On That Iranian Poll

by: Chris Bowers

Mon Jun 15, 2009 at 12:30


Today's Washington Post op-ed by Ken Ballen and Patrick Doherty concerning a public opinion survey they conducted in Iran on that nation's presidential election is both worth a read, and highly disturbing for what it omits. Here is the first paragraph:

The election results in Iran may reflect the will of the Iranian people. Many experts are claiming that the margin of victory of incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was the result of fraud or manipulation, but our nationwide public opinion survey of Iranians three weeks before the vote showed Ahmadinejad leading by a more than 2 to 1 margin -- greater than his actual apparent margin of victory in Friday's election.

Anyone regularly involved in poll analysis would notice two red flags in this paragraph:

  1. The actual results of the poll were 34%-14%, with 27% undecided and 22% falling into some strange category of not supporting anyone nor being undecided. To instead report the results as "more than a 2 to 1 margin" is to use a rhetorical trick that creates more similarity between the final result and the poll than the numbers actually suggest.
  2. The poll was conducted from May 11-20, which is actually a range of 24-33 days before the election, not "three weeks." To call it three weeks instead of providing the actual dates make it sound as though the poll was taken closer to the election than it actually was.
Because of these two rhetorical slight of hands that were employed instead of simply listing the poll results and actual dates the poll was completed, my sense of the integrity of this poll drops immediately. It wouldn't even have taken any longer to just list the numbers, but for some reason the pollsters immediately employed rhetorical moves instead.

Undecideds break heavily for lesser known challengers within the context of American elections. It is difficult to imagine why that would be any different in other countries, given that the same phenomenon of the electorate making up its collective mind about an incumbent before the election season would still be in effect. Further, check out the following two paragraphs from the poll that they failed to mention entirely in their op-ed (hat-tip Juan Cole):

' A close examination of our survey results reveals that the race may actually be closer than a first look at the numbers would indicate. More than 60 percent of those who state they don't know who they will vote for in the Presidential elections reflect individuals who favor political reform and change in the current system.'(...)

The current mood indicates that none of the candidates will likely pass the 50 percent threshold needed to automatically win; meaning that a second round runoff between the two highest finishers, as things stand, Mr. Ahmadinejad and Mr. Moussavi, is likely.

So, due to the large number of undecideds and the mood of the undecideds, in writing about their own poll, Ballen and Doherty actually predicted a second-round run-off with no one reaching 50%+1. However, when official results come out showing the incumbent winning with 63%, they publish an op-ed in the Washington Post suggesting that the election was clean, based on their own polling?

I don't know anything about these pollsters. However, it is pretty bizarre to argue, at different times, that a single poll both shows the incumbent likely to not reach 50%, and also that a 63% result for the incumbent was probably legitimate. I really can't wrap my head around that one. Even though I absolutely hate making implications like this, such a strange turnabout in analysis is enough to make one wonder if there is another agenda at play.

Anyway, this isn't going to be settled by statistical analysis. Right now, the real numbers to be asking about are how many people are protesting, and how long they will continue to do so. On that front, the number seems to be rising from thousands, to hundreds of thousands, to millions.

Chris Bowers :: On That Iranian Poll

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Contrast the moral sensibilities of the Grassroots (0.00 / 0)
with Versailles.

They scrounge for statistics to defend their non-policy.

We state that the freedoms of speech, religion, press, and assembly absent from Iran before the "election" and absent now are human rights, and that we stand with those courageous people fighting tyranny.

Pick your side.


Noise (4.00 / 3)
Could I please-with the utmost respect and humility- request consideration of the proposition that we not engage ourselves in this discussion?  

Obviously, no one supports stolen elections, repressive theocracies or messianic militarists as heads of state.  We consistently demonstrated our rejection of these principles following the 2000 election here; no one questions our bona fides along these lines.

When it comes to the situation in Iran, we need to recognize that our perception as "the Great Satan" was well earned through, as our president mentioned, overthrowing a democratically elected head of state in 1955 and (something he didn't) lavishly supporting the torture chambers, disappearances, attacks on press freedoms and numerous other human rights abuses engaged in by our puppet the Shah.

It follows then that the delusions of the Samantha Powers of the world notwithstanding we have no moral authority to involve ourselves in the situation or practical capacity to engage in "humanitarian intervention". We need to allow the Iranian people to sort their situation out for themselves.  How they do so, with respect to this particular issue or any other, should be of no more practical significance to us than the outcome of minor league baseball game.

What should be of concern to us are matters where 1) we have a moral obligation to intervene and 2) where our activism can make a tangible difference.  Both these criteria apply to what is going on in the house right now in health care "reform" and climate change legislation, to take two of the most significant matters which should be on our plate.

Neither applies to what is going on in Iran.

It is noise which prevents us from moving our agenda forward.


Yes but we are curious :) (4.00 / 2)
So I agree that we should take a position of studied noninvolvement, but for someone like me, who has a tiny amount of familiarity with Iranian politics, this is an opportunity to learn - albeit choosing carefully from the sources.  I will go to al jazeera and juan cole, but not to the washington post or the new york times to try and get the story.

The other point is that the American establishment IS going to engage in this conversation - whether the far far far far right or the Democrats or others.  I agree that it can easily get out of hand - and already has - but my tack is to try and keep the discussion as informed as possible, not to stifle it and when i see it veering out of control, i will panic and tell the people who are making it veer out of control exactly what you have said.   Noting your objections, which are very very very relevant - I just don't think you can stop a conversation in mid stream in American politics unilaterally when the political system depends on hegemony and conversation in the media.  It seems to just be the way things are right now.

What we can do is be careful about saying what 'should' happen rather than simply doing some detailed reseearch or analysis like Juan Cole has done and which Chris has conveyed here.  It is curious for me to know why things are happening the way they are - the most compelling story I have seen is Juan Cole's and the most outlandish but somehow making sense story is that Ahmedinejad may have come in third, not second, which is why they panickedc and forged the entire election results and released them in a way that is seems so obviously faked that even people like me can kind of sense it after being told one or two things.

Moreover, I think it offers an important lesson - if Iranian people are willing to risk their lives for a change, the least americans can do is to call their representatives or e-mail them and tell them to support the american working class in obtaining health care, energy-friendly cities, better and cheaper public transport, the right to organise, and respect and dignity.


[ Parent ]
Have to agree (0.00 / 0)
It is worrisome that we immediately cast doubt on the process of the Iranian elections when we get a result that we don't like.  I agree that the article in question appears misleading, but that is not really evidence of any actual wrongdoing.

My job is not to represent Washington to you, but to represent you to Washington- Obama
Philly for Obama


[ Parent ]
Woah There! Who's Talking "Intervention"??? (4.00 / 3)
Like it or not, our fates are deeply, intimately intertwined with that of the rest of humanity.  To recognize this, and seek to find ways to respond appropriately is not to automatically endorse imperialist responses.

I first learned about Iran & our relationship to it 45 years ago (I believe I mistakenly said "46 years" this weekend) from an Iranian foreign exchange student who came to live with my family.  I learned all about Mossadegh and the CIA coup.  He believed that the American people were perhaps the best allies that Iranian people could have, if only they knew the truth.  I still feel his passion and his trust all these decades later.

It's a very good thing that millions of Americans today can be touched in a similar manner today.  Of course there needs to be critical reflection on what sorts of action may be appropriate.  But to say there is nothing we can or should do--that, to me, is simply to say we should leave the playing field to the worst instincts of the foreign policy establishment. The same folks who made this mess in the first place.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Intervention==something needs to be done! (4.00 / 1)
To the contrary-saying that "nothing" should be done is a direct challenge to fundamental assumptions of the foreign policy establishment who are always convinced that something needs to be done.  Liberal handwringing functions as a crucial enabling factor in this equation, clearing the way for a debate between those who are gung ho for intervention and those (the liberals) who argue that it may not be worth the cost.  Of course, given the transcendent virtues of the American people, we are usually more willing than not, it seems, to assume the cost.

I'm surprised that you don't see this for what it is: as a rerun of yet another bad movie.  


[ Parent ]
I'm Surprised (0.00 / 0)
I'm surprised that you don't see this for what it is: as a rerun of yet another bad movie.  

I'm surprised you don't see that description for what it is: one plausible narrative among many.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Because (4.00 / 1)
"Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak; and that it is doing God's service when it is violating all his laws." -- John Adams

[ Parent ]
Yes, Power. Now Where Did I Put My 3rd Airborne Division? (4.00 / 1)
Oh, wait...

I don't have a 3rd Airborne Division!

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Yes I dont get what John on about either. (0.00 / 0)


--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky


[ Parent ]
Oh yeah you do (0.00 / 0)
You've never heard of a cruise missile leftist?

Whether you have or not, they'll be glad to have you on their side.


[ Parent ]
So we shouldn't even talk about it? (0.00 / 0)
Could I please-with the utmost respect and humility- request consideration of the proposition that we not engage ourselves in this discussion.

Huh?. Your position is that we shouldn't even be talking about the elections? Well, you just broke your own rule, since you are engaging in a discussion about them.

I don't get this. You are talking as though either we should  stop talking about the situation, or as though we are about to send in troops.

One can be cognizent of previous American involvement in Iran and still, you know, talk about Iran.


[ Parent ]
So we shouldn't even talk about it? (0.00 / 0)
Could I please-with the utmost respect and humility- request consideration of the proposition that we not engage ourselves in this discussion.

Huh?. Your position is that we shouldn't even be talking about the elections? Well, you just broke your own rule, since you are engaging in a discussion about them.

I don't get this. You are talking as though either we should  stop talking about the situation, or as though we are about to send in troops.

One can be cognizent of previous American involvement in Iran and still, you know, talk about Iran.


[ Parent ]
Yes (0.00 / 0)
That is exactly my position.

Discussion on the subject (compared to others) is likely to be unproductive and diversionary-for the reasons mentioned.

One has discussions about whether to have a discussion all the time.

That's what Roberts Rules of Order are all about, for example.


[ Parent ]
Another Big Problem (0.00 / 0)
Is the turnout factor.  

A lot of folks--young people especially--seem to have switched from boycott-as-irrelevant mode to we-can-make-this-make-a-difference mode, just in the last two weeks or so.

No one has numbers on this that I'm aware of, but the phenomena has been widely noted, and over the weekend I cited both Juan Cole and Gary Sick on the recent ups and downs of reformist participation in elections.

With reporting like this, it's almost as if the WaPo never misses an opportunity to undermine its credibility.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


The frequency with which (4.00 / 2)
the media cite polls in support of a proposition that is directly contradicted by the polling data never ceases to astonish me.

It's really quite astounding.  

Great, and inportant work.


The spelling police (0.00 / 0)
have arrived to let you know it's "sleight" of hand.  

"Sleight" is an arcane word denoting deception.


The Problem Isn't Iran. The Problem Is The United States. (4.00 / 1)
The media and our federal government is covering this election in Iran as if the outcome would determine the possibility for peace and prosperity throughout the world:  Oh, if only the Good Guy would win, oh, if only the Bad Guy would be thrown out of office.

Iran isn't the problem.  The problem in the middle east is the United States which has created war, poverty, despair, refugees, internally-displaced, dead, wounded, environmentally-destroyed nations and people throughout the region.  Iran's election will not stop the U.S. from its ongoing wars, regardless of who is declared the winner.

I would also caution that the U.S. has reportedly been funding internal opposition in Iran, trying to foment an uprising, for many years.  So I would question at least some of what's going on.

I'm not sure why any American would be so hysterical about the rights of the people to have their votes counted in some other country.  I don't recall either the media or any of our politicians promoting that theory back in 2000, when Bush stole that election.  Ho-Hum was more like it.  Same in 2004, despite years of work by pro-democracy groups in this country trying to protect the rights of citizens to vote.  Ho-Hum as Blackwell simply shredded voter registrations.  Ho-Hum as massive lists of people's names were purged from the voter lists.

I also don't recall the U.S. having any respect for the recent elections by the Palestinians.  Didn't we cut them off, tell them to vote again, because we didn't like the outcome?  Didn't we already try to stage a coup and overthrow the democratically elected leader of Venezuela (Chavez) and Bolivia (Morales)?  Isn't that what we always do?

And come top think of it, we had an election, we voted for a Change candidate.  So why doesn't our candidate do something for us, Change these Bush policies, instead of just rolling over all of us Progressives on his way to meet with Pastor Warren and the other Republicans that he courts.  Why is Iran's election so important, but our own is disregarded?  Why should the people of that country's voice be heard when ours is not?

Besides, Hillary Clinton said she was going to annihilate Iran, and we all know what that means in a nuclear world.  After making that statement, shocking enough that she should have had her head examined, Obama appointed her Secretary of State.  I think that's a clear message to Iran and its people, so let's not pretend that anyone in our government cares one bit about the people of that country.

http://NABNYC.blogspot.com  


Bored Now! (4.00 / 3)
The media and our federal government is covering this election in Iran as if the outcome would determine the possibility for peace and prosperity throughout the world:  Oh, if only the Good Guy would win, oh, if only the Bad Guy would be thrown out of office.

Who cares WTF they say?  If what they say sets the parameters for our thinking, then why in the world are we here in the first place?

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
you know, a lot of these anti-green uprising (4.00 / 3)
posters give a whole lot of credit to the US -- negative, to be sure, but credit nonetheless.  it is as if the iranian people have no independent role to play in determining their own fate.  i really have trouble making sense of this position except to believe that those propounding it aren't actually paying attention to the news out of Iran, at all.    

[ Parent ]
I dont get any of the right wing's points on this. (4.00 / 2)
None of it makes sence to me, unless they want the fascists who just pulled a coup d'etat in Iran to win the struggle that is going on now in the streets.

I have no idea what they ar talking baout, or why theu want us to look away, or why they seem to be supporting Amhadinejad. This is an agenda thats too bizarre to follow.  

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky


[ Parent ]
It is not hard (0.00 / 0)
A certain influential part of the Right has been pushing for war on Iran for more than a decade now. Some of the more vocal are Ledeen and Pipes but you don't really have to look much past John "Bomb, bomb, bomb; bomb, bomb Iran" McCain. If you start from the position that the security of Israel can only be achieved if the sponsors of Hezbollah are suppressed then any action which advances the prospect of war with Iraq, Syria and Iran is to that degree welcome, no matter how bad it might be in the meantime.

My first thought when I heard about the collapse of the towers was I daresay the same as everyone, shock and horror that buildings that on any given morning could hold 50,000 to 100,000 people had collapsed into dust  (people tend to forget that initial death estimates were much higher than the ultimate still horrific ones which didn't settle out for weeks). But my second thought that morning was 'Holy shit, there is nothing to hold back the Bush-Cheney agenda now'. And I was right, they did immediately use this tragedy as a green-light.

You don't have to embrace full conspiracy theories, you don't have to believe that the High Command of the Austro-Hungarian Empire was rooting for their Grand-Duke to be assassinated so they could get their war on, or that the allies were just hoping the German's would torpedo the Lusitania to get the U.S. in on their side, you don't have to cock the trigger of the starting gun to be ready to take off from the blocks when the shot goes off.

If you believe that a war on Iran is not only inevitable but beneficial you will be ready to take advantage of any opening. This only becomes evil if the participants deliberately manufacture the incident (think Reichstag Fire, Gulf of Tonkin Incident, torturing al-Qaeda fixers/travel agents to get an Iraq War on via false confessions).

Now personally I put the Neo-Cons in the evil category in that they have spent much of the last decade pushing for US support for Iranian internal armed resistance (i.e. terrorism) in hopes of precipitating enough unrest in country that the U.S. could bomb the crap out of Iran. But evil or not you can't be surprised that they would welcome the election of Ahmadinejad, it works to advance their long-standing agenda.

Neo-Cons wanted war with Iraq, they want war with Iran. Wanting a war may in fact be a mind-set that's too bizarre to follow, but once you grasp that there are really people who do want that everything makes perfect sense.


[ Parent ]
"Who cares WTF they say?" Uh, millions of TV viewers don't count? (0.00 / 0)
This doesn't say that this should set "the parameters for our thinking", of course. But if dozens of millions of US citizen get a distorted view of another nation through the media, and consequentially support yet another misguided, idiotic US intervention, then OF COURSE this is a factor that has to be taken into account! Neocons and other authoritarian WILL use this manipulated "public opinion" and "common wisdom" as an endorsement of their horrible policies which are based on the premise that the end justifies all means. I guess you won't seriously deny that, Paul.

One meta point: I notice recently that you seem to reflexively oppose in very harsh words opinions that simply rub you the wrong way, sometimes based on a simple sentence or phrase you don't like. Pls give your fellow commenters more benefit of the doubt! Not everybody has your ability to articulate his opinions so effectively, and very often statements are open to interpretation. Implying so strongly, as you often do, that a single sentence HAS to be understood in the way you see it, with no context at all to support this view, isn't helpful in the discussions here.

In the case at hand, I see the point about "media and our federal government" as a reminder that these powers are influencing the opinions of millions of Americans, and in some cases not in a good way. And I have to say, I can't really understand how you reached the conclusion that NABNYC meant that this should set the "parameters" of your thinking. Sry, but this is a very implausible interpretation! With all due respect, but imho you should really be more aware that nobody's perfect. Not even you. So, more second thoughts, pls, and less shooting from the hip!


[ Parent ]
I did not understand the WTF comment. (4.00 / 1)
Yes, I had no idea how my comment was interpreted, why I got the "WTF" response.  I didn't really even understand what was meant by the response.  I did not see the connection between my comment and that response.  My point was that the story in Iran was being presented, discussed, analyzed in a certain manner, that gives me a good deal of concern about more wars, more escalation, presumptions by the U.S. that we have some right to dictate the outcome of elections in Iran.  

[ Parent ]
I am not the US government (4.00 / 2)
I did oppose the Florida election debacle, and assorted other bogus elections over the years, to my limited abilities. And even if I hadn't supported fair and free elections for many years, it would still be OK for me to do the right thing this time.

[ Parent ]
And what's the right thing to do that would help the Iranian people? (0.00 / 0)
NABNYC is simply warning about the consequences of an intervention. And history supports his view that US interference very often had very negative results. So, what seems at first sight to be the right thing to do can seriously backfire. Pls be aware of this.  

[ Parent ]
Good points, except the one about Clinton (0.00 / 0)
Not fair that you misquote her (actually, you don't quote her at all. Those are your words, not hers!), take her words out of context and distort her point about a hypothetical situation into an aleged cornerstone of her foreign policy.

What she really said on saturday about the Iran situation contradicts your view:

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in a statement Saturday: "We are monitoring the situation as it unfolds in Iran but we, like the rest of the world, are waiting and watching to see what the Iranian people decide.

"The United States has refrained from commenting on the election in Iran. We obviously hope that the outcome reflects the genuine will and desire of the Iranian people."


http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WO...

Sure sounds reasonable to me. Where's that desire to "annihilate Iran" and the disregard for its people that you saw? Imho the restraint in taking an active part and the hope that the will of the Iranian people will prevail is a very good stance. Nothing to be afraid of.  


[ Parent ]
Hillary Threatened to Annihilate Iran During Her Campaign. (0.00 / 0)
I was referring to her statement during her campaign, when she was showing her tough-guy side.  She said then that if Iran got out of line, she would "annihilate" them.  It was an irrational and bellicose statement, with the clear implication of nuclear annihilation, in a tense region already devastated by war.  My point was that she used Iran as an example of a country she would destroy without a second's hesitation and yet, despite that alarming threat, Obama made her Secretary of State.  If I was Iranian, I would consider those two things to be a dangerous sign of things to come.

[ Parent ]
Here's a link to a good article on this subject. (0.00 / 0)
He makes some of the same points I made -- but does a better job of it.  Just interesting to keep in mind.

http://www.counterpunch.org/ro...


[ Parent ]
Sry, but I don't think a blog that calls Germany a "puppet state"... (0.00 / 0)
..is a serious source. Blair's Kingdom, ok, that a debatable point. But not Germany, which has been steadfast in its opposition to Bush's Iraq adventure.

And you already conceded that Hillary was only arguing for "annihilating Iran" under certain coditions, i.e. if they got the bomb and threatened to use it. Maybe you're born after the cold war and so don't know that threatening to annihilate a nation if its uses its nukes is an essential part of the deterrence doctrine. This strategy prevented the world's nuvlear powers for decades now from using their WMDs, and it's nothing special. Why should Iran be treated any better than North Korea or China? Those nation's leaders know that their countries won't survive if they start a first strike against the US or its allies.

It's either this deterrence, or getting rid of all nukes. Sadly, there are some nations like Israel, for instance, who won't play along in disbanding all those warheads. Well, maybe our kids will be living in such a better world.


[ Parent ]
The WaPo article explains (4.00 / 1)
The authors give the exact dates of the polling in their article.

The poll results explain the "missing" 22% (actually 22.7%) - 15.1% who refused to answer, 7.6% who would vote for none of the candidates.

They explained their methodology, and some of the countertrends in issues that might favor Ahmadinejad. I imagine it was a difficult place to try to take a poll and effectively interpret results, but their major point seems to be that they showed likely a lot more support for Ahmadinejad than others presumed, and even with the large number of refusals to answer, issues and geographical polling showed that those no answers on Q27 might still be pretty strong for Ahmadinejad, contrary to common wisdom (and Obama's Friday suggestions). Obama's comments re: Lebanon and Netanyahu's apparent success with regards to both Iran and settlements from May 20 may have helped Ahmadinejad as well.


Nope sorry. (0.00 / 0)
They buried their lede.

The whole story coming out of Iran prior to the election was pretty straightforward. An electorate that was fairly apathetic over the possibility of change had become electrified in the last couple of weeks and the crowds and what polling there was showed a marked and perhaps decisive swing away from Ahmadinejad and towards Moussavi. The initial reporting on this poll by the WaPo and elsewhere (it showed up on our blog comments almost immediately) all implied that this poll was in fact timely enough to capture nationwide sentiment on the eve of the poll and those of us who following Juan Cole smelt a rat were just victims of typical Western tendencies to give over importance to elite opinion, in this case that of North Tehran.

Now I am the last person to deny this kind of thinking dominates the Village. For example too much early coverage of Chavez could be summed up as "How on earth could people really support him? He is so mean to the upper-middle class and American oil companies!!". But Iran is not Venezuela.

So when a commenter pointed to this poll and suggested I was just a naive Villager fooled like everyone else and not understanding the fundamental dynamic of Ahmadinejah=Champion of Rural Poor and Moussavi=Tool of the West I decided to click through. And found that what was being represented as some equivalent of an over-night poll was an elaborate, glossy 90 page publication with extensive cross-tabs all based on polling that was four plus weeks old.

That is in my mind the most accurate title for an article highlighting this poll would be "Month old poll doesn't capture opinion changes that occurred over the last ten days". Well no shit. The key fact was the date of the poll, something that normally leads poll reporting, and you had to dig deep to find that out. Well that is somewhere between sloppy reporting and outright intent to deceive. And it came out in such coordinated fashion that you have to suspect an organized attempt to sell the idea that you could never come to agreement with Iran through diplomacy and/or democratic transformation over time. And that only fools believed different.

The warmongers don't want us to be able to hope to find a path towards peaceful reconciliation with Iran, that wouldn't advance their agenda a bit.


[ Parent ]
But it wasn't 4+ weeks (4.00 / 1)
It ended 23 days before the election by my count. And it noted some interesting details about the Azeri vote among other trends. That 60% of the voters wanted to support Iraqi Shiites and Lebanese Hezbollah military and economically. That the large majority of Iranians feel they're better off or as well off with Ahmadinejad as before. That they don't equate Ahamdinejad with the lack of democracy and ultimate control of government.

And this article at Politico notes that Ahmadinejad was widely seen to have trounced Mousavi in the debates. And that Ahmadinejad got about the same percentage last time. And that in general people didn't seem to be too unsatisfied with him.

What did Obama-Netanyahu agreements a week or so ago say to Iranians? What did Iranians take from Hezbollah's defeat in Lebanese polls and Obama's praise of that election and the implications for Iran?

I'm open - show me some data that really says Mousavi was closer.



[ Parent ]
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox