advising against it -- it seems to me that any informed representative or senator would have voted against it.

In fact many did, including Obama. Clinton admitted not reading the NIE report, which would have, in my opinion, chilled anyone's desire to allow any military action in Iraq.

Second, it's been widely reported just in the past two days that part - if not the majority - of the reason Clinton's campaign has run into trouble is because she hired people based more on their loyalty to her than clear, cold qualifications.

We have lived for nearly eight years with a president who values loyalty more than qualifications and the result has not only been a shockingly substandard and corrupt administration, but a government whose wheels have come off all three branches of government - executive, judicial and legislative - and needlessly cost countless lives in an illegal war and natural catastrophies such as Katrina, whose destruction is *still* not rectified despite President Bush's shameful broken promise that the federal government would give them appropriate and proper assistance following the devastation.

To be fair - unlike George Bush, Hillary Clinton appears to learn lessons from her mistakes, which is great and will ultimately make her a fine leader. But as someone pointed out awhile back, the decisions she made are too costly to have a "do over" or take time to learn and then only after her campaign suffered so greatly.

Barack Obama did not vote to empower George Bush, and he has been consistently meeting with individuals throughout his campaign to surround himself with qualified, topnotch personnel if and when he is nominated to be the Democrat's nominee for the presidency, as well as if he is elected President of the United States.

Having powerhouses like Oprah Winfrey support him does not mean these people passively give him the nod. He does not surround himself with "yes" people or any sycophants who are there to massage his ego. They are there to make him a better person and leader.

Obama is by no means perfect. But, in my opinion, he has put himself on a track and in the company of those who will make sure he does not sell out or have any other goal than to serve the best interests of American citizens.

Just my two cents, please adjust for inflation.

Unmentioned winners & losers in Iowa

Winners: us.

The US.

The United States of America.

92% white, rural, middle class, mostly evangelical, voters turned out en masse for the Democrat/progressive candidates, giving the majority of their votes to a black candidate promising change - Barack Obama. Promising a rebuke and elimination of the Rove-Bush-Cheney dynasty and all it has stood for and wrought on this nation for the past seven years.

It was as if Iowa voters said, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice? You are outta here!"

Losers: Corporate media, FOX news and others who covered the campaign as politics and issues as usual.

They barely mentioned John Edwards, but he still came in second place, beating Hillary Clinton. According to "mainstream media," the fight for the presidential candidate nominee is just a battle between Hillary and Barack. According to "mainstream media," especially FOX, Republicans have much stronger support than they actually do.

Voters clearly made their way to alternative sources of information to educate themselves about the candidates and issues rather than commerical media because they made their choices based on what they researched and knew and interviewed or whom they saw debate, rather than what they were told by formerly reliable sources. This is probably a reflection of the high turnout of younger voters participating in the process.

Knowing it was one of the few times he would have access to national media, John Edwards used his TV-aired Iowa voters' response speech time to elucidate why he is running and the people for whom he wants to fight and change "business as usual."

Clinton's speech was both generous and conciliatory, showing her geniality in the face of a shocking defeat. Unlike Edwards and Obama, however, her speech was partisan, emphasizing her assurance that the next president will be a Democrat and that the nation will be run by Democrats by the end of the year.

Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, a genial, personable, affable and articulate candidate won the Republican straw vote in Iowa - upsetting the politics as usual multi-millionaire former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney. His speech was conciliatory, positive and inclusive - making change and unity the key issues.

Huckabee is a fundamentalist Christian, a former Baptist minister who does not believe in evolution and certain science, but does believe the Bible is literally the truth.

The message was clear: Iowa voters want significant change from the Rove-Bush-Cheney policies and mentality. Unfortunately, coming in to change the mess they've made of our economy, military, foreign policies, neglected infrastructure, health and domestic issues will be a herculean and overwhelming task by whoever takes residence next at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Meanwhile, FOX and right-wing radio talk stations have had their notice - When you don't tell the truth but care only about spinning everything to serve your biases, people will stop believing you (when they may have years ago) and will in fact seek out other, more trustworthy information sources.

Progressive radio stations are attempting to get the truth out; the moment they slip into the self-serving ego trip taken by so many right wing radio chat show hosts? They too, will lose their credibility.

We'll have to remind them of that if they make that fatal mistake.

Meanwhile - another win has been gained by independent voters nation-wide. Watch for New York City Michael Bloomberg to step in as an independent candidate if the candidates don't specifically outline how they will put the country back on track to serve the national interest - not the partisan, personal, financial or special interests - just one byproduct of the Rove-Bush-Cheney dynasty.