Iowa Caucus and NH Primary Thread

[BallHawk]

Predictions?

[BallHawk]

1. Obama- high 30s
2. Clinton- low 30s
3. Edwards- mid 20s

[LL2]

Can anyone explain why the political process starts in Iowa? What's so important about that flat land of cornfields?

[Harlan Huckleby]

What's so important about that flat land of cornfields?

Without cornfields we wouldn't have corn. without corn we wouldn't have corn syrup. without corn syrup we wouldn't have cheap sweetner. without cheap sweetner we wouldn't have a lucious array of junk food at the convienence store.

think about the next time you are paying for gas and eyeing the goodies.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I predict that Obama, Clinton and Edwards are going to be bunched together so closely that the Iowa primary will have zero impact. It really doesn't matter who has a half percent more than the other two.

Similar deal with the Republicans: Romney and Huckabee both get a boost by finishing at top. McCain finishes third. But it isn't a great victory for Romney, he has been shown to be a bit vulnerable after spending a king's ransom in Iowa.

Iowa is just not going to matter much.

[GrnBay007]

Can anyone explain why the political process starts in Iowa? What's so important about that flat land of cornfields?

:shock:

[MJZiggy]

What's so important about that flat land of cornfields?

Without cornfields we wouldn't have corn. without corn we wouldn't have corn syrup. without corn syrup we wouldn't have cheap sweetner. without cheap sweetner we wouldn't have a lucious array of junk food at the convienence store.

think about the next time you are paying for gas and eyeing the goodies.

This is why I pay at the pump...

[LL2]

What's so important about that flat land of cornfields?

Without cornfields we wouldn't have corn. without corn we wouldn't have corn syrup. without corn syrup we wouldn't have cheap sweetner. without cheap sweetner we wouldn't have a lucious array of junk food at the convienence store.

think about the next time you are paying for gas and eyeing the goodies.

Actually the reason why corn syrup is used is due to the duty rate on imported sugar. If you ever tried pop in another country you probably noticed it taste different than it does in the U.S. It's because they use regular sugar. The import duty rate in effect is a subsidy to the corn growers. You see higher duty rates on other products to protect certain industries, and other countries do the same.

[BallHawk]

Can anyone explain why the political process starts in Iowa? What's so important about that flat land of cornfields?

:shock:

007, are you getting out and voting tonight?

[Joemailman]

Can anyone explain why the political process starts in Iowa? What's so important about that flat land of cornfields?

:shock:

It starts in Iowa because 007 says it starts in Iowa. You gotta problem with that? :smack:

[GrnBay007]

Can anyone explain why the political process starts in Iowa? What's so important about that flat land of cornfields?

:shock:

007, are you getting out and voting tonight?

There and back. :D

[GrnBay007]

Can anyone explain why the political process starts in Iowa? What's so important about that flat land of cornfields?

:shock:

It starts in Iowa because 007 says it starts in Iowa. You gotta problem with that? :smack:

Smart, smart man!! :wink: :P

[GrnBay007]

Obama and Huckabee win.

[Bretsky]

Can anyone explain why the political process starts in Iowa? What's so important about that flat land of cornfields?

Maybe because there is such little to do there most of them will take the time to show up :?: :lol:

[Freak Out]

Obama and Huckabee win.

You serious?

[GrnBay007]

Obama and Huckabee win.

You serious?


DES MOINES, Iowa (Jan. 3) - Sen. Barack Obama, bidding to become the nation's first black president, swept to victory in the Iowa caucuses Thursday night over Hillary Cllinton and a high-powered Democratic field. Mike Huckabee rode a wave of support from evangelical Christians to win the opening round among Republicans in the 2008 campaign for the White House.


http://news.aol.com/elections/story/_a/obama-and-huckabee-win-in-iowa/20080103070309990001

[Deputy Nutz]

If I have to vote Democrat in 2008 I am really going to be pissed. What the hell happened to Ron Paul? I gave the guy like six bucks.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Historically, these Iowa caucuses are pretty meaningless.

[Merlin]

If I have to vote Democrat in 2008 I am really going to be pissed. What the hell happened to Ron Paul? I gave the guy like six bucks.

Ron Paul? WOW...

[Merlin]

Historically, these Iowa caucuses are pretty meaningless.

Sometimes. The field is so big that it may weed down a few candidates. I am sure Hillary is busy trying to figure out where she went wrong. Obama had Oprah campaign for him. Rumor has it when she shows up 30,000 people on average some to see her and Obama where candidates usually average in the low 1000's when they appear.

We need a major push towards conservatism in this country and sorry to say, there is maybe 1 or 2 in the whole bunch. We certainly don't need more taxes, more social programs, and we sure as hell don't need socialized medicine. All of Wisconsin's new taxes went into effect January 1. All of a sudden my grocery bill went up $30 from what it normally is. Higher taxes = higher priced goods = kill the economy = reliance on the government.

[MJZiggy]

Wisconsin's taxes went up? I thought you guys had a republican house and state congress?

[Merlin]

Nope we sure don't. Democratic Govenor, Democratic Senate, Republican House.

The Dems wanted 18-20 billion in new spending and the Reps wanted no new taxes at all and a modest increase in existing taxes. We got a compromise and people aren't happy about it. The Reps wanted to pass bills separately but the Governor said he would veto them because they had to pass the budget as a whole. So instead of doing the logical thing of passing the agreed upon parts, our state budget was passed 3+ months late.

My favorite Jim Doyle Quote (something along these lines): "Illinois and Minnesota are ahead of is with their bans (smoking bans), it's time for Wisconsin to get in line."

That pretty much sums him up. Anything to take away from the people and give the state more control. That's Doyle.

[Freak Out]

Nope we sure don't. Democratic Govenor, Democratic Senate, Republican House.

The Dems wanted 18-20 billion in new spending and the Reps wanted no new taxes at all and a modest increase in existing taxes. We got a compromise and people aren't happy about it. The Reps wanted to pass bills separately but the Governor said he would veto them because they had to pass the budget as a whole. So instead of doing the logical thing of passing the agreed upon parts, our state budget was passed 3+ months late.

My favorite Jim Doyle Quote (something along these lines): "Illinois and Minnesota are ahead of is with their bans (smoking bans), it's time for Wisconsin to get in line."

That pretty much sums him up. Anything to take away from the people and give the state more control. That's Doyle.

Take heart Merlin...Wisconsin is still behind the French when it comes to the smoking ban.

[MJZiggy]

Nope we sure don't. Democratic Govenor, Democratic Senate, Republican House.

The Dems wanted 18-20 billion in new spending and the Reps wanted no new taxes at all and a modest increase in existing taxes. We got a compromise and people aren't happy about it. The Reps wanted to pass bills separately but the Governor said he would veto them because they had to pass the budget as a whole. So instead of doing the logical thing of passing the agreed upon parts, our state budget was passed 3+ months late.

My favorite Jim Doyle Quote (something along these lines): "Illinois and Minnesota are ahead of is with their bans (smoking bans), it's time for Wisconsin to get in line."

That pretty much sums him up. Anything to take away from the people and give the state more control. That's Doyle.

You should move.

[the_idle_threat]

That's kinda like saying we should switch to being Bears or Vikings fans if we don't like the current GM. :!:

The biggest problem IMO is Wisconsin's ridiculous line-item veto. It effectively makes the Governor the chief legislator as well as the chief executive, given that he can change entire bills unilaterally by selectively deleting words, sentences and paragraphs. Imagine a bill where the parties fought hard to arrive at a compromise, and the governor destroys that compromise by simply deleting the word "not" in a few places and signing the bill.

I absolutely loathe Jim Doyle as governor (kind of makes me understand how all you anti-Bushies feel), but I would feel the same way about this regardless of who is the governor. It's a law that hijacks the democratic process in this state.

:soap:

OK I'm done now. :mrgreen:

[Harlan Huckleby]

Historically, these Iowa caucuses are pretty meaningless.

I would say the caucus this year are fairly meaningless. The most important result is that Romney has been prevented from steam-rolling with a string of early victories. McCain is a winner. Huckabee & Obama get nice bumps, but Romney & Clinton are still the ones to beat.

[LL2]

Saying President Huckabee sounds odd, but I think I would vote for him over Clinton and Obama.

[hoosier]

The biggest problem IMO is Wisconsin's ridiculous line-item veto. It effectively makes the Governor the chief legislator as well as the chief executive, given that he can change entire bills unilaterally by selectively deleting words, sentences and paragraphs. Imagine a bill where the parties fought hard to arrive at a compromise, and the governor destroys that compromise by simply deleting the word "not" in a few places and signing the bill.

I absolutely loathe Jim Doyle as governor (kind of makes me understand how all you anti-Bushies feel), but I would feel the same way about this regardless of who is the governor. It's a law that hijacks the democratic process in this state.

Guess who put the line item veto in to begin with? Hint: wasn't a Dem.

[The Leaper]

Clinton is probably toast. She can't possibly hope to increase her support, because of her massive negative polling numbers. Supporters of Obama and Edwards have already made a decision about Clinton...I doubt many Edwards supporters will flock to Hillary when Edwards eventually bows out.

The GOP nomination is ridiculously up for grabs. I'm not sure anyone is going to win it outright before the convention. Giuliani is weak because like Clinton, I don't see him adding much support going forward...unless Romney or McCain bow out early and throw their support behind him.

The key for the GOP will be the timing of when lesser candidates bow out, and who those candidates throw their support behind. Huckabee and McCain could stand to gain a lot from Thompson bowing out...and he is likely the first GOP major candidate who would do so. I can't see Thompson's people moving over to Giuliani or Romney.

[Deputy Nutz]

This election will be interesting on both sides considering Rudy hasn't even started yet. Rudy is running a national campaign and will hands down take the East Coast in the Primaries, same with Clinton. Obama is strongly backed by the entertainment industry and if he is Oprah endorsed he gets a heck of a push. At this point he is squeeky clean, and is still the most unknown canidate.

I think Obama could actually get the most done as president in comparison to Clinton. Republicans won't budge an inch with Clinton even though she is probably the most conservative out of the two.

Ronny Paul got 10% of the vote, not bad since his party is black balling him.

[Freak Out]

To early to tell with Clinton/Obama...hell the mud hasn't even really started flying yet and I think they both still have tons of money. Who the hell knows on the right..does Huckabee have much cash?

[GrnBay007]

My son and I went to the grocery store late one night this past week for dog food. There was a huge coach bus in the parking lot with Huckabee's picture/name all over it and several people standing outside of it. The woman at the cash register asked my son if he saw Chuck Norris in the store. I haven't followed much about Huckabee. Apparently Norris is supporting him...didn't know that until after that incident and then looked it up.

[Deputy Nutz]

I will not support a candidate so heavily favored by the religious right.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Clinton is probably toast. She can't possibly hope to increase her support, because of her massive negative polling numbers. Supporters of Obama and Edwards have already made a decision about Clinton...I doubt many Edwards supporters will flock to Hillary when Edwards eventually bows out.

Iowa might be the most unfavorable state for Clinton in the whole country. you do make a good point that Edwards supporters are more drawn to Obama. GEt ready for a long battle, this is far from over, Clinton has strong support among older voters, blacks, women.

Barrack Obama pains me. I really like him personally, his positions are generally OK with me. But he is just too immature, he hasn't had enough life experience. Obama is on the Senate Foreign Relations committee, their hearings are streamed on the internet, and I often watch them. Obama is a lightweight. The questions that he asks are pretty shallow. He simply doesn't have the wisdom and experience of the more senior members on the Foreign Relations committee - it's obvious. He has not developed good judgement yet.

Obama is a very sharp and charismatic guy. Certainly if the country survived George Bush, they can survive Obama. It just pains me to think that several more serious people are being left behind, Dodd, Clinton, Biden and Richardson would all be much better presidents, they are ready.

If Obama gets the presidency, he will learn and grow. But he is going to make errors in judgement, especially in his first few years. Over 8 years, perhaps he can be good for the country. I'll certainly vote for him over any republican, since I see the presidential election as a vote for 10,000 people of party A or party B.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I will not support a candidate so heavily favored by the religious right.

ahhh, don't let that put you off. Huckabee is a Baptist Minister, so of course the religious right will support him. But that doesn't mean Huckabee owes them any favors. He seems like an independent man of principle.

I see in Huckabee a man with compassion and balance, he is one of the least fanatical politicians to come along in years. Speaking as a freedom-from-religion heathen, I think Huckabee embodies the good qualities of Christianity.

[The Leaper]

GEt ready for a long battle, this is far from over, Clinton has strong support among older voters, blacks, women.

The problem is that the blacks and women aren't likely to vote for her if Obama continues to gain momentum. She was THIRD PLACE among women in Iowa! Clinton just has too many people who despise her...not just Republicans, but those in her own party. She's a bitch...people don't want a bitch as president.


Barrack Obama pains me. I really like him personally, his positions are generally OK with me. But he is just too immature, he hasn't had enough life experience.

You are probably right. However, a president can lean heavily on those he puts around him. What great foreign experience did Bill Clinton have? What great foreign experience did Ronald Reagan have? They both proved to be rather large forces on the world stage.


Dodd, Clinton, Biden and Richardson would all be much better presidents, they are ready.

They all are also far more likely to be swayed by the politics as usual of Washington...which is precisely what we DON'T need.

[The Leaper]

I will not support a candidate so heavily favored by the religious right.

I will not support a candidate so heavily favored by the fruits and nuts. Obama is probably the most liberal of all the candidates...and that is saying something when Clinton is in the race. Why the hell can't the Dems bring out someone who is MODERATE. Hell, Bill Clinton is the prime example of why you do that...yet the Dems can't seem to figure that out, and have taken it on the chin twice in the last 8 years with ultra-lefty candidates (Gore/Kerry) against a weak GOP candidate like Bush.

Republicans will have a field day pounding on Obama's ultra-liberal positions. To be honest, Huckabee is far closer to the middle than Obama is. His populist ideals are not in step with the notions of many ultra-conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh.

[Harlan Huckleby]

What great foreign experience did Bill Clinton have? What great foreign experience did Ronald Reagan have?

Both Clinton and Reagan were state governors. I don't put that much stock in "foreign policy experience" per se. I think a President should have years of experience in a decision making capacity. And a range of life experiences. Many people really do grow, we're wiser at 50 than at 40, we constantly learn.

Obama hasn't done anything with his life yet. He's just learning how things work in the Senate. Honestly, he is greatly underqualified to be president of anything, let alone the U.S.

But hey, he is very charismatic and intelligent. I do respect him. Hopefully it can work out.

And as far as the more Senior Democrats being too engrossed in the system: it sounds nice to be a fresh face, but the reality is that Obama is going to have to learn how to make the system work before he can change it. He is not being elected CZAR, change will require manipulating the existing actors. A fresh face is romantic, but a huge liability in reality.

[The Leaper]

And as far as the more Senior Democrats being too engrossed in the system: it sounds nice to be a fresh face, but the reality is that Obama is going to have to learn how to make the system work before he can change it.

True...but look at the experience the Dems have in Congress right now. They rode into power with great momentum...what the hell have they done? Pelosi hasn't done a damn thing.

The bottom line is that it is IMPOSSIBLE to accomplish anything in Washington without an ability to appeal to the PEOPLE of the nation. Special interests bog everything down so that nothing can get accomplished.

Experience can't change Washington...only the American public can change Washington. If a leader can't connect with the American public, there is no potential for change.

[The Leaper]

I think a President should have years of experience in a decision making capacity. And a range of life experiences. Many people really do grow, we're wiser at 50 than at 40, we constantly learn.

Obama hasn't done anything with his life yet. He's just learning how things work in the Senate. Honestly, he is greatly underqualified to be president of anything, let alone the U.S.

I would generally agree.

All those who are basically claiming the Democrats have wrapped up the presidency at this point are very wrong. Both likely Dem hopefuls (Obama, Clinton) have some major negatives working against them in a presidential election. For Hillary, it is the sheer number of voters who claim they just won't vote for her regardless. For Obama, it is his inexperience and record as an ultra-liberal...he's been able to escape much criticism to this point as an underdog, but once he is no longer an underdog, he'll have some tough items to answer for.

The GOP knows its shit in terms of elections...getting dumbass Bush two wins shows that they have the ability to take advantage of weak Dem candidates. To me, I see both Hillary and Obama as weak.

On the flip side...no GOP candidate looks all that strong right now either. The race is really a toss up at this point IMO.

[Harlan Huckleby]

If a leader can't connect with the American public, there is no potential for change.

I do think Obama can excel at connecting with the public. Huckabee too.

[BallHawk]

If, and I emphasize if, Obama gets the nomination he would be best choosing either Biden or Richardson as his running mate. Biden and Richardson were both strong but they just didn't appeal to voters. I would of been happy with either of those candidates as the nomination, but it wasn't meant to be.

[Joemailman]

Clinton is probably toast. She can't possibly hope to increase her support, because of her massive negative polling numbers. Supporters of Obama and Edwards have already made a decision about Clinton...I doubt many Edwards supporters will flock to Hillary when Edwards eventually bows out.

Iowa might be the most unfavorable state for Clinton in the whole country. you do make a good point that Edwards supporters are more drawn to Obama. GEt ready for a long battle, this is far from over, Clinton has strong support among older voters, blacks, women.

Barrack Obama pains me. I really like him personally, his positions are generally OK with me. But he is just too immature, he hasn't had enough life experience. Obama is on the Senate Foreign Relations committee, their hearings are streamed on the internet, and I often watch them. Obama is a lightweight. The questions that he asks are pretty shallow. He simply doesn't have the wisdom and experience of the more senior members on the Foreign Relations committee - it's obvious. He has not developed good judgement yet.

Obama is a very sharp and charismatic guy. Certainly if the country survived George Bush, they can survive Obama. It just pains me to think that several more serious people are being left behind, Dodd, Clinton, Biden and Richardson would all be much better presidents, they are ready.

If Obama gets the presidency, he will learn and grow. But he is going to make errors in judgement, especially in his first few years. Over 8 years, perhaps he can be good for the country. I'll certainly vote for him over any republican, since I see the presidential election as a vote for 10,000 people of party A or party B.

(Bold is my emphasis)

Are you saying he lacks the wisdom and judgment of the people who voted to let Bush take us into Iraq? (Clinton, Dodd, Edwards, Biden). I have respect for those people, but all those years of experience didn't stop them from making a huge foreign policy blunder. The key for a guy like Obama would be to surround himself with quality advisers. I suspect he could handle that. I'm not supporting him yet, but his lack of experience doesn't worry me.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Are you saying he lacks the wisdom and judgment of the people who voted to let Bush take us into Iraq? (Clinton, Dodd, Edwards, Biden).

Well, this is the mantra of the Obama supporters. You must also consider that Britney Spears was initially against the war.

The decision to support Bush initially is not a litmus test of good judgement. The incompetence of the Bush team was not so obvious at the time of that vote. History might have gone another direction.

Claiming that because Obama's war opposition gives him a lock on wisdom is uncritical thinking. And then the next step is even worse: suggesting that since many experienced people were on the wrong side of history in this or any other incident, therefore experience is unimportant.

[Freak Out]

Obama is probably the most liberal of all the candidates...and that is saying something when Clinton is in the race. Why the hell can't the Dems bring out someone who is MODERATE.

I think Edwards and Richardson are more liberal than Obama....and if anyone is a moderate in this race it is Clinton....maybe with Biden a close second.

[Joemailman]

Are you saying he lacks the wisdom and judgment of the people who voted to let Bush take us into Iraq? (Clinton, Dodd, Edwards, Biden).

Well, this is the mantra of the Obama supporters. You must also consider that Britney Spears was initially against the war.

The decision to support Bush initially is not a litmus test of good judgement. The incompetence of the Bush team was not so obvious at the time of that vote. History might have gone another direction.

Claiming that because Obama's war opposition gives him a lock on wisdom is uncritical thinking. And then the next step is even worse: suggesting that since many experienced people were on the wrong side of history in this or any other incident, therefore experience is unimportant.

Well, I certainly did not say that Obama has a lock on wisdom. If I did think that, I'd be working for his campaign. What I did say, or at least inferred, was that experience in Washington does not necessarily lead to wise decision making.

I believe the decision to support Bush on the war absolutely did show bad judgment. In the wake of 9/11, with Bin Laden on the loose, invading a Muslim country led by a guy who kept the Islamic radicals in his country in check was stupid. Now, I realize that the Dems who supported Bush on the war were under intense political pressure, and Obama was not. But perhaps a part of wisdom is knowing that when the issue is war, caving in to political pressure is not wise. I'm not completely sold on Obama. However, I am comforted by the fact that he is smart and can articulate what he is thinking, which alone would be a refreshing change.

Funny thing watching the news last night was noticing how much Obama and Huckabee sounded alike. Both seem to want to break away from the current political climate in Washington.

[Deputy Nutz]

I think a President should have years of experience in a decision making capacity. And a range of life experiences. Many people really do grow, we're wiser at 50 than at 40, we constantly learn.

Obama hasn't done anything with his life yet. He's just learning how things work in the Senate. Honestly, he is greatly underqualified to be president of anything, let alone the U.S.

I would generally agree.

All those who are basically claiming the Democrats have wrapped up the presidency at this point are very wrong. Both likely Dem hopefuls (Obama, Clinton) have some major negatives working against them in a presidential election. For Hillary, it is the sheer number of voters who claim they just won't vote for her regardless. For Obama, it is his inexperience and record as an ultra-liberal...he's been able to escape much criticism to this point as an underdog, but once he is no longer an underdog, he'll have some tough items to answer for.

The GOP knows its shit in terms of elections...getting dumbass Bush two wins shows that they have the ability to take advantage of weak Dem candidates. To me, I see both Hillary and Obama as weak.

On the flip side...no GOP candidate looks all that strong right now either. The race is really a toss up at this point IMO.

I totally disagree with Harlan, his inexperience might actually get more done than a candidate that has spent years in Washington such as Kerry. If you don't know the rules of the game, make up your own. Maybe it is to simple of idea.

I am mostly a conservative with government spending, which means I usually vote republican, but I have lost interest in the ridiculous spending of the Bush administration in foreign affairs mean while our public education system is in the toilet and our economy is based across oceans as well.

Hopefully being ultra liberal might be the kick in the ass this country needs, I don't know maybe I am a bit confused and disillusioned with our federal government.

[Partial]

Or, we need to cut government spending big time and stop blaming the schools and the education system for our childrens short-comings.

Ron Paul would be exactly what this country needs but too many people are afraid of what would happen if they were forced to sink or swim on their own.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Obama is not an "ultra-liberal". Most of his positions are supported by a majority of Americans.

When Obama opposed authorizing the Iraq War, he was not in the government, I'm not sure he was even in the Illinois State legisature yet. So this was an easy thing to do. If he had been in the U.S. Senate at the time, he might very well have done the same thing John Edwards did: authorize Bush to go to war as a way of strengthening the president's hand diplomatically.

For nutz & joe leaper & others who think that Obama's lack of experience will be an asset in shaking things up: WHAT EXACTLY DO YOU EXPECT HE IS GONNA CHANGE, ANYWAY? Do you think he will weaken the PACs and lobbiests? Obama takes lots of money from corporations and PACs. And the guy in the race who has shown some courage & enthusiasm for reform in this area is none other than John McCain - the guy sitting in the Senate for 30 years.

Everybody wants change. OK. Give examples of EXACTLY what Obama wants to change, then tell me how his inexperience in government will help him effect that change.

If you wanted real change, Joe Biden was your man. He has very progressive yet practical ideas, and he comes out with very thoughtful plans to get there. He knows the ins and outs of compromise.

Well, if it's Obama, I will still be excited. I just expect it will take several years for the Boy King to be effective.

[Deputy Nutz]

It is not talking about cutting social funding or cutting this program or that. What it is about is redistributing tax dollars and getting more bang for the buck, which is something our simple federal government has forgotten. Spending is out of control and for every dollar actually spent for its actually purpose 1000s are spent to line pockets. We simply have enough tax dollars to pay for any and all social programs plus a triple trillion dollar war in the middle east and still efficiently cut taxes, but we don't because government waste is to high on the list.

This whole sink or swim philosophy is ridiculous, our education system has drown already and our country is falling by the wayside.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Funny thing watching the news last night was noticing how much Obama and Huckabee sounded alike. Both seem to want to break away from the current political climate in Washington.

ya, an Obama - Huckabee race would be quite something. Now this would be a bucket of ice water in the face of the establishment! I would love to see that, a civil campaign.

[the_idle_threat]

Ronny Paul got 10% of the vote, not bad since his party is black balling him.

Mainly because he's not really a Republican. He's a third party guy who knows he has to wear a Republican mask to get votes.

[MadScientist]

Funny thing watching the news last night was noticing how much Obama and Huckabee sounded alike. Both seem to want to break away from the current political climate in Washington.

ya, an Obama - Huckabee race would be quite something. Now this would be a bucket of ice water in the face of the establishment! I would love to see that, a civil campaign.

It won't be a civil campaign. Even if Obama and Huckabee want it to be, the massive amounts of cash given to the 527's (Swift boaters, etc) will make sure there are as many mud-slinging likes out there as always.

Just don't elect another fun-duh-mentalist creationist unless you want to spend the rest of your life kissing China's butt.

[SkinBasket]

Or, we need to cut government spending big time and stop blaming the schools and the education system for our childrens short-comings.

Christ Partial, have you been to a public school? Lack of funding is not the only problem. Throwing money at people who have no idea how to spend it, or do much else for that matter, won't help the problem.

[Harlan Huckleby]

It won't be a civil campaign. Even if Obama and Huckabee want it to be, the massive amounts of cash given to the 527's (Swift boaters, etc) will make sure there are as many mud-slinging likes out there as always.)

I don't think so, but you make a good point. The mudslinging is done with the tacit approval of the campaigns, in my judgement. Just have to see.


Just don't elect another fun-duh-mentalist creationist unless you want to spend the rest of your life kissing China's butt.

this is a bizarre connection you draw.

[LL2]

CNNMoney has an article on how Huckabee favors the Fair Tax system and wants to get rid of the IRS. Now that is something I support, but doubt will ever happen.

[Harlan Huckleby]

It is not talking about cutting social funding or cutting this program or that. What it is about is redistributing tax dollars and getting more bang for the buck, which is something our simple federal government has forgotten. Spending is out of control and for every dollar actually spent for its actually purpose 1000s are spent to line pockets. We simply have enough tax dollars to pay for any and all social programs plus a triple trillion dollar war in the middle east and still efficiently cut taxes, but we don't because government waste is to high on the list.

This whole sink or swim philosophy is ridiculous, our education system has drown already and our country is falling by the wayside.

Nutz, your only hope is to run for president yourself. Ron Paul is sort of your man. But you want good government too, so scratch him.

Bill Clinton did a pretty damn good job.

[Harlan Huckleby]

CNNMoney has an article on how Huckabee favors the Fair Tax system and wants to get rid of the IRS. Now that is something I support, but doubt will ever happen.

we've been chatting about this. I am open to the possibility. I'd like to see it get a fair hearing in the Congress.

Huckabee is also for expanding arts & music funding for elementary education. I think this is important, will keep kids engaged in school and learning.

[MJZiggy]

I think I kinda like it as long as luxury items are taxed above necesities...

As to arts and music, artwork not only teaches kids about cultures and beauty, but develops fine motor skills. Music develops a sense of time and rhythm.

The schools have finally figured out the repercussions of cutting some of these programs when they cut phys. ed to concentrate on reading and math and ended up with classrooms full of fidgety, fat kids. They're now starting to add phys ed and recess back into the school days.

[The Leaper]

Obama is not an "ultra-liberal". Most of his positions are supported by a majority of Americans.

I beg to differ.

His voting record in Congress is decidely liberal. No one is going to run in a campaign saying "look, I'm a huge lefty"...but that is precisely what Obama is.

However, I don't bother looking at his Congressional record. I look at his Illinois state senate voting record. Here are some damning votes:

He voted AGAINST a law to ban partial-birth abortions. (SB 230, 1997)

He voted AGAINST a law to ban state funding of abortion. (HB 709, 2000)

He voted AGAINST a law to require prisoners to pay court costs for frivolous lawsuits. (SB 381, 1997)

He voted AGAINST a low to give no offer of "good time" for sex offenders. (SB 485, 1999) He was the ONLY vote in the entire state senate against that measure.

He DECLINED TO VOTE on a law to restrict the location of building with "adult" themes relative to elementary or secondary schools. (SB 609, 2001)

He voted AGAINST a law to require school boards to install software on public computers to block explicit material. (HB 1812, 1999)

He repeatedly voted IN FAVOR of extending the power of unions, especially the teacher's union. (HB 3396, 2003 - SB 230, 2003)

He also repeatedly voted IN FAVOR of increasing taxes or reducing tax credits. (SB 1725, 2003 - SB 1733, 2003)

There also is the DISTURBING frequency of his "present" vote while in the state senate. He invoked this sidestep vote 130 times while there...and several times he did so on crucial issues where he refused to stand up and show leadership.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22335739/

Obama's record is very liberal...and shows disturbing signs of a lack of conviction and leadership IMO. This stuff WILL come out eventually as we head into the summer if he is the Democratic nominee, and I think it will hurt Obama a lot.

I just don't see how the views that I have outlined here from Obama's own voting record are in step with the majority of Americans.

[LL2]

There also is the DISTURBING frequency of his "present" vote while in the state senate. He invoked this sidestep vote 130 times while there...and several times he did so on crucial issues where he refused to stand up and show leadership.

He did this so during the run for the presidency and during debates he can't be pinned one way or another to an issue.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Obama is not an "ultra-liberal". Most of his positions are supported by a majority of Americans.

I beg to differ.

Leaper, how many presidential elections have you witnessed? The Republicans have characterized every Democratic nominee as "ultra liberal" since Woodrow Wilson.

Obama is a liberal democrat. You might note that he voted to fully fund the war in Iraq right up until recently. He is no Dennis Kucinich. I lack the stamina to address all your points, you made some good ones. But we disagree about where the American people stand on those issues.

[The Leaper]

Leaper, how many presidential elections have you witnessed? The Republicans have characterized every Democratic nominee as "ultra liberal" since Woodrow Wilson.

Sure they do. However, some don't really measure up...and, ironically, those are the ones that usually are elected. Carter and Clinton are two moderate democrats that were actually elected. Truly liberal candidates often get defeated handily.


Obama is a liberal democrat. You might note that he voted to fully fund the war in Iraq right up until recently. He is no Dennis Kucinich. I lack the stamina to address all your points, you made some good ones. But we disagree about where the American people stand on those issues.

Fine, we disagree. However, I think you would actually find it rather difficult to prove that the majority of Americans favor:

1. Partial-birth abortions...most polling suggests around 70% of the population is opposed to the procedure.
2. Taxpayer funding of abortion...again, most polling suggests roughly 70% of the population is opposed to using taxpayer funds for abortions.
3. Laws that protect the rights of tried criminals over the innocent and taxpayers...rather broad notion to look up polling data, but as I pointed out in my prior post, Obama was the LONE OPPOSING VOTE against one of these laws.
4. Not protecting our children from explicit material...again, tough to find polling data off-hand, but I highly doubt a majority of Americans favor placing porn shops near their kids elementary schools.

The point is that Obama is trying to come off as a "fresh change"...when in reality he's just another in a long line of liberals, just younger and a little more "hip", I guess.

At least Huckabee DOES represent change in his party...which is why he gets heavy criticism from the fiscal conservatives for his populist beliefs.

I just get tired of politicians bantering about change...like the Democrats who won in Congress with a laundry list of potential changes, then basically did little to change anything other than the minimum wage. Change is easy to talk about...but what change has Obama really brought forth at any level in either the public or private sector? I just feel that is something which eventually will come home to roost with Obama.

[MJZiggy]

Keep in mind, Leaper, that with a lot of these bills that they vote for or against, there is usually a lot of stuff heaped into each bill. When looking at a candidates voting record (that's any candidate from either party), you have to consider the full contents of the bill that could have included something completely unrelated yet highly objectionable/desirable to the candidate.

You can't just say he voted for not protecting our children from explicit material without knowing what else was tacked onto it, like say funding for sending a million government jobs overseas (that's just a radical example that I completely made up by the way) but the do stuff like that in Washington all the time.

[LL2]

Keep in mind, Leaper, that with a lot of these bills that they vote for or against, there is usually a lot of stuff heaped into each bill. When looking at a candidates voting record (that's any candidate from either party), you have to consider the full contents of the bill that could have included something completely unrelated yet highly objectionable/desirable to the candidate.

You can't just say he voted for not protecting our children from explicit material without knowing what else was tacked onto it, like say funding for sending a million government jobs overseas (that's just a radical example that I completely made up by the way) but the do stuff like that in Washington all the time.

I agree with this. You see small bills tacked on to others all the time. I think that's how new funding for Iraq keeps getting done.

[The Leaper]

Keep in mind, Leaper, that with a lot of these bills that they vote for or against, there is usually a lot of stuff heaped into each bill.

What you say can be true of Congressional bills.

However, what I was talking about with Obama was his Illinois State Senate record. I'm not positive, but I'm assuming those bills don't have much...if anything...tacked onto them.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Leaper, you need to look at the BIG issues:
War in Iraq
Availability of Health Care
the environment
the economy/deficit
immigration

Republicans are radioactive this year. The Bush administration and its Republican A team failed miserably. I don't think the usual republican strategy of linking candidates to partial birth abortion, or disreputable military service, or other side issues are gonna fly.

Immigration matters to Republicans, the only problem is they at odds with the overall public. 65% of people supported the immigration bill that failed in the Senate. Most people don't beleive that the problem can be solved by deportation or attrition, nor do most people see this as ethical given the long history of utiliizing immigrants.

Watching the Republicans debate health care reform last Saturday was quite a spectacle. None of them addressed the fact that private insurance companies are profitable only by denying coverage to people likely to get sick. They ALL suggested that tweaking with tax breaks will solve the problem. They are so out of it.

The best chance the Republicans have, in my view, is to run against Obama and portray him as naive compared to McCain. They might have a shot there. But the Democrats have it ALL OVER the REpublicans on the big issues.

[LL2]

Leaper, you need to look at the BIG issues:
War in Iraq
Availability of Health Care
the environment
the economy/deficit
immigration

Republicans are radioactive this year. The Bush administration and its Republican A team failed miserably. I don't think the usual republican strategy of linking candidates to partial birth abortion, or disreputable military service, or other side issues are gonna fly.

Immigration matters to Republicans, the only problem is they at odds with the overall public. 65% of people supported the immigration bill that failed in the Senate. Most people don't beleive that the problem can be solved by deportation or attrition, nor do most people see this as ethical given the long history of utiliizing immigrants.

Watching the Republicans debate health care reform last Saturday was quite a spectacle. None of them addressed the fact that private insurance companies are profitable only by denying coverage to people likely to get sick. They ALL suggested that tweaking with tax breaks will solve the problem. They are so out of it.

The best chance the Republicans have, in my view, is to run against Obama and portray him as naive compared to McCain. They might have a shot there. But the Democrats have it ALL OVER the REpublicans on the big issues.

I agree with a lot of your points, and especially the point that Republicans are "radioactive". It's going to be tough for a Republican to get elected this year no matter how persuasive and good they are.

[Joemailman]

I think the issues Harlan raised will result in the Dems making more gains in the Congress, but the Presidential race could go either way.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Of course, it will be tough for Republicans. Wars that divide the country don't exactly help the prospects of the incumbents. I'd say both parties are "radioactive." People don't exactly give the leadership in Congress high marks either. Like Bush, their poll numbers are very low, historically. Personally, I think people are just tired of the bickering and over- politicization on every issue. I know it's always been like that, but it hasn't been to this level while I've been around.

[The Leaper]

Leaper, you need to look at the BIG issues:
War in Iraq
Availability of Health Care
the environment
the economy/deficit
immigration

These are great issues. The Dems won big on those in 2006. So what has the Democratic Congress done with them so far? The Democratic Congress has a lower approval rating than Bush.

I don't think either party has it big over the other on any issue. Washington is too screwed up for any one president to clean it up and make it functional. Americans as a whole need to start caring and elect politicians who care about them...not a political career.

My point is that any candidate bantering "I'm gonna change everything by snapping my fingers" like Obama is probably won't accomplish much of anything.

[The Leaper]

I agree with a lot of your points, and especially the point that Republicans are "radioactive". It's going to be tough for a Republican to get elected this year no matter how persuasive and good they are.

The GOP was fairly radioactive in 2004...and Bush still managed to win despite misleading the public about Iraq. In terms of Congress, the Dems have it pretty good at the moment...but in a presidential election, it has been a tough road for the Democrats for 35 years. Even Bill Clinton...the most popular Democrat president since JFK...didn't register landslide political wins.

Obama is likely going to be the Democratic nominee...and the guy has ZERO experience or credibility on the national political stage. Voting in primaries is one thing...actually voting for the president makes it a little harder to vote for someone simply hoping they can do what they say with little evidence to back it up.

I don't think the Democrats have the White House locked up just yet.

[MJZiggy]

I don't know. Clinton decided to reinvent government and though asking agencies to reinvent themselves to be more efficient might not have been the best strategy if you wanna trim off excess employees, but somehow he seemed to get a lot done.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Ron Paul won 8% of the vote. He is 50 minutes into his concession speech and showing no signs of fatique. If he ever wins double digits in some contest he'll probably challenge Fidel Castro's 4 hour record. People would regularly faint during Fidel's speeches.

Bill Clinton was a hell of an effective president. He made a decent conclusion to the Yugolslavia nightmare, and the economy hummed along. ("hum" probably an unfortunate choiced of verbs)

Anyway, I have seen a string of red-faced pundits stumble and bumble over Hillary Clinton's shocking showing tonight. We all have been caught-up in the hype and charm of Obama. God Bless the cratchety people of New Hamphshire! It's too soon to coronate the Boy King.

[BallHawk]

Obama thought he had the kill way too early. Hillary has new life. Whether "the cry" was a calculated move or not, I cannot say; however, she's not done yet.

And how long is it going to take for Hanover, Durham, and Rindge to report? That's what everybody is waiting on.

[SkinBasket]

He made a decent conclusion to the Yugolslavia nightmare, and the economy hummed along.

I don't know if you can single out Yugolsalivaiton without mentioning Black Hawk Down and blowing up the milk factory as his only effort to slow down Bin Ladel.

The economy was fine though, especially when he started pillaging the tobacco industry for money. Something Doyle has taken note of.

This year's crop of clowns is going to have everyone longing for the days of slick willy.

[Partial]

The economy was good under Clinton because of the work Reagan and Papa Bush did.

The economy under the next president will be terrible due to the extreme spending of Baby Bush.

[Freak Out]

4. Not protecting our children from explicit material...again, tough to find polling data off-hand, but I highly doubt a majority of Americans favor placing porn shops near their kids elementary schools.


Keep Skinbasket and his toon dick out of this.

[Joemailman]

Obama thought he had the kill way too early. Hillary has new life. Whether "the cry" was a calculated move or not, I cannot say; however, she's not done yet.

And how long is it going to take for Hanover, Durham, and Rindge to report? That's what everybody is waiting on.

Watching the news last night and today, I thought all the news pundits got the "cry" all wrong. They were acting like it was the beginning of the end of her campaign. I thought it was a good moment for her because for once she didn't look like a robot. I'm not for her in this campaign, but she showed a lot of toughness. If you like following politics, this was pretty damn interesting.

[BallHawk]

Man, the media must love this. It gives them a lot more storylines to work with.

[The Leaper]

I don't know. Clinton decided to reinvent government and though asking agencies to reinvent themselves to be more efficient might not have been the best strategy if you wanna trim off excess employees, but somehow he seemed to get a lot done.

I don't think that was Clinton MJ.

Remember a guy called Newt Gingrich and the Contract with America? Two years into Clinton's presidency, the American people had enough of Hillary trying to stuff a socialist health care system down their throats and handed Congress over to the GOP for the first time in some 50 years.

A large reason for the success of America under Clinton was due to the leadership of that Republican Congress. It is to Clinton's credit that he worked with that Congress and got some great things accomplished, but you are short sighted if you think Bill Clinton was the primary force behind the balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility in the mid to late 90s. The American people spoke and Washington got something done.

I'm a strong supporter of strict term limits in Congress...precisely because of how well the country does whenever we clean house in Washington and get some new blood in there, regardless of party. People sitting in Washington for 15+ years lose touch with the people who first put them into office.

Washington should be there to serve us...not the other way around.

[The Leaper]

Watching the news last night and today, I thought all the news pundits got the "cry" all wrong. They were acting like it was the beginning of the end of her campaign. I thought it was a good moment for her because for once she didn't look like a robot. I'm not for her in this campaign, but she showed a lot of toughness. If you like following politics, this was pretty damn interesting.

I think the pundits completely missed the point last night though.

I think the larger issue that brought voters to Hillary and McCain last night was the little Iranian Yacht Club exercise that happened to occur next to a couple of our ships in the Persian Gulf theater. Those voters who made a last minute decision did so with that Iranian stunt fresh in their minds.

It was a reminder that the world we live in isn't just about us and our desires anymore...and that handing the presidency over to someone like Obama or Huckabee, neither of which have any foreign relations experience to speak of, might be a little dicey.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I think the larger issue that brought voters to Hillary and McCain last night was the little Iranian Yacht Club exercise that happened to occur next to a couple of our ships in the Persian Gulf theater. Those voters who made a last minute decision did so with that Iranian stunt fresh in their minds.

:crazy:

[SkinBasket]

I thought all the news pundits got the "cry" all wrong. They were acting like it was the beginning of the end of her campaign. I thought it was a good moment for her because for once she didn't look like a robot.

"The cry" comes down to what you believe about her. Those who feel she's a robot take note of the fact her campaign wanted her to show more emotion. She beeps a couple times, and BINGO, next day she's tearing up... Beep Beep.

Those who think she's somehow a real person see the cry as "a good moment" showing America that she has emotions and feelings and is running for the Presidency because she cares about it, not just because she's a power hungry robot that happens to wear a skirt instead of a suit.

[Joemailman]

I think the larger issue that brought voters to Hillary and McCain last night was the little Iranian Yacht Club exercise that happened to occur next to a couple of our ships in the Persian Gulf theater. Those voters who made a last minute decision did so with that Iranian stunt fresh in their minds.

:crazy:

Me thinks a bit of over-analysis by the Leaper.

[The Leaper]

Me thinks a bit of over-analysis by the Leaper.

So crying won it then?

[Harlan Huckleby]

not just the crying moment, it was a combination of occasions where she exposed herself, and women in particular identified with her. For instance, the moment in the debate where she got angry and defensive over John Edward's attack.

[Joemailman]

I think there were probably a lot of factors. In addition to what Harlan said, the sense by a lot of women that the media were treating her unfairly, the Clinton campaign's ability to get the vote out, the fact that most people who were undecided until late went for Clinton, the possibility that a lot of independents who were expected to vote for Obama switched over and voted for McCain, and the possibility that a lot of those independent-minded New Hampshireites said to hell with the polls and voted for the underdog.