Politics is a Sport: Pre-Caucus Thread

[ICantSpellDawg]

:gathering:
Let's do this one more time!
:playingball:
You only have 1 Day to vote!
:pokemon:

[Vladimir]

This is an internet forum. Ron Paul will win.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Right. I just want to see how different the outcomes are from last month, if they are at all.

If I could vote for 2 the other would be Ron Paul. He reminds me of a modern day Andrew Jackson because of his madness.

[Andres]

Where is the "Gah!" option?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Don't vote. That is the Gah option. Or vote for someone who you think will lose.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Which one is the head of the liberal conspiracy? He/she/it gets my vote!

[ICantSpellDawg]

Which one is the head of the liberal conspiracy? He/she/it gets my vote!

Clinton.

[Don Corleone]

I had to hop off the Romney bandwagon. One of the things I liked most about him was that he was playing to his own competency. But somepoint in the last 2 or 3 weeks, he started running attack ads against Huckabee in Iowa and McCain here in New Hampshire. Doesn't give me a warm fuzzy, and it lends credence to the criticism that he's a 'say anything' candidate.

I don't think he has a snowball's chance in hell, mainly because he's running a campaign that all but says "Don't vote for me", but Fred's got my vote these days. I used to say anybody that wants the job should automatically be disqualified. He's as close to that as I've seen, and I like his policies for the most part. I do wish he'd consider the flat tax though.

[Odin]

I had to hop off the Romney bandwagon. One of the things I liked most about him was that he was playing to his own competency. But somepoint in the last 2 or 3 weeks, he started running attack ads against Huckabee in Iowa and McCain here in New Hampshire. Doesn't give me a warm fuzzy, and it lends credence to the criticism that he's a 'say anything' candidate.

I don't think he has a snowball's chance in hell, mainly because he's running a campaign that all but says "Don't vote for me", but Fred's got my vote these days. I used to say anybody that wants the job should automatically be disqualified. He's as close to that as I've seen, and I like his policies for the most part. I do wish he'd consider the flat tax though.

To be honest Don I would have wagered you to be a McCain man myself (and I dont think he's such a bad choice). Romney is too polished, he is a CEO and CEO's make for poor presidents in democracies.

But Fred? I dont know Don it seems to me he came in with a lot of hype and pomp and circumstance and just went fizzle.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Romney rules, but I think he will lose tonight and then in NH. I hate Huckabee and I won't vote for him if he is the nominee.

I'l probably end up voting for Ron Paul when he eventually decides to run as a 3rd party (I hope). I mean C'mon. We're gonna lose this thing anyway we might as well show the country that we aren't all on board the global ship Unanimous. Screw Giuliani and Huckabee. I'd be more likely to vote for McCain than them.

[Don Corleone]

To be honest Don I would have wagered you to be a McCain man myself (and I dont think he's such a bad choice). Romney is too polished, he is a CEO and CEO's make for poor presidents in democracies.

But Fred? I dont know Don it seems to me he came in with a lot of hype and pomp and circumstance and just went fizzle.

I was a McCain man in 2000. But I cannot get past the immigration debacle and McCain-Feingold. Reading the tea-leaves behind these two policy stances, McCain has a fundamental lack of respect for the average citizen. There's no other way to interpret it. He doesn't believe you and I should be able to put our money together and run an ad that runs counter to what Ted Turner has decided CNN has to say today. And he doesn't think you or I have the right to keep people from breaking the law and then turning around and living off our our hard work (granting social security to illegal immigrants). Sorry, can't go there.

Plus, my family are all submarine guys, and McCain always votes against submarine appropriations. :laugh4: Just kidding on that last one.

As for Fred, well, as I see it there are five viable Republican candidates right now.

Giuliani: No right to self-defense. Believes in subsidized abortion through the late term. Sorry. I respect his honesty, but can't get past these two fundamental points.

McCain: See above.

Huckabee: A social conservative that may very well outspend Democrats. Somebody referred to Bloomburg as what Democrats 'used' to be. So is Huckabee. He's a populist that will buy votes and has no macro-economic common sense.

Romney: See above. I've got too many questions about his character in light of his latest ad campaigns.

That leaves Fred, by default. Remember my comment about Romney being the leper with the most fingers? Well, he lost two more over the holiday and Fred now holds the lead with me.

[Xiahou]

But Fred? I dont know Don it seems to me he came in with a lot of hype and pomp and circumstance and just went fizzle.
According to himself, Thompson just plain doesn't like modern campaigning. I don't either. :beam:

I really hope Huckabee loses big in Iowa. He's an unelectable distraction. The sooner he goes away the better. I'm so sick of his "Well gosh, aint I a nice guy?" type response to virtually every criticism or policy question...

[Odin]

I was a McCain man in 2000. But I cannot get past the immigration debacle and McCain-Feingold. Reading the tea-leaves behind these two policy stances, McCain has a fundamental lack of respect for the average citizen. There's no other way to interpret it. He doesn't believe you and I should be able to put our money together and run an ad that runs counter to what Ted Turner has decided CNN has to say today. And he doesn't think you or I have the right to keep people from breaking the law and then turning around and living off our our hard work (granting social security to illegal immigrants). Sorry, can't go there.

Plus, my family are all submarine guys, and McCain always votes against submarine appropriations. :laugh4: Just kidding on that last one.

As for Fred, well, as I see it there are five viable Republican candidates right now.

Giuliani: No right to self-defense. Believes in subsidized abortion through the late term. Sorry. I respect his honesty, but can't get past these two fundamental points.

McCain: See above.

Huckabee: A social conservative that may very well outspend Democrats. Somebody referred to Bloomburg as what Democrats 'used' to be. So is Huckabee. He's a populist that will buy votes and has no macro-economic common sense.

Romney: See above. I've got too many questions about his character in light of his latest ad campaigns.

That leaves Fred, by default. Remember my comment about Romney being the leper with the most fingers? Well, he lost two more over the holiday and Fred now holds the lead with me.

Excellent summary Don. Yes McCain has egg on his face with his coloboration with Mr Feingold, wont argue that one. I know Romney, your spot on. Same with Rudy, how a gun control pro choice thrice married republican could ever hope for the nominee is beyond me.

Huckabee has no chance at outspending the current republican administration, heck they even expanded the federal government with an entire new cabinet level position. But yeah he is a populist.

Fred on the other hand is dreary, really he just dosent seem to set himself apart from anyone on any issue. For all the shortcomings you listed of the others, this makes them intriquing. Maybe Fred is the right guy, but I couldnt tell you because he has done little to inspire me to seek out his platform.

[Odin]

According to himself, Thompson just plain doesn't like modern campaigning. I don't either. :beam:

I really hope Huckabee loses big in Iowa. He's an unelectable distraction. The sooner he goes away the better. I'm so sick of his "Well gosh, aint I a nice guy?" type response to virtually every criticism or policy question...

Well Fred may not like it but he's lost just about all the momentum he had coming in. He was the front runner not to long ago and he hadnt even entered. Huckabee will win, he's a practicing christian, republicans swoon over that.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I liked Fred before.

If he can pull off a campaign in this style and win, the subsequent lateration of campaign spending and tactics would -- of itself -- be worth his election.

Here's hoping against polls.

[Don Corleone]

You heard it here first. If Huckabee gets the nomination, I'm shredding my Republican party membership card, as it will be clear that my style of conservativism is no longer welcome. If elected, Huckabee would be disastrous for America. I'd vote for Hillary or Obama before I'd vote for him, because at least they have a guiding philosophy of government they believe in for all the spending and taxing (one I happen to disagree with, but it IS a theory). Huckabee just buys votes. He's a boss-hog character prettied up really well. And while I respect the man's devotion to his faith and years serving others as a minister, it has scant little bearing on his capabality to lead.

[Lemur]

Intrade (http://www.intrade.com//?request_operation=main&request_type=action&checkHomePage=true) is calling Huckabee/Obama. Actually, every trading market that bets on the process is calling that. Doesn't mean they're right, but it's worth noting.

-edit-

Looks like Ron Paul can always be President of Azeroth (http://www.wanderinggoblin.com/literaturedetail.php?id=75), assuming he doesn't become President of the United States.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I'm hoping for obama/huckabee. A huckabee win is the best thing for McCain (the best republican candidate) and there's no way huckabee would win an election...

[ICantSpellDawg]

Don, Seamus and Xiahou:

If Thompson were to drop out after NH, do you have any ideas about who you would shift your votes to?

[Don Corleone]

Mike Gravel. But if he dropped out AFTER New Hampshire, my vote would already be cast.

[ICantSpellDawg]

You heard it here first. If Huckabee gets the nomination, I'm shredding my Republican party membership card, as it will be clear that my style of conservativism is no longer welcome. If elected, Huckabee would be disastrous for America. I'd vote for Hillary or Obama before I'd vote for him, because at least they have a guiding philosophy of government they believe in for all the spending and taxing (one I happen to disagree with, but it IS a theory). Huckabee just buys votes. He's a boss-hog character prettied up really well. And while I respect the man's devotion to his faith and years serving others as a minister, it has scant little bearing on his capabality to lead.

I agree 100%

Boss Hogs have no place on my ticket.

I was never a Republican to begin with, but Romney and Paul made me reconsider.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Mike Gravel. But if he dropped out AFTER New Hampshire, my vote would already be cast.

Really? You think that a guy who filed for bankruptcy in 2004 should be elected to figure out our financial mess?

[Don Corleone]

I was being facetioius. I'm not sure where, but I made my thoughts known on our friend from Alaska in one of these election threads.

Honestly, I don't really know. I'd probably have to bite the bullet on the personal liberties issue and pick Rudy.

I say that because Romney's attacks, after telling everyone for the past year he was running on his own record, have me seriously questioning what he really stands for.

McCain, beyond the reasons I've cited, has too dangerous a temper to give him launch codes.

And Huckabee... well, I think he'd 'care' a lot. And if we needed a National Guidance Counselor, he'd have my vote. But it's clear he doesn't understand macroeconomics when you hear about his trade policies. And this is from a man that ISN'T trying to win the Union vote. :dizzy2:

Honestly, the more I look, the more I like Bill Richardson. If I could get him to drop the 'surrender in Iraq, right now' position, he'd have my vote. And I strongly suspect he's playing to the Left wing of his party, that's he's too shrewd to surrender and run out of the country, though I do think he'd start actively withdrawing, which I'm also opposed to.

[CountArach]

Kucinich, though I am still an Aussie, so I really can't vote.

[Don Corleone]

Wait a minute, where's my brain. I forgot that Curt Schilling (starting pitcher for the 2007 World Championship Boston Red Sox) did a commercial endorsing McCain. That's good enough for my vote. If the bloody-sock wants him, then so do I! :2thumbsup:

[ICantSpellDawg]

I was being facetioius. I'm not sure where, but I made my thoughts known on our friend from Alaska in one of these election threads.

Honestly, I don't really know. I'd probably have to bite the bullet on the personal liberties issue and pick Rudy.

I say that because Romney's attacks, after telling everyone for the past year he was running on his own record, have me seriously questioning what he really stands for.

McCain, beyond the reasons I've cited, has too dangerous a temper to give him launch codes.

And Huckabee... well, I think he'd 'care' a lot. And if we needed a National Guidance Counselor, he'd have my vote. But it's clear he doesn't understand macroeconomics when you hear about his trade policies. And this is from a man that ISN'T trying to win the Union vote. :dizzy2:

Honestly, the more I look, the more I like Bill Richardson. If I could get him to drop the 'surrender in Iraq, right now' position, he'd have my vote. And I strongly suspect he's playing to the Left wing of his party, that's he's too shrewd to surrender and run out of the country, though I do think he'd start actively withdrawing, which I'm also opposed to.


What about the abortion issue? Not one of the democratic candidates has even a middle ground opinion on that. I understand the idea of a strong economy. That's why I won't vote for Huckabee, but if you do honestly believe that Abortion needs to be limited at least as much as is politically possible, how can you cast your vote behind someone who doesn't for a second believe in even a middle ground on the issue. Biden is the only one to approach a sensible position on the matter. How can they all have a 100% rating by NARAL? They are the extremists and I find that to be an inhumane, abhorrent and un-democratic position.

Allowing them to believe for a second that they can count on my vote simply because the GOP failed is a crime.

I believe you to be more "pro-life" than "pro-choice". If you believe that abortion is state allowed (and sometimes sanctioned) murder, how can you turn a blind eye on it for a second. The ability to overlook such a travesty calls into question the strength of the pro-life position. If a foetus is a human life that deserves rights, it cannot be overlooked.

I just want abortion laws to AT LEAST resemble those in Europe and allow for our conscience to move us to end the travesty once and for all when we are ready to do so. A mainstream election without a candidate that represents that sentiment is a joke.



I really think that Romney was the true center-right candidate in this election. I wish that he pushed himself in that direction during the run-up to the caucus.

[Don Corleone]

What about the abortion issue? Not one of the democratic candidates has even a middle ground opinion on that. I understand the idea of a strong economy. That's why I won't vote for Huckabee, but if you do honestly believe that Abortion needs to be limited at least as much as is politically possible, how can you cast your vote behind someone who doesn't for a second believe in even a middle ground on the issue. Biden is the only one to approach a sensible position on the matter. How can they all have a 100% rating by NARAL? They are the extremists and I find that to be an inhumane, abhorrent and un-democratic position.

Allowing them to believe for a second that they can count on my vote simply because the GOP failed is a crime.

I believe you to be more "pro-life" than "pro-choice". If you believe that abortion is state allowed (and sometimes sanctioned) murder, how can you turn a blind eye on it for a second. The ability to overlook such a travesty calls into question the strength of the pro-life position. If a foetus is a human life that deserves rights, it cannot be overlooked .

Well, you do have a point. Frankly, I tend to forget about abortion with respect to presidential candidates, as there's not a lot they can do about it. But they can pick judges. And in order to get a 100% approval from NARAL, you have to favor elective 3rd trimester abortions (yuck!).

But as I've said before, abortion is the original and one true wedge issue. Both sides purposely sandbag their own efforts, so they can beat that drum to their constituents in the next election. George Bush is supposedly pro-life, but what have we done to reduce access to late term abortions in the 7 (count 'em) years he's been in office?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Well, you do have a point. Frankly, I tend to forget about abortion with respect to presidential candidates, as there's not a lot they can do about it. But they can pick judges. And in order to get a 100% approval from NARAL, you have to favor elective 3rd trimester abortions (yuck!).

But as I've said before, abortion is the original and one true wedge issue. Both sides purposely sandbag their own efforts, so they can beat that drum to their constituents in the next election. George Bush is supposedly pro-life, but what have we done to reduce access to late term abortions in the 7 (count 'em) years he's been in office?

Right. I feel as though we were de-clawed during his administration. During the Clinton years our numbers in Washington every January were amazing. I do feel betrayed, but that's why I'm not a Republican - so I can feel betrayed without being disillusioned as well.

He did appoint Alito and Roberts (who seems to be a long way away from the Souter mistake) and like you said, that's really the only substantial thing he could do.

Either way - If it is Giuliani vs Clinton/Obama/Edwards and Paul runs 3rd party, I will vote for Paul because his economic ideas are very good and he understands that there is no liberty or pursuit of happiness without first the protection of life. I could possibly vote Obama if he wasn't over 60% with NARAL.

[Tribesman]

It has to be Dodd , while he has shown some difficulties in working through tax policies he works hard , does have a wide range of experience and is well known to deliver value for money .

[Don Corleone]

Right. I feel as though we were de-clawed during his administration. During the Clinton years our numbers in Washington every January were amazing. I do feel betrayed, but that's why I'm not a Republican - so I can feel betrayed without being disillusioned as well.

He did appoint Alito and Roberts (who seems to be a long way away from the Souter mistake) and like you said, that's really the only substantial thing he could do.

Either way - If it is Giuliani vs Clinton/Obama/Edwards and Paul runs 3rd party, I will vote for Paul because his economic ideas are very good and he understands that there is no liberty or pursuit of happiness without first the protection of life. I could possibly vote Obama if he wasn't over 60% with NARAL.

Well, there are a couple of things the executive branch can do. They can limit funding for abortions on emergency medical bills. They can issue executive orders. And most importantly, they can lead from the bully pulpit. To the best of my knowledge, President Bush refrained from doing any of these things.

But abortion is not a driving issue for me. I appreciate and agree with your characterization of my views, more pro-life than pro-choice, but nobody that's truly pro-life would ever characterize me as pro-life.

Based on ~30 years of actively following politics (yes, I watched the news during the Carter years), I've come to realize that chosing a candidate for president is more about limiting damage. Who will do the least harm. I also look for candidates that are wise enough to focus on the big issues. Abortion status isn't changing anytime soon, so it's not an issue I expect the candidates to lead with. In fact, if that's one of their lead issues (*cough* *Huckabee* *cough*), then I generally assume they don't have any winning policies on issues they might actually be able to impact.

Right now, I'm deeply disappointed in Republicans and Democrats that our one big chance for National debate, the primaries has been squandered and nobody, R or D, has even mentioned, let alone expanded upon, what are some things they might do to reverse the trend of just how poorly prepared for global competition our current students and new graduates are.

I hate to sound like an old codger (I'm only 37), but frankly, if we don't get off our collective ass and remember how to work hard, we're going to get creamed and China, Singapore, India and Malaysia are going to eat our lunch. And they should. I'm an uber-capitalist, and if they are generating the best workforce, their econcomy should dominate. I know it's a symptom of success that asymptotically approaches a point, which is why Japan wasn't included in that list, but we're in serious of danger of having a generation of burger-flippers if our youth don't get going.

My generation was bad. Very bad, and we lost a lot of ground. But this one is even worse. I interview graduates with 3.4/3.5 GPAs from respected schools, and it scares the :daisy: out of me what they don't know.

That's something I'd like to see addressed. And all I hear is "free college education" from the left and "what problem? we're the greatest nation on Earth", or worse, "we need more immigration visas" from the right.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Hey Tribes, how come you haven't been conscripted by a ward boss in your neck of the woods to run for office.

As much trouble as you give all politicians, you'd be a lark to watch as a political leader.

Maybe not Taoseach [sic?], at least not straight off, but surely the Dail could use a chap of your talents?

:deal:

[ICantSpellDawg]

Well, there are a couple of things the executive branch can do. They can limit funding for abortions on emergency medical bills. They can issue executive orders. And most importantly, they can lead from the bully pulpit. To the best of my knowledge, President Bush refrained from doing any of these things.

But abortion is not a driving issue for me. I appreciate and agree with your characterization of my views, more pro-life than pro-choice, but nobody that's truly pro-life would ever characterize me as pro-life.

Based on ~30 years of actively following politics (yes, I watched the news during the Carter years), I've come to realize that chosing a candidate for president is more about limiting damage. Who will do the least harm. I also look for candidates that are wise enough to focus on the big issues. Abortion status isn't changing anytime soon, so it's not an issue I expect the candidates to lead with. In fact, if that's one of their lead issues (*cough* *Huckabee* *cough*), then I generally assume they don't have any winning policies on issues they might actually be able to impact.

Right now, I'm deeply disappointed in Republicans and Democrats that our one big chance for National debate, the primaries has been squandered and nobody, R or D, has even mentioned, let alone expanded upon, what are some things they might do to reverse the trend of just how poorly prepared for global competition our current students and new graduates are.

I hate to sound like an old codger (I'm only 37), but frankly, if we don't get off our collective ass and remember how to work hard, we're going to get creamed and China, Singapore, India and Malaysia are going to eat our lunch. And they should. I'm an uber-capitalist, and if they are generating the best workforce, their econcomy should dominate. I know it's a symptom of success that asymptotically approaches a point, which is why Japan wasn't included in that list, but we're in serious of danger of having a generation of burger-flippers if our youth don't get going.

My generation was bad. Very bad, and we lost a lot of ground. But this one is even worse. I interview graduates with 3.4/3.5 GPAs from respected schools, and it scares the :daisy: out of me what they don't know.

That's something I'd like to see addressed. And all I hear is "free college education" from the left and "what problem? we're the greatest nation on Earth", or worse, "we need more immigration visas" from the right.

I agree with you on most things. I'm just sad to see people ignore this issue. It is my biggest issue and I will never abandon it. I think that there are many more like me. If you want to win elections, Republicans right now have to try to make us content if they want our vote. If Republicans won't help us in our civil rights struggle, then we don't need them. If the won't they are truly the party of soulless greed and deserve defeat in every election.

All of their "protect the family" slogans are empty. Take that away and what does the GOP really have? A losing minority for one and a slowly dying political ideology for the other.

[seireikhaan]

Bill Richardson is who I voted for here. In case he doesn't get enough support at the caucus tonight, then my backup is Obama.

[woad&fangs]

1.Obama- I agree with a lot of his positions and I think that he would be a breath of fresh air to American politcs. Now I'm just worried about who he would choose as a VP.

2.Ron Paul- I like his general libertarian stance and I doubt that his kookyer ideas would get put into effect.

3. McCain- Experience, Honesty, and willingness to work with the Dems. I like him, just not as much as Paul and Obama.

4.Romney- *Shudders*, I still don't trust him because of all the flip flopping but I think that he'd actually be the best bet of reducing the deficit. I also think that he would do a good job working with congress. I'd be able to put up with him as long as we had a heavily democrat congress.



Giuliani and Edwards I could live with but I wouldn't be real happy about it.

Thompson is too conservative for me.

Huckabee and Clinton are pure evil.

My original top 4 was
1.Obama
2.McCain
3.Giuliani
4.Paul

[Ice]

Ron Paul

Although I'd agree he is a bit of a loon, he does want to end the income tax, increase state rights, and lower the national debt.

[Don Corleone]

Come on, Ice. Aren't you an economics major? Returning to the gold standard? Dismantling the Federal Reserve?

[Lemur]

Dismantling the fed and reverting to the gold standard might be fun. We have no way of knowing.

Rumormonger central (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/7682.html): Thompson may drop out depending on how poorly he shows in Iowa, plans to endorse McCain. That's right McCain. In your face Rudy.

[Xiahou]

The latest tracking polls I've seen actually show Thompson with a slight, within margin of error, lead over McCain- here's hoping. Regardless, I'd expect Thompson to hang in until South Carolina- hopefully Huckabee will disappoint in Iowa and dry up and blow away before the SC primary.... :sweatdrop:

Edit: Anyone else find it disturbing that roughly 200k citizens get so much say in determining who our president in for a nation of hundreds of millions? Even in Iowa, it's expected to be a fraction of eligible voters...

[woad&fangs]

Anyone else find it disturbing that roughly 200k citizens get so much say in determining who our president in for a nation of hundreds of millions? Even in Iowa, it's expected to be a fraction of eligible voters...

I agree, Very disturbing.

[ICantSpellDawg]

The latest tracking polls I've seen actually show Thompson with a slight, within margin of error, lead over McCain- here's hoping. Regardless, I'd expect Thompson to hang in until South Carolina- hopefully Huckabee will disappoint in Iowa and dry up and blow away before the SC primary.... :sweatdrop:

Edit: Anyone else find it disturbing that roughly 200k citizens get so much say in determining who our president in for a nation of hundreds of millions? Even in Iowa, it's expected to be a fraction of eligible voters...

You're just saying that because Thompson is losing hard there. C'mon, the first state needs to be somewhere so that they can really focus and it doesn't insult too many people to do it in Iowa.

[PanzerJaeger]

Worst case scenario... Clinton Vs Huckabee. I guess I just wouldn't vote..

The whole primary process is not well thought out. They should all be held on the same day... by the time I get to vote in a primary things will already be decided. :dizzy2:

[seireikhaan]

Alright, folks, I'm off with my father to go caucusing. Be back later.

[Lemur]

Both parties are maintaining digital billboards where you can catch the results as they trickle in. Here's the Republican (http://www.iowagop.net/) ticker, and here's the Democratic (http://www.iowacaucusresults.com/) post.

Hmmm. The Republican one is already slowing to a crawl. These may not last if a lot of people tune in. Oh well, there's always Drudge.

[Tribesman]

Hey Tribes, how come you haven't been conscripted by a ward boss in your neck of the woods to run for office.

Probably because of the amount of ridicule I heap on them whenever our paths cross .:2thumbsup:
Then again if I could get Dodd as a running mate I would , while he may be a bit old and have health issues at the moment I am sure he and a cabinet of diddy men could do better that the usual bunch of muppets that stand .~;)

[CountArach]

Both parties are maintaining digital billboards where you can catch the results as they trickle in. Here's the Republican (http://www.iowagop.net/) ticker, and here's the Democratic (http://www.iowacaucusresults.com/) post.

Hmmm. The Republican one is already slowing to a crawl. These may not last if a lot of people tune in. Oh well, there's always Drudge.
How is the Republican one doing? It isn't really working for me down here. I can see the Democrat one is going towards Edwards, though Hillary appears to be catching up.

[Xiahou]

How is the Republican one doing? It isn't really working for me down here. I can see the Democrat one is going towards Edwards, though Hillary appears to be catching up.
Looks like Huckabee in a landslide. It's already being called for him. :shame: :no:

The only bright point is that Thompson looks to be headed for 3rd place. McCain doesn't need the 3rd place showing as much due to his strength in NH, so I'd rather see Thompson make a good showing and keep more candidates on the slate for longer.... til this Huckabee mess goes away.

[GeneralHankerchief]

Xiahou, got a link? Or did you just get lucky with Lemur's provided site?

In the Dem race, Obama just passed Edwards for 1st, but considering they're all hovering around 32% it doesn't really mean anything.

[Marshal Murat]

According to Drudge as of 8:57 EST

Dems...
Edwards
Clinton
Obama

Reps...
Huckabee
Romney
Thompson
McCain

[KukriKhan]

It has to be Dodd , while he has shown some difficulties in working through tax policies he works hard , does have a wide range of experience and is well known to deliver value for money .

I'm not fond of any of the proposed guys, either side. But if I had to pick today

Dem: Dodd, with Obama as VP

Rep: McCain, with Paul as side-kick

Either duo are not afraid of a bit of hard, dirty work (which whoever wins will face for at least 3 of their 4 years in office); they know the levers of gov't, they're very familiar with international relations; they probably won't burn down the White House in their first 100 days, or take away my house, or get my soldier-son killed on an 'elective war', or further alienate the 'other' side.

I'd generally like a non-DC insider (guv, mayor, movie star), but the non-DC guys on those slates don't (IMO) rise to the level of focused vision I think we need in the cloudy next 4 years.

That said... I bet 5 bucks the Hildabeest and Huckleberry come out on top in Ioway.

[CountArach]

Xiahou, got a link? Or did you just get lucky with Lemur's provided site?

In the Dem race, Obama just passed Edwards for 1st, but considering they're all hovering around 32% it doesn't really mean anything.
He's just over 34% now, the other two are around 31.5%

[AntiochusIII]

They *can't* be serious. Huckabee? That idiot? For real?

:dizzy2:

If things go on this way I expect a Democratic President. Or America to prove me again that we're a nation of idiots who think gay marriage is more dangerous than Al-Qaeda.

The Democratic race is very close though. It seems Edwards/Clinton/Obama ménage à trois is a certainty.

[Xiahou]

Xiahou, got a link? Or did you just get lucky with Lemur's provided site?

In the Dem race, Obama just passed Edwards for 1st, but considering they're all hovering around 32% it doesn't really mean anything.
Just based on TV news channels. 41% of votes in- Huckabee has 31% to Romney's 23%. Followed by Thompson 13% and McCain at 12%.

[CountArach]

Haha, did anyone see the wiki page for Iowa caucus with the Obama picture? I've got a couple of screenshots.

Obama at 35%, Hillary and Edwards at 31%.

[Xiahou]

Apparently Obama will be winning Iowa for the Dems side...

[Marshal Murat]

It's how I figured it would happen, now it's just the nomination by the party that cements it.

[GeneralHankerchief]

I'm cool with Huckabee/Obama coming out of the caucuses on top.

Plenty of time to throw Huckabee back into oblivion/Romney's massive effort is wasted, and Hillary gets a tough (albeit close) third place finish.

[Lemur]

Huckabee's win helps my #1, McCain, so I'm moderately happy. Obama is my #2, so I'm pleased he's probably coming in first place. And since Edwards has accepted Federal matching funds, and is thus hog-tied in terms of spending, the Dem race is really a two-way contest between Obama and Clinton.

I hardly need to repeat that Clinton is at the bottom of my dream list. Right next to Giuliani. Those were dark days, when it looked like it was going to be Giuliani vs. Clinton. On the other hand, McCain vs. Obama means I can't lose.

[CountArach]

I love the last line of this (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/01/04/2131702.htm)news report:
"Meanwhile the White House says President George W Bush may not stay up late for the final results, given his habit of going to bed early."

[Marshal Murat]

The last time Bush went to bed early, he woke up in Iraq.

[Lemur]

One thing you can say about this result: Both Obama and Huckabee are opposed by their own party establishment. Romney outspent Huckabee by factors. Hillary had all of the standard Democratic machine working for her, including the unions and whatnot.

Tonight's vote was a serious poke in the eye to both parties' leadership. I can't say I mind that one bit.

[Marshal Murat]

It shows the parties that America is ready for change in the establishment, and that we aren't going to be awed by names or spending. What counts is the candidate, and where they stand on issues like the War in Iraq, Abortion, Illegal Immigration, etc.

I'm personally very happy that Hillary got the biggest shove down into 3rd place, I don't like her one bit. Before it was 'Hillary's gonna be first, whore the other two gonna be?" Now it's wide open, and I hope Obama wins.

[seireikhaan]

Well, back from Caucus, I must say, it was rather, um, interesting. I started off with Richardson, but ultimately didn't get enough people to clear. I thus put my support for Obama. Found out that my precinct ended up with a tie between Obama and Edwards at 98-98, with Hillary coming in third with 72. Due to the mathematical figuring of how delegates were detirmined, we ended up one delegate short of the number we were supposed to be sending as a precinct. In case of this, the extra delegate was given based on who had the most support. In case of the most support being tied between two candidates...we flip a coin!:laugh4: Edwards got the last delegate.

[CountArach]

Well, back from Caucus, I must say, it was rather, um, interesting. I started off with Richardson, but ultimately didn't get enough people to clear. I thus put my support for Obama. Found out that my precinct ended up with a tie between Obama and Edwards at 98-98, with Hillary coming in third with 72. Due to the mathematical figuring of how delegates were detirmined, we ended up one delegate short of the number we were supposed to be sending as a precinct. In case of this, the extra delegate was given based on who had the most support. In case of the most support being tied between two candidates...we flip a coin!:laugh4: Edwards got the last delegate.
I personally have always supported the scissors-paper-rock Democratic alternative.

[Marshal Murat]

Always better than the Soviet "Russian Roulette"

Paul got 10%

[seireikhaan]

And one thing that I thought was rather telling: when the smaller groups who had less than 15% had the opportunity to "revote", Hillary had about 68, Obama had about 86, and Edwards had about 79. What's it tell me? Hillary doesn't have broad appeal, even within non-Hillary fanatic democrats.

[CountArach]

I would've thought that those minor votes would break more in Edwards favour, because don't a fair portion of them come from the liberal wing?

[Lemur]

I note, with deep and abiding amusement, that Ron Paul caucused better than Rudy Giuliani. Nice, detailed breakdown polls can be poll-smoked here (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#val=IADEM).

-edit-

I would've thought that those minor votes would break more in Edwards favour, because don't a fair portion of them come from the liberal wing?
Depends on how you define the "liberal wing." According to the preliminary polls, the extreme left didn't account for a whole lot in the caucus:

Democrats

Very Liberal: 18 percent; Somewhat Liberal: 36 percent; Moderate: 40 percent; Conservative: 6 percent

Republicans

Very Conservative: 45 percent; Somewhat Conservative: 43 percent; Moderate: 11 percent; Liberal: 1 percent

Self-definitions, sure, but that's as reliable as anything else, I think.

[Marshal Murat]

As I remember, Giuliani didn't try to caucus in Iowa. He went more for my state of Florida.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Romney's campaign is now taking on quite a bit of water. dammit all to hell.

On the plus side, Obama is #1 and Hillary lost big time. Also I am also happy that Giuliani was beaten by Paul. I want to see a 3rd party run for Paul if Romney goes down.

[Proletariat]

Huckabee is an idiot. I'll say I mind it. Great going America, let's keep leaving it up to Iowa!

:wall:

[ICantSpellDawg]

Huckabee is an idiot. I'll say I mind it. Great going America, let's keep leaving it up to Iowa!

:wall:

It isn't up to Iowa. You are just saying that because your guy lost hard.

This is phase just phase 1.

Huckabee isn't an idiot, he's a smart guy - I just don't trust him. I'm just tired of shadow smart guys who fake everyman. We had Bush and that tactic won't work again, there is too much cynicism about the Republicans.

Giuliani is a NYC liberal. If you think that is viable once people have the facts in their face, I don't believe it. He may as well be running as a democrat.

[Lemur]

Giuliani is a NYC liberal.
He's an autocrat, a small man looking for a balcony from which to address the adoring mob. Giuliani is tied with Hillary in my "Oh God no" list.

-edit-

Biden and Dodd (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/01/03/bideon-to-abandon-white-house-run/) have bowed out.

[ICantSpellDawg]

He's an autocrat, a small man looking for a balcony from which to address the adoring mob. Giuliani is tied with Hillary in my "Oh God no" list.

Totally. Mayors are autocrats in general.

I had a friend who said "yay bloomberg". That concept took all of 30 seconds to sink. He's even worse and all it took was to bring up the abortion issue to highlight it.

[Proletariat]

It isn't up to Iowa. You are just saying that because your guy lost hard.


I don't have a guy, I plan on voting for Hillary for larffs. My post did come across a bit strong, I'm gonna blame it on tonight's wine and the Wii I got for Christmas.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Hillary!!!!!!???? NOOOOOOOO

Do the Obama or Paul thing.


PS - you voted for Giuliani in 2 polls now. I thought that he was your guy.

[LittleGrizzly]

Putting my vote on Obama, i have to admit from what ive heard ron paul has some intresting policys, something for everyone.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Gravel, Biden and Dodd are out.

What's the hold up Kucinich? I understand if Richardson wants to wait until after NH to see viability.

[Marshal Murat]

I think Biden should've had a better chance. He's got a level head, experience, and a good policy. I'd rather him than Edwards.

[Lemur]

Edwards is no longer a serious contender nationally. He spent every dollar he had on Iowa and came in second. He also accepted Federal matching funds.

Trust me, on the Dem side it's a two-way race.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Bah. Bah. Bah. ~:mecry:

Giuliani is not going to pull it off. Romney is allright, but he panders too much to the evangelical / hard-right wing. Who don't trust him anyway. McCain is a great hero, but a mediocre politician. The others are clowns, or downright imbeciles like Paul or Huckabee.

Yet it is slowly dawning on me that neither Obama nor Hillary will be able to defeat the Rep candidate anyway, no matter which of that bunch of Republican muppets wins. :shame:

Is it me, or do both camps utterly lack a strong field of candidates this time?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

You're wrong louis...obama will do very well. He pulled in record numbers in iowa.

[Lemur]

Admittedly, the polls don't mean much this far out from the general election, but they show Obama beating every Republican candidate. Hillary beats a few, and by much smaller margins. Don't believe me? Google is your friend (http://primarybuzz.com/index.php?articleID=11921&sectionID=99).

The only Republican who holds up well against both (beating Clinton and losing by lower margins to Obama) is McCain.

[Xiahou]

I note, with deep and abiding amusement, that Ron Paul caucused better than Rudy Giuliani. Nice, detailed breakdown polls can be poll-smoked here (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#val=IADEM).
It's interesting that, according to the poll, the more liberal the voters were, the more likely they were to vote Obama, whereas Hillary had the most support from self-described moderates and support faded the more liberal the voters got.

I've always said Obama is a liberal in moderate's clothing- look at his vote record. :shrug:

Admittedly, the polls don't mean much this far out from the general election, but they show Obama beating every Republican candidate. Hillary beats a few, and by much smaller margins. Don't believe me? Google is your friend (http://primarybuzz.com/index.php?articleID=11921&sectionID=99).

The only Republican who holds up well against both (beating Clinton and losing by lower margins to Obama) is McCain.
Something tells me Obama will wither under close scrutiny if he gets the nomination. Time will tell, I guess.

[Lemur]

It's interesting that, according to the poll, the more liberal the voters were, the more likely they were to vote Obama, whereas Hillary had the most support from self-described moderates and support faded the more liberal the voters got.
Hmm, that's a bit of a stretch. In the breakdown, Obama wins among all of those voters. His highest margins are with self-described very liberal and liberal voters, but he beat the Hildebeast among the moderates as well. The only win she had was with self-described conservatives, 22% to 21%.

[Xiahou]

Hmm, that's a bit of a stretch. In the breakdown, Obama wins among all of those voters. His highest margins are with self-described very liberal and liberal voters, but he beat the Hildebeast among the moderates as well. The only win she had was with self-described conservatives, 22% to 21%.
Well sure, he won by a rather substantial margin. My point was and is that his support got stronger the more liberal the voters were. Additionally, I see his support got stronger the richer the voter got. For the ultra-liberal elite supposedly hating him, he ranked strongest among them. Hillary's campaign made it's share of gaffes, but I can't help but think a big part of her problem among the far left was her comparitively hawkish foreign policy stance. :shrug:

Anyhow, end result- Iowa chose two liberals as their choices for president. Kind of expected from Democrats, but downright disappointing from Republicans.:shame:

Edit: I wonder how much of a spoiler Paul was, if at all? Whose camp did his votes come from? Probably not Huckabee's. I can't imagine their supporters having much in common.

[Odin]

I think Biden should've had a better chance. He's got a level head, experience, and a good policy. I'd rather him than Edwards.

I agree, he did well in the debates. For me it was either him or Ron Paul although I doubt highly I will vote republican this time around.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Louis is correct, there is no "standout" in either field -- at least as yet.

However, this gives Obama the advantage in that he's easily the most charming in either camp at present.

He lacks gravitas, but where nobody is getting any traction or standing out, charisma may well be enough.

[Husar]

Obama sounds good to me, not because I know him very well but he looks intelligent and nice.
Some of the others are also a bit old and they look old as well, aren't they supposed to represent a fresh, young nation? ~;)

[drone]

Also I am also happy that Giuliani was beaten by Paul. I want to see a 3rd party run for Paul if Romney goes down.
I saw that result late last night and lol'ed. Hard. I know Rudy didn't put any effort into Iowa, but still. Double digits for Paul is surprising though. The Dems look to have a 2 or 3 horse race from here on, but the GOP is severely fractured. Interesting results, can't wait to see how New Hampshire turns out.

[Lemur]

I read this (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Mjk0MmJlOWE3YTNhZTM1Mzk0ZDkzYjA2MmE5ZmZhZDQ=) over at NRO, and found myself in deep agreement:


Romney's loss is basically irrecoverable after spending so much and getting beaten by an under-funded candidate who was an unknown not too long ago by nine points. In the end, the devastating Huckabee line was the one about voting for the candidate who seems like someone you work with rather than someone who laid you off. Both he and Obama rejected their party's establishments and old-style politics. Obama rejected Clintonian triangulation and Edwards-style netroots rage. Huckabee rejected (at least notionally) Rovian zero-sum politics and the Washington GOP establishment. My friend thinks Huckabee has staying power and is going to be strong in South Carolina and Florida. Evangelicals are now fully vested in him, so he has a strong base going forward. Thompson stays in, but is going to have trouble ever eclipsing Huckabee. Rudy is going to have real trouble making the case he can unite the party in general as a pro-choicer after the rise of Huckabee. The advantage McCain has is that he is naturally suited to tap into the Huckabee change message—the call for cross-partisan cooperation and the distaste for the Washington establishment. This is a case where something old can perhaps become new again. But McCain has to make himself acceptable to conservatives and attack Romney from the right. If he makes the kind of mistakes he did in 2000, he creates the possibility of Huckabee winning the nomination. Another problem for Giuliani is that through his ferocious attacks on Hillary, which seemed so shrewd all year long, he has made himself a partisan figure in a way that Huckabee and McCain aren't and roughly identified himself with the Bush-Clinton politics of the past.

Last night was a bad one for anybody invested in deep-fried partisan politics.

[Xiahou]

Last night was a bad one for anybody invested in deep-fried partisan politics.
I'd say it was just plain bad for everyone. Can you imagine the horror of a Huckabee nomination. You already claim to lament elections being about wedge issues like gay marriage and abortion. What the hell will there be left to talk about if it's Huckabee vs. another Democrat? :no:

I don't care for Romney, but at least if he had won, it would've deflated the "Huckaboom". Now Romney's all but finished after investing so much in Iowa and failing and Huckabee's stock is rising even higher.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I read this (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Mjk0MmJlOWE3YTNhZTM1Mzk0ZDkzYjA2MmE5ZmZhZDQ=) over at NRO, and found myself in deep agreement:


Romney's loss is basically irrecoverable after spending so much and getting beaten by an under-funded candidate who was an unknown not too long ago by nine points. In the end, the devastating Huckabee line was the one about voting for the candidate who seems like someone you work with rather than someone who laid you off. Both he and Obama rejected their party's establishments and old-style politics. Obama rejected Clintonian triangulation and Edwards-style netroots rage. Huckabee rejected (at least notionally) Rovian zero-sum politics and the Washington GOP establishment. My friend thinks Huckabee has staying power and is going to be strong in South Carolina and Florida. Evangelicals are now fully vested in him, so he has a strong base going forward. Thompson stays in, but is going to have trouble ever eclipsing Huckabee. Rudy is going to have real trouble making the case he can unite the party in general as a pro-choicer after the rise of Huckabee. The advantage McCain has is that he is naturally suited to tap into the Huckabee change message—the call for cross-partisan cooperation and the distaste for the Washington establishment. This is a case where something old can perhaps become new again. But McCain has to make himself acceptable to conservatives and attack Romney from the right. If he makes the kind of mistakes he did in 2000, he creates the possibility of Huckabee winning the nomination. Another problem for Giuliani is that through his ferocious attacks on Hillary, which seemed so shrewd all year long, he has made himself a partisan figure in a way that Huckabee and McCain aren't and roughly identified himself with the Bush-Clinton politics of the past.

Last night was a bad one for anybody invested in deep-fried partisan politics.

Romney rules. I'm still buying his t-shirt. I hope that he runs for the senate of some state. I want to work for him.

[Lemur]

I'd say it was just plain bad for everyone. Can you imagine the horror of a Huckabee nomination. You already claim to lament elections being about wedge issues like gay marriage and abortion. What the hell will there be left to talk about if it's Huckabee vs. another Democrat?
Disagree. On the Dem side, would you have preferred to see Clinton win? No, wait, don't answer that, you probably would have, if only for the unrestrained joy you could take in slamming her.

On the Republican side I can see your point, but I still disagree. Huckabee's win means that McCain becomes a viable choice. If the Repub establishment wants to put Huckabee down, they're going to have to get behind a different horse. This is a good thing.

And I'm still chuffed that the leadership of both parties got their backsides handed to them. I chortled with glee when I saw the NY Post's headline this morning online: "Clintons No Longer Life of the Party." Heh.

[Don Corleone]

I think you guys are too ready to crown Huckabee the nominee. New Hampshire COULD be a big turning point for McCain or Romney. If Romney can not just win, but win big, he will have legitimate consideration as the centrist, but he really does have to win big, and then follow it up with a big win in a southern state.

That being said, Fred's lackluster campaign is clearly costing him votes. I may just have to bite the bullet and go McCain, if only to see to it that we don't wind up with Huckabee. I agree with NRO's assessment that while Rudy may play well in the general election, he cannot win the nomination.

God help us all if Huckabee gets the Republican nomination.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Disagree. On the Dem side, would you have preferred to see Clinton win? No, wait, don't answer that, you probably would have, if only for the unrestrained joy you could take in slamming her.

On the Republican side I can see your point, but I still disagree. Huckabee's win means that McCain becomes a viable choice. If the Repub establishment wants to put Huckabee down, they're going to have to get behind a different horse. This is a good thing.

And I'm still chuffed that the leadership of both parties got their backsides handed to them. I chortled with glee when I saw the NY Post's headline this morning online: "Clintons No Longer Life of the Party." Heh.

I don't care if democrats win this one. They are probably going to anyway and I just don't want to see Hillary as the winner.

If the Democrats DO win, We will be more likely to see a resurgence in congress of Republicans in the years to come. People saw what a bad idea it was to have no balance in government. Hopefully they won't make consecutive mistakes.

[Kralizec]

God help us all if Huckabee gets the Republican nomination.

Well, if Huckabee becomes President...at least you'll have proved that anyone can be elected President in America.

That counts for something, right ~;)

[Lemur]

I know we're not supposed to care about what the rest of the world thinks, and that to do so is to be a latte-sipping, U.N.-loving elitist ninny, but the fallout from Obama's win is telling. At the risk of enraging our conservative Orgahs, I'll repost some snippets.

South Africa: (http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/charlenesmith/2008/01/04/hope-returns-to-politics-obamas-victory-and-what-it-means-for-global-politics/) "Damn, I love Americans. Just when you’ve written them off as hopeless, as a nation in decline, they turn around and do something extraordinary, which tells you why the United States of America is still the greatest nation on earth."

Lebanon: (http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=5&article_id=87786) "The very moment [Obama] appears on the world's television screens, victorious and smiling, America's image and soft power would experience something like a Copernican revolution."

I'm sure more will come as the day progresses. Dismiss it if you like, but the election of a dark-skinned man with the middle name "Hussein" would make a colossal impression on people all over the world. Soft power, anyone? (And lordy, we could use some right now ...)

All of that said, I'd still prefer McCain. But if Obama is merely the Dem nominee for '08, it will send a message that the jihadis will find hard to counter.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I know we're not supposed to care about what the rest of the world thinks, and that to do so is to be a latte-sipping, U.N.-loving elitist ninny, but the fallout from Obama's win is telling. At the risk of enraging our conservative Orgahs, I'll repost some snippets.

South Africa: (http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/charlenesmith/2008/01/04/hope-returns-to-politics-obamas-victory-and-what-it-means-for-global-politics/) "Damn, I love Americans. Just when you’ve written them off as hopeless, as a nation in decline, they turn around and do something extraordinary, which tells you why the United States of America is still the greatest nation on earth."

Lebanon: (http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=5&article_id=87786) "The very moment [Obama] appears on the world's television screens, victorious and smiling, America's image and soft power would experience something like a Copernican revolution."

I'm sure more will come as the day progresses. Dismiss it if you like, but the election of a dark-skinned man with the middle name "Hussein" would make a colossal impression on people all over the world. Soft power, anyone? (And lordy, we could use some right now ...)

All of that said, I'd still prefer McCain. But if Obama is merely the Dem nominee for '08, it will send a message that the jihadis will find hard to counter.

Everybody loves that the a "black" guy has a good chance of winning the presidency. Especially one who is really white. I just wish that Republicans had done it first. If Keyes wasn't insane, maybe we could have. Maybe Republicans can put the first female president in.

[Odin]

I know we're not supposed to care about what the rest of the world thinks, and that to do so is to be a latte-sipping, U.N.-loving elitist ninny, but the fallout from Obama's win is telling. At the risk of enraging our conservative Orgahs, I'll repost some snippets.

South Africa: (http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/charlenesmith/2008/01/04/hope-returns-to-politics-obamas-victory-and-what-it-means-for-global-politics/) "Damn, I love Americans. Just when you’ve written them off as hopeless, as a nation in decline, they turn around and do something extraordinary, which tells you why the United States of America is still the greatest nation on earth."

Lebanon: (http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=5&article_id=87786) "The very moment [Obama] appears on the world's television screens, victorious and smiling, America's image and soft power would experience something like a Copernican revolution."

I'm sure more will come as the day progresses. Dismiss it if you like, but the election of a dark-skinned man with the middle name "Hussein" would make a colossal impression on people all over the world. Soft power, anyone? (And lordy, we could use some right now ...)

All of that said, I'd still prefer McCain. But if Obama is merely the Dem nominee for '08, it will send a message that the jihadis will find hard to counter.

Fair points lemur with supporting links, but lets not put the cart before the horse.

2 months ago Fred Thompson and Hilary were all but ordained by the media and now where the hell are they?

There is a 5 day window until NH primary, no 4 weeks to retool and get a new message out. And on the flip side the arc of the bump recieved from winning Iowa is shorter too.

Barak might grab NH, but Huckabee looks to be a 3rd place finisher In my view. There are far more center/non religion voting republicans (see Don Corleone) up there.

Barak represents change, but am I the only one who finds his lack of expirence a touch disconcerting? How long has he been in the senate now, a year or two? Once we get past the primaries he has a hard sell, change only takes you so far.

[DukeofSerbia]

I know we're not supposed to care about what the rest of the world thinks, and that to do so is to be a latte-sipping, U.N.-loving elitist ninny, but the fallout from Obama's win is telling. At the risk of enraging our conservative Orgahs, I'll repost some snippets.

South Africa: (http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/charlenesmith/2008/01/04/hope-returns-to-politics-obamas-victory-and-what-it-means-for-global-politics/) "Damn, I love Americans. Just when you’ve written them off as hopeless, as a nation in decline, they turn around and do something extraordinary, which tells you why the United States of America is still the greatest nation on earth."
This is sick (Charlene Smith's blog)! :wall:



Lebanon: (http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=5&article_id=87786) "The very moment [Obama] appears on the world's television screens, victorious and smiling, America's image and soft power would experience something like a Copernican revolution."
Vote Barack Obama, a global candidate for a global age - Much more realistic at least in header. The rest is mostly bs.

[Lemur]

Maybe Republicans can put the first female president in.
I would bet any sum of money that the first female president will be Republican. I could go into the reasons, but I can't do it in a short post, and you can probably work them out for yourself.

Odin, I'm not crowning anyone or proclaiming anyone. I'm just working out some possibilities and their repercussions.

Duke of Serbia, I'll repeat two things that have already been in wide circulation: Lincoln was also a first-term Senator who proved somewhat effective, and nobody had more experience than Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, two men who proved to be 100% wrong about everything involving Iraq.

Attack Obama for being a liberal, and I'll gladly listen in. The experience canard, however, is as nebulous as the "fake" label pinned to poor Mitt Romney.

[Odin]

Odin, I'm not crowning anyone or proclaiming anyone. I'm just working out some possibilities and their repercussions.



I understand, my comments were not directed at you per se rather in general to the conversation, but since I did quote you I understand your reply. :medievalcheers:

[DukeofSerbia]

Duke of Serbia, I'll repeat two things that have already been in wide circulation: Lincoln was also a first-term Senator who proved somewhat effective, and nobody had more experience than Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, two men who proved to be 100% wrong about everything involving Iraq.
I admit I don't understand your point about comparing Lincoln and Rumsfeld & Cheney. :no:

[Lemur]

For anyone who's interested in digging into Obama's legislative record, WaPo has a good piece (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303.html) this morning. Not many places are covering his work in Illinois, so please post any more articles you come across.


Since most of Obama's legislation was enacted in Illinois, most of the evidence is found there -- and it has been largely ignored by the media in a kind of Washington snobbery that assumes state legislatures are not to be taken seriously. (Another factor is reporters' fascination with the horse race at the expense of substance that they assume is boring, a fascination that despite being ridiculed for years continues to dominate political journalism.)

-edit-

Sorry Duke of Serbia, my bad. I was responding to something Odin said, and I mistakenly attributed it to you. Apologies.

[Odin]

Attack Obama for being a liberal, and I'll gladly listen in. The experience canard, however, is as nebulous as the "fake" label pinned to poor Mitt Romney.

Canard meaning a baseless story? Sorry Lemur but Obama does not have a whole lot of expirence at the executive level (not to mention international level).

I'm all eyes though if you have links that might disprove this "canard" but I doubt you'll find much.

[DukeofSerbia]

Canard meaning a baseless story? Sorry Lemur but Obama does not have a whole lot of expirence at the executive level (not to mention international level).

I'm all eyes though if you have links that might disprove this "canard" but I doubt you'll find much.
Don't worry for Obama, he has a plenty of friends in CFR:
http://www.cfr.org/bios/11603/barack_obama.html
http://www.cfr.org/publication/14356/


Democracy Promotion in the Arab World
...
To this end, Obama said as president he would increase foreign aid funding to $50 billion by 2012 and demand reform of corrupt governments...
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

[Lemur]

Final bit of summing up for last night:

Huckabee's victory speech. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05Yj9v90EZE)

Obama's victory speech. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqoFwZUp5vc&)

Odin, you're right of course, Obama does not have executive experience. Neither do Fred Thompson, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Ron Paul or John Edwards. For me it is not a deal-breaker.

His biggest plus, for me, is that he can beat Hillary Clinton. I'm prepared to view him warmly for this, if for nothing else.

Now if only McCain can pull off New Hampshire, and get some momentum in South Carolina ...

-edit-

An amusing moment of honesty (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OWVkYWY0OTIzNWU1YmU3Y2NkNmFjZWNkZTMwOTVjMTU=) from a National Review blogger:


Deep in my psyche, in the place that kind of misses the toothache I've been prodding at with my tongue, I am having a tiny little pang of missing Hillary. Not her, but hating her. Hating Hillary has been such a central political impulse for so long now — 15 years — and I have had to work so hard to keep it up as she became more appealing looking, less shrill, more human — I don't really know what I will do with that newly freed strand of energy.

[Odin]

Final bit of summing up for last night:

Huckabee's victory speech. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05Yj9v90EZE)

Obama's victory speech. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqoFwZUp5vc&)

Odin, you're right of course, Obama does not have executive experience. Neither do Fred Thompson, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Ron Paul or John Edwards. For me it is not a deal-breaker.

His biggest plus, for me, is that he can beat Hillary Clinton. I'm prepared to view him warmly for this, if for nothing else.

Now if only McCain can pull off New Hampshire, and get some momentum in South Carolina ...

Your right Lemur, none of them do, his lack of expirence in general bothers me but your arguments and comparissons to the others is fair.

McCain will do well in NH, and my instincts tell me that a 2nd place finish for Obama in NH wont be a failure because he should carry Carolina.

[Lemur]

Peggy Noonan has a very good opinion piece (http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110011083) in the WSJ today. It's worthy enough that I'm reprinting it in full under the tag.

Out With the Old, In With the New

Obama and Huckabee rise; Mrs. Clinton falls.

Friday, January 4, 2008 12:01 a.m. EST

And so it begins.

We wanted exciting, we got exciting.

As this is written, late on the night of the caucuses, the outlines of the decisions seem clear: Barack Obama won.

Hillary Clinton, the inevitable, the avatar of the machine, lost.

It's huge. Even though people have been talking about this possibility for six weeks now, it's still huge. She had the money, she had the organization, the party's stars, she had Elvis behind her, and the Clinton name in a base that loved Bill. And she lost. There are always a lot of reasons for a loss, but the ur-reason in this case, the thing it all comes down to? There's something about her that makes you look, watch, think, look again, weigh and say: No.

She started out way ahead, met everyone, and lost.

As for Sen. Obama, his victory is similarly huge. He won the five biggest counties in Iowa, from the center of the state to the South Dakota border. He carried the young in a tidal wave. He outpolled Mrs. Clinton among women.

He did it with a classy campaign, an unruffled manner, and an appeal on the stump that said every day, through the lines: Look at who I am and see me, the change that you desire is right here, move on with me and we will bring it forward together.

He had a harder row to hoe than Mrs. Clinton did. He was lesser known, too young, lacked an establishment. He had to knock her down while building himself up. (She only had to build herself up until the end, when she went after his grade-school essays.) His takedown of Mrs. Clinton was the softest demolition in the history of falling buildings. I think we were there when it happened, in the debate in which he was questioned on why so many of Bill Clinton's aides were advising him. She laughed, and he said he was looking forward to her advising him, too. He took mama to school.

And so something new begins on the Democratic side.

Something new begins on the Republican side, too.

Everyone said Mike Huckabee was a big dope to leave Iowa Wednesday to fly to L.A. to be on Jay Leno, but did you see him on that thing? He got off a perfect line on why he's doing well against Romney: "People are looking for a presidential candidate who reminds them more of the guy they work with rather than the guy that laid them off." The studio audience loved him. And you know, in Iowa they watch "The Tonight Show" too.

Mr. Huckabee likes to head-fake people into thinking he's Gomer Pyle, but he's more like the barefoot boy of the green room. He's more James Carville than Jim Nabors.

What we have learned about Mr. Huckabee the past few months is that he's an ace entertainer with a warm, witty and compelling persona. He won with no money and little formal organization, with an evangelical network, with a folksy manner, and with the best guileless pose in modern politics. From the mail I have received the past month after criticizing him in this space, I would say his great power, the thing really pushing his supporters, is that they believe that what ails America and threatens its continued existence is not economic collapse or jihad, it is our culture.

They have been bruised and offended by the rigid, almost militant secularism and multiculturalism of the public schools; they reject those schools' squalor, in all senses of the word. They believe in God and family and America. They are populist: They don't admire billionaire CEOs, they admire husbands with two jobs who hold the family together for the sake of the kids; they don't need to see the triumph of supply-side thinking, they want to see that suffering woman down the street get the help she needs.

They believe that Mr. Huckabee, the minister who speaks their language, shares, down to the bone, their anxieties, concerns and beliefs. They fear that the other Republican candidates are caught up in a million smaller issues--taxing, spending, the global economy, Sunnis and Shia--and missing the central issue: again, our culture. They are populists who vote Republican, and as I have read their letters, I have felt nothing but respect.

But there are two problems. One is that while the presidency, as an office, can actually make real changes in the areas of economic and foreign policy, the federal government has a limited ability to change the culture of America. That is something conservatives used to know. Second, I'm sorry to say it is my sense that Mr. Huckabee is not so much leading a movement as riding a wave. One senses he brilliantly discerned and pursued an underserved part of the voting demographic, and went for it. Clever fellow. To me, the tipoff was "Don't Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?"

My sense is that Mr. Huckabee's good supporters deserve a better leader.

His next problem may be not so much New Hampshire as Ed Rollins, the Reagan White House political aide who came in a week ago to manage his campaign. Mr. Rollins began his tenure announcing to respectful young reporters that he--"the grizzled veteran," the "old battler"--would like to sink to his knees and "shoot Romney in the groin" and "punch his teeth out." Such class is of course always welcome on the trail, but one senses the verbal ante will constantly be upped, and I'm not sure that will work well for Mr. Huckabee. Self inflated dirigibles, especially unmoored ones, can cast shadows on parades.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I would bet any sum of money that the first female president will be Republican. I could go into the reasons, but I can't do it in a short post, and you can probably work them out for yourself.What!? Are you denying that Hillary will be the next president? Or are you denying Hillary's womanhood?

[Marshal Murat]

I'm agreeing with Lemur. (I'm shocked too)

Obama has done what was impossible not thirty years ago. For me, he's what I guess JFK was for others. I can tell you now that Obama has my vote, always have, and probably always will.
It shows not only America, but the world, that democracy isn't some black corrupt system. It shows that the rich will not always win, the corrupt not always remain. Change can happen in America, we aren't just a bunch of rich, bigoted, and imperialistic warmongers. It shows that democracy means a better life and a chance to change the corrupt out for the system.
Experience is a non-issue for me. Andrew Jackson had little experience in politics, but was elected and made great changes in America. Pitt the Younger was the youngest Prime Minister who reformed and defined the Prime Minister position and who helped the UK with the American War debt.

I seriously wish I was Obama's speech writer.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I love how people are characterizing presidential candidates as "not the rich". Huckabee has his own personal campaign jet. What is rich again? I don't think it is purely about liquid assets in your own name.

[Lemur]

More importantly, now that Obama has been endorsed by the Pirate Party (http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-party-endorses-obama-080103/) and Tiger Beat (http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/barack_obama_tiger_beat), I think he's a lock for the Dem nomination.


https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/Barack-Obama_0.jpg

Barack Obama Tiger Beat Cover Clinches Slumber Party Vote

June 19, 2007 | Issue 43•25

WASHINGTON, DC—According to a poll released Monday by Teen Zogby!, both Barack Obama's approval and dreaminess ratings among slumber party–attending tweens have risen to 82 percent following last week's publication of the Tiger Beat cover pictorial "Hangin' With Barack!"

"Barack is sooooo hot!" said 12-year-old Tiger Beat subscriber Beth Majors upon reading the issue, which included a "supercute" poster of Obama leaning against the Lincoln Memorial and an interview in which he revealed that his most inspirational hero is "you." "He so totally has my support. Obama in '08!"

Obama is expected to remain a solid favorite with the giggling-and-talking-until-4 a.m. voting bloc, as hunky war hero John McCain, his closest contender, is widely considered by the slumber party demographic to be a gross dork.

[Strike For The South]

Im going to go down to the polls and shoot myself:no:

[AntiochusIII]

More importantly, now that Obama has been endorsed by the Pirate Party (http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-party-endorses-obama-080103/) and Tiger Beat (http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/barack_obama_tiger_beat), I think he's a lock for the Dem nomination.
[CENTER]The Onion has never failed me. Now I know who my sister will vote for. :laugh4:

I think I noticed a little jab at Times' recent choice of "Person of the Year" with that little snippet about how his hero is "you." Clever.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

My dig on Obama is his lack of gravitas.

He is intelligent, charming, physically reflects the melting pot (ethnic stew) that is the USA, and he's running a relatively high-minded campaign. Nothing wrong with that.

I would probably oppose him because he represents an ideology with which I disagree. I cannot however, bring myself to loathe him or fear him. I think his prescription is wrong, but I don't think he is so concerned with power that nothing else matters, and that is a real plus. He would be political opposition, but not an enemy.

I just want a man with more experience of power before he steps into the office (actually, this is one of the things I liked least about W too). He's an experienced state legislator and rookie senator with a charming book on the best seller lists.

The last time we elected someone with those credentials, the fellow took more than a year and a half of OJT to get up to speed and convinced the opposition that we were ripe for the picking -- and we damn near ended up in a nuclear conflict. We'd have "won" that war, but yuck all around. Once up to speed, JFK actually did some good work to defuse Cuba and had started to push well on some important issues. We'd have had a darn good president by term two had it not been for Oswald.

Obama is that smart and that charming too -- but I'd rather he did a couple of terms as governor or Sec State first and skip the OJT requirement as much as possible.

[AntiochusIII]

Obama is that smart and that charming too -- but I'd rather he did a couple of terms as governor or Sec State first and skip the OJT requirement as much as possible.On the other hand, Seamus, leave the man alone in that den of wolves long enough and he'll turn out as corrupted as the rest of the lot. Inexperience may be a problem, but surely too much experience is far more serious of a crime?

Besides, JFK, for all his early shortcomings, was a far better President than many of the highly experienced guys who get to own the West Wing were. Experience isn't everything -- as long as Obama doesn't disregard advice from the guys who know their stuff.

As President leadership is a far higher benefit than experience, IMO. No President has ever been an expert on everything, and all have to rely on their subordinates to get the job done. May be one of Obama's charms is precisely his (relative) lack of baggage and by letting him rot on the sidelines for the next four or eight years it will ruin that point?

[Lemur]

My dig on Obama is his lack of gravitas.
What about his lack of thanatos? Gravitas is in the eye of the beholder, by definition. Newscasters are supposedly promoted based on how much gravitas they can project at an audience. I'd say Obama has at least as much as Brian Williams, and rather more than Hillary Clinton. But really, if you're going to diss a man for a numinous quality, how can we possibly discuss it intelligently?

Obama is that smart and that charming too -- but I'd rather he did a couple of terms as governor or Sec State first and skip the OJT requirement as much as possible.
Shall we apply the same job pre-requirements to Fred Thompson and John McCain?

[Xiahou]

Disagree. On the Dem side, would you have preferred to see Clinton win? No, wait, don't answer that, you probably would have, if only for the unrestrained joy you could take in slamming her.Well, all 3 Democrat candidates pretty much base their platforms on nebulous "change", but what's left are mostly the standard liberal big-government domestic policies that I'll always oppose. I don't see any significant differences between any of the top three in that regard. Of the top three, I think Edwards is far and away the biggest shyster. Obama is largely an unknown. He has a reliably liberal voting record, no foreign policy experience. Clinton also has a solidly liberal domestic policy background. But, she also has a reputation as a shewd, clever campaigner and is, imo, much more sensible and moderate than Obama in foreign policy.

I expect to be "slamming" their policies whoever the Democrat nominee is- when and if they ever make policy statements.... But of the three, I'd trust a Hillary more not to screw up in the snake pit that is international relations. :shrug:


On the Republican side I can see your point, but I still disagree. Huckabee's win means that McCain becomes a viable choice. If the Repub establishment wants to put Huckabee down, they're going to have to get behind a different horse. This is a good thing.So, Romney's the "establishment" choice in your view?

edit:

Shall we apply the same job pre-requirements to Fred Thompson and John McCain?You seem to think they don't, but both Thompson and McCain have far more foreign relations and executive branch experience than Obama.

[Lemur]

I expect to be "slamming" their policies whoever the Democrat nominee is- when and if they ever make policy statements.... But of the three, I'd trust a Hillary more not to screw up in the snake pit that is international relations.
Then we will have to agree to disagree. Hillary, for me, is a non-starter, for reasons I have enumerated many times.


So, Romney's the "establishment" choice in your view?
Romney would have been far more acceptable to Republican leadership and Republican talking heads than Huckabee. Face it, the Huckster's win was a very serious poke in the eye to the RNC, Rush Limbaugh, National Review, etc.


You seem to think they don't, but both Thompson and McCain have far more foreign relations and executive branch experience than Obama.
And you are conflating foreign relations and executive branch as a single item when it suits your argument. Foreign relations I concede gladly.

"Executive branch experience"? Excuse me? Thompson did some time as a mole for Nixon (http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/10/nixon-on-thomps.html), who declared him to be a complete idiot. That's it. McCain, whom I support, has never served in the executive branch. Your Google-fu is strong, so please feel free to correct me if I'm uninformed.

I just find it interesting that here we are, looking over a bunch of candidates, many of whom come from the legislative world, but only one is singled out for not having executive experience. I don't hear anyone harping on Edwards or Ron Paul for this, nor do I hear anyone carping on Thompson for never having served as a Governor, Mayor or SecDef.

[PanzerJaeger]

I just find it interesting that here we are, looking over a bunch of candidates, many of whom come from the legislative world, but only one is singled out for not having executive experience. I don't hear anyone harping on Edwards or Ron Paul for this, nor do I hear anyone carping on Thompson for never having served as a Governor, Mayor or SecDef.


None of the aforementioned are strong contenders, at least among the talking heads.

[Xiahou]

"Executive branch experience"? Excuse me? Thompson did some time as a mole for Nixon (http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/10/nixon-on-thomps.html), who declared him to be a complete idiot. That's it. McCain, whom I support, has never served in the executive branch. Your Google-fu is strong, so please feel free to correct me if I'm uninformed.
You don't need to go any further than Wikipedia- although I'm sure you could find more.


In 1973, Thompson was appointed minority counsel for the Senate Watergate Committee, a special committee convened by the U.S. Senate to investigate the Watergate scandal.[17] Thompson is sometimes credited for supplying Republican Senator Howard Baker's famous question, "What did the President know, and when did he know it?"[18] This question is said to have helped frame the hearings in a way that eventually led to the downfall of President Richard Nixon.[19] The Senator, who had brought Thompson in as his chief counsel, remarked "I had high regard for him as a lawyer and as a friend."

In 1977, Thompson represented Marie Ragghianti, a former Tennessee Parole Board chair, who had been fired for refusing to release felons after they had bribed aides to Democratic Governor Ray Blanton in order to obtain clemency.[24] With Thompson's assistance, Ragghianti filed a wrongful termination suit against Blanton's office. During the trial, Thompson helped to expose the cash-for-clemency scheme that eventually led to Blanton's removal from the Governor's office.[15] In July 1978, a jury awarded Ragghianti $38,000 in back pay and ordered her reinstatement.

In 1996, Thompson was a member of the Committee on Governmental Affairs when the committee investigated the alleged Chinese attempts to influence American politics. Thompson says he was "largely stymied" during these investigations by witnesses declining to testify; claiming the right not to incriminate themselves or by simply leaving the country.[40] Thompson explained, "Our work was affected tremendously by the fact that Congress is a much more partisan institution than it used to be."[41]

Thompson became committee chairman in 1997 but was reduced to ranking minority member when the Democrats took control of the Senate in 2001. [42] Thompson served on the Finance Committee (dealing with health care, trade, Social Security, and taxation) the Intelligence Committee, and the National Security Working Group

After the retirement of Supreme Court Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in 2005, Bush appointed him to an informal position to help guide the nomination of John Roberts through the United States Senate confirmation process.[57] Roberts was subsequently confirmed as Chief Justice.

Until July 2007, Thompson was Chair of the International Security Advisory Board, a bipartisan advisory panel that reports to the Secretary of State and focuses on emerging strategic threats.[58] In that capacity, he advised the State Department about all aspects of arms control, disarmament, international security, and related aspects of public diplomacy.Maybe you don't think that's anymore experience than Obama- but I think many others would disagree. I could do the same thing for McCain, but I think you can look it up just as easily. What's Obama done?

[Lemur]

To gently steer the argument back to your original point of contention, nothing you listed involves serving as an executive. Anybody who ran the Department of Education for a week could justifiably claim to have more executive experience. Also, nothing you list pertains to foreign policy.

Your argument, and it's a popular one, is that Obama doesn't have executive branch experience. My counter-argument is that many other candidates are in the same boat, and yet they receive no such criticism. I'm not seeing anything that addresses this.

[Xiahou]

To gently steer the argument back to your original point of contention, nothing you listed involves serving as an executive. Anybody who ran the Department of Education for a week could justifiably claim to have more executive experience. Also, nothing you list pertains to foreign policy.

Your argument, and it's a popular one, is that Obama doesn't have executive branch experience. My counter-argument is that many other candidates are in the same boat, and yet they receive no such criticism. I'm not seeing anything that addresses this.
You must not have read what I posted. First I'll respond in general- all the resume fodder I listed shows much more experience working in and with the federal government than Obama has.

In specific- re: Nothing relating to foreign policy....You have the investigation into Chinese political influence while on the Governmental Affairs committee and time on the Intelligence Committee and even the Finance Committee (dealing with trade).

Re: Executive experience...
Until July 2007, Thompson was Chair of the International Security Advisory Board, a bipartisan advisory panel that reports to the Secretary of State and focuses on emerging strategic threats.

Almost everything listed involves interaction with the executive and with the duties of the federal government. Naturally you'll counter "That's not experience as an executive!!". You can call it whatever you want, but you're just parsing. Do you really think that none of what I've listed would be beneficial experience to someone who would be taking the reigns of the federal bureaucracy and the face of our foreign policy? Trying to counter that none of them have been president or governor misses the point imo. The lack of experience charge is a valid one- Obama does lack experience. People can decide how important that is, but that doesn't make it untrue.

[Lemur]

Well then, tell me why I should also dislike McCain. Gimme the arguments if you're in the mood.

[Don Corleone]

I think what your complaint is one of misperception, Lemur. You're right that nobody is taking time to complain about the others, because there's labels already hung on them that much more rejective (is that a word)?

Edwards (greasy ambulance chaser that would put the White House up for sale to the highest bidder)

Paul (a crackpot and a loon that lacks a rudimentary understanding of macroeconomics)

Biden (has run so many times it's almost a requirement he throw his hat in. He's just there to make the primaries dignified. He's not a real candidate, and true to form, dropped out after the first primary).

Thompson (laaaaaazzzzzzzyyyyy, and doesn't seem to be particularly interested in the election at all).

So yes, their lack of executive experience could be mentioned as well. But isn't that like telling somebody that they're incompetent and don't deserve their job. And their part is crooked. :shrug:

I think this country could do worse than Obama. A lot worse. I fundamentally disagree with him on major issues of policy, but I do believe that he believes in what he's saying. That carries a LOT of weight with me. But my complaint about his lack of experience isn't just experience in the executive office. Other than giving a rousing speech at the Democratic convention in 2004, name one major accomplishment worthy of note that he's had....

[Don Corleone]

And finally, let me conclude with the statement that "There IS hope for the Democratic Party". It's been a year of campaigning now, and I haven't once heard anyone mention that most aggravating of terms "electable".

[Lemur]

Don, thank you, finally an answer that makes political sense. Muchas gracias.

[seireikhaan]

Well, he may have had an influence on voter turnout to the Iowa caucus', in a very positive manner, at least for dems. For example, in my precinct, for Dems, roughly 280 people showed up to caucus, in comparison to 2004, when a mere 130 people showed up. Edwards was already there in '04, and I just can't imagine Hillary was the difference(considering she got 3rd).

[Xiahou]

Well, he may have had an influence on voter turnout to the Iowa caucus', in a very positive manner, at least for dems. For example, in my precinct, for Dems, roughly 280 people showed up to caucus, in comparison to 2004, when a mere 130 people showed up. Edwards was already there in '04, and I just can't imagine Hillary was the difference(considering she got 3rd).I think the Obama turnout is one of the most interesting things to come out of Iowa. I'm curious to see if it continues in the primaries and then whether it carries over into a general election- traditionally the youth vote has been a no show in elections, we'll have to see if he is able to generate enough enthusiasm to change this.


Well then, tell me why I should also dislike McCain. Gimme the arguments if you're in the mood.Well, I've already talked about my problems with McCain, I largely agree with the Club For Growth's assessment (http://clubforgrowth.com/2007/03/arizona_senator_john_mccains_t.php) of him, with McCain-Feingold being something that really sticks in my craw,as well as his "we know better than you" approach to immigration reform. I also find his apparent temper problems disconcerting- it seems to sometimes get the best of him and make him act childishly. Even still, when Thompson more than likely drops out, McCain will likely be my silver medal. I wanted to like Romney, but he's just too phony and strikes me as dishonest.

Edit: One big plus for McCain is that he actually had the guts to criticize ethanol in Iowa of all places. You've got to appreciate his honesty and consistency in that.

[Tribesman]

I largely agree with the Club For Growth's assessment of him
Their assessment ????come off it Xiahou their earlier assessments are that putting Bush junior into office would be like having Reagan serve a third term:dizzy2:

[ICantSpellDawg]

I think the Obama turnout is one of the most interesting things to come out of Iowa. I'm curious to see if it continues in the primaries and then whether it carries over into a general election- traditionally the youth vote has been a no show in elections, we'll have to see if he is able to generate enough enthusiasm to change this.

Well, I've already talked about my problems with McCain, I largely agree with the Club For Growth's assessment (http://clubforgrowth.com/2007/03/arizona_senator_john_mccains_t.php) of him, with McCain-Feingold being something that really sticks in my craw,as well as his "we know better than you" approach to immigration reform. I also find his apparent temper problems disconcerting- it seems to sometimes get the best of him and make him act childishly. Even still, when Thompson more than likely drops out, McCain will likely be my silver medal. I wanted to like Romney, but he's just too phony and strikes me as dishonest.

Edit: One big plus for McCain is that he actually had the guts to criticize ethanol in Iowa of all places. You've got to appreciate his honesty and consistency in that.

Romney is not phony. I just don't get that sentiment.

Do you not like his all-american 50's/60's personality? He grew up in the 50's and early 60's! He was 3 years old when the Korean war began. I think it is endearing.

He is THE center right candidate. Giuliani is the center candidate. In Iowa,Romney played up how conservative he is to get votes, but Huckabee was way more "conservative" and took the cake. I think it has always been clear where he stood in office and even in the race for office. I wish that you liked him more. I am all about the guy and I'm so afraid that he will be out after South Carolina if more people don't wake up to the fact that he is the best thing we've had in a very long time.

You are right though about the perception that people have about him as phony. I don't like his commercials - they are too well produced and seem fake. Luckily, I have seen his "Ask Mitt" segments and speeches. I think his approach to politics is solid and optimistic.

Personally, I don't like or trust McCain in an executive position. He has run before and is a proven dud. The guy lost the nomination to the most unpopular president in modern U.S. history. McCain is a dud and his nomination will be another testament to how out of touch the GOP has become.

The best thing that can happen to the U.S. when Romney is out is the election of Obama. There are no other viable options that I can look forward to in this race.

***He won the Wyoming Caucuses. I hope people notice this. Here's the link (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8TVVMKG0&show_article=1)

[Kralizec]

Well, to be fair McCain lost to Bush when it wasn´t yet obvious that he´d be an awful president.

(Admittedly, I voted for Giuliani in the last thread. He seemed, and still does, sensibly enough on the economic and fiscal level, and an effective executive too. I had heard of his autocratic tendencies before, but looking into his history made my doubts grow instead of diminish)

I like McCain. I´m a foreigner and I don´t follow American politics as closely as politics in my own country, but what I´ve seen of him is consistent and hard to disagree with. I´ve always felt that the 2000 nomination (and by extension, presidency) was stolen from him, not in the least because of the disgusting rumours spread about his adopted daughter by the Bush campaign back then.

Romney isn´t bad. Too many "soundbite" statements, a lot more pragmatic than he´s trying to appear right now, but a good choice overall.

[CountArach]

Romney will win Wyoming Caucus (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/05/wyoming.republicans/index.html)


With 91 percent of precincts reporting, Romney has won eight of Wyoming's 12 delegates.

Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson has won two, and California Rep. Duncan Hunter has won one.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

But my complaint about his lack of experience isn't just experience in the executive office. Other than giving a rousing speech at the Democratic convention in 2004, name one major accomplishment worthy of note that he's had....

Well, he is a senator, and I'm not as well versed on the American system as some others, but doesn't being a senator give a fair share of experience?

[Banquo's Ghost]

Well, he is a senator, and I'm not as well versed on the American system as some others, but doesn't being a senator give a fair share of experience?

It gives experience of the legislative kind - in the crafting and making of laws. The presidency however, is an executive office - ie making decisions and implementing them. A candidate who has been a State Governor has experience in executive office, albeit at a lower level (for example, much less foreign policy but quite similar fiscal implementation).

I believe that those who are concerned at Senator Obama's lack of experience would highlight that he has some of the former, but none of the latter type.

[seireikhaan]

Hence why, if Obama does get the nomination, I would very much like to see him get Richardson for the nomination.

[Lemur]

I've been reading far-right and far-left blogs today, taking an indecent joy in how upset they all are. The far-lefties, in particular, are deeply unhappy with Obama. I've never been a Kos reader, but I couldn't resist glancing over to see how they're taking the rise of a candidate who doesn't suck up to them.


I like my Democrats a bit more hard-edged, at least at this moment in time. I never got over the stolen election of 2000 and I don't think I ever will. I was hoping for someone, as a candidate, who conveyed that they understood why that matters. It's about understanding that the other side is screwing you (and the Rule of Law, and therefore the country) as a matter of policy. People understood that about Nixon, and they need to understand it about Bush (especially the press) and the current crop of Republicans and conservatives that enable him. Bush is their legacy, just as much as Iraq and Katrina are Bush's.

They're really, truly worried that the new frontrunner won't be divisive, vindictive and punish those evil Republicans. How dare a candidate talk about reconciliation and forming a working majority? Doesn't he know it's all about tit for tat? Some must stop this negro phenomenon ...

Meanwhile, on the far-right, there's lots and lots of McCain bashing, since it's now obvious that he's a player. I love the fact that my #1 and #2 are despised by the extremists. Surely that speaks to their value.

[KukriKhan]

Yeah, kinda funny. Our own Banquo's Ghost suggested some kind of unholy union that would permit a McCain-Obama administration; I've actually heard talking heads (briefly) bring up the same possibility 3 times since last night's debates.

They pause, shake their heads at the "silliness" of the very thought, and resume their sermon. But apparently, a seed has been planted. Bravo BG!

On the NH debates on ABC: I must say they were much more informative than the ones I've watched on the other channels. I fully expected CNN's W. Blitzer to turn to Vanna White and ask her to spin the Wheel of Fortune to select the next question. ABC's Charlie was thoughtful, fair to the speakers, and pretty inclusive.

New for the Dems: Edwards has apparently decided to be a man "on fire", passionately attacking corporate fatcats. Clinton said it was wrong to raise false hopes for Americans - I couldn't believe her opponents let that slide without comment.

The Repubs: Romney is apparently everybody's punching bag - he took hits from everybody, even Thompson. Huckabee worked the crowd with his "ditch IRS - sales tax only" proposal (and stole a little of R.Paul's libertarian wind with it).

I'm not real happy that the networks are not including all the candidates listed on the states' ballots. ABC squezzed out Kucinich, and now Fox is tossing Paul. That sounds wrong, and may be illegal.

[Marshal Murat]

Not necessary illegal, they're hosting the show so they make the rules. I believe, however, that the GOP is withdrawing it's support of the Fox debate.

[KukriKhan]

Not necessary illegal, they're hosting the show so they make the rules.

I think you're right about the cable networks, but the guys who broadcast on "the people's airwaves" are bound by more stringent rules - or so I thought was the case after laws enacted in the 70's.