What was clearly somewhat of a surprise to most, Democrat Barack Obama has put to rest the question of whether a black presidential candidate can win in white America.

His victory in 95 percent white Iowa proved that he could appeal across racial lines and even draw women away from Hillary Rodham Clinton despite her push for them to make her the first female president.

Man…..this guy makes me proud to be a black American, as he is constantly showing he can overcome huge obstacles and pre-conceived notions made by many. In the beginning….many doubted his success.

He brought in record number contributions…..a task many thought was impossible. Then…..actually pulling it off in a state that was 95% white, to which many analysts thought was nearly impossible at the start of his campaign.

Both, Republicans and Democrats look to Iowa to pass the first judgment of the election year. This first test or look at candidate’s potential, so to speak.

This first election has also proven to help candidates by boosting their campaign. For decades, Iowa's caucuses have drawn presidential hopefuls eager to make a strong first impression, and this year was no different.

Another thing…..it also gives somewhat of an indication about voter turnout. Despite very cold weather, voter turnout was heavy in Iowa, far more so for Democrats than Republicans…..in what could be an early indication of the country's mood after eight years of a Republican administration.

This could be a very interesting election…

Comments in-line

"What was clearly somewhat of a surprise to most, Democrat Barack Obama has put to rest the question of whether a black presidential candidate can win in white America"


it was pretty common knowledge that the three were going to be in a tight race, the margin he pulled ahead took some by surprise tho. Mustering some votes in Iowa doesn't prove anything we didn't know already.



"His victory in 95 percent white Iowa proved that he could appeal across racial lines"


Agreed-- you know why? because race is not what people see for the most part when looking at him (ala the con man Jesse).



"Man…..this guy makes me proud to be a black American, as he is constantly showing he can overcome huge obstacles and pre-conceived notions made by many. In the beginning….many doubted his success"

So you weren't proud before Obama? before you get too carried away, check back in 2 weeks.



"This could be a very interesting election…"

I agree. Personally, I found the result over in the other side of the isle much more shocking. Mitt looked like crap and his #s sucked. Huckleberry? good lord!

Edwards had an excellent speach, and Obama's was rousing-- he certainly gained a lot of confidence and was electric.

My requirements for President are obviously somewhat less than yours: they start with whoever wins need to have BALLS, physically and metaphorically!

CFK

Obama is black? I guess I must be black too cause I am darker than him.

Well... if any and all of us run our roots back far enough, we are ALL of African descent... except for the size of... nevermind

(Message edited by smitopher on January 04, 2008)

The fucking idea we may all be related to Jessie Jackson, or worse yet Al Sharpton is enough to make me shoot myself!

It doesn't surprise me that Obama did well in Iowa. After all, he's a mid-western guy and should know how to play to the corn-pone people of Iowa.

What I'll be interested to see is how he'll do in the next couple of primaries. I'm not so interested in the New Hampshire results (where I suspect he'll come in second to Clinton not so much because of anything she's done rather because of Bill's continued popularity there and NH's proclivity to do the opposite of what Iowa does), but how he plays in South Carolina. If he has a strong showing in a very conservative southern state like SC, and by that I mean at least a second-place finish, I suspect that might be enough to convince the rest of the country that he is actually electable on a national basis.

In any event, I hope for the sake of our little hobby that the next president has different priorities that the current one. Anyone who courts the evangelicals, no matter which party they belong to, would be a killer for us. Additionally, I'd like to see a MUCH stronger dollar overseas and a crash-program along the lines of the moon shot to lessen our dependency on foreign oil. I doubt I'll get any of my wishes but one can always dream.

EA

My concern is that Obama does not have all that much experiance, and is somewhat unknown. I prefer Bill Richardson. However it's anyone but Hillary.

RG.

Although I support Edwards as the best Democrat from the field to assume the presidency, I do see merit in a potential Obama presidency. I have some concerns, however: first, whether he is sufficiently experienced, second, whether the support he received from the voters yesterday is solid (see below) and third, whether there is anything in his past that the Republicans would be able to successfully exploit (he is the first presidential candidate to admit he used to take cocaine, what else are we going to find out about him after the Republicans have a go at it?--in this regard, these sorts of things would not affect my vote, but it potentially would affect many other voters).

I also don't agree with one of the premises of his campaign, namely that you can't change the system if you are part of it. I would argue the exact opposite: the "system" is very resistant to change and those who know the system best, i.e., have been part of it, stand the best chance of substantially changing it. The ideal person to undertake the task of implementing substantial change is someone who has been part of the system but then turns on it. They are the one's with the knowledge necessary to implement substantial changes to the system. Moreover, like a reformed ex-smoker, they can be every bit as dedicated to changing the system as those who were never part of it.

Related to this, I wonder whether an Obama presidency would be more like a John Kennedy presidency (as it has been idealized--actually there is a lot not to like about his Presidency) or more like a Jimmy Carter presidency (a combination of inexperience and raw desire to change Washington = nothing of much consequence accomplished).

As to what happened yesterday, on the one hand there is reason to believe his success in Iowa bodes well for his potential success as a Presidential candidate. However, there is one aspect to the numbers that I find potentially troubling. His support was by far the strongest among young voters. The fact they turned out in large numbers to vote for him is contrary to what almost always happens in a presidential election, i.e., low voter turnout among the young. The high turnout apparently reflected in large part a groundswell of enthusiasm for his candidacy among the young. However, if this enthusiasm should fade after the rigors of a full-blown presidential campaign, the young would probably peel off first and not show up at the polls. Without them, it is unclear how strong his candidacy would be, and this could be significant in a general election.

(Message edited by LAguy on January 04, 2008)

By the way, although I would like to see Edwards get the nomination, I realize the chance of this happening is very very low at this point. Sometime ago I thought he had a good chance as a credible alternative to Hillary, but that was before Obama entered the race.

I think if you are looking across the entire US, Obama is unelectable because a black man is going to have a real problem carrying the red states in a Presidential election. And Hilary is just as unelectable, not because she is a woman, but because she is too divisive of a personality.

Really the only one with any chance is Edwards against a Republican. But alas, I think he blew his chance last time. He's done.

A really scary thought is what is going to happen in the Republican party. Huckabee is a former evangelical preacher. What do you think the laws are going to be like for mongerers in the future? I think were fucked.

I also think that he's going to fuck up my business. I own a porn production company (www.cinerotic.net) and I can't believe we'll see some relaxing of some of the laws there.

I certainly like his take on taxes. But really, how much can he really do about the IRS? Honestly his proposals are unlikely to happen.

I predict he'll do well in New Hampshire as possibly Clinton. Obama....who knows.

But I'll tell you, given our proclivities, I don't see how any of you could vote for a religious Republican.

My choice is Rudy or Obama. No religious fucks in the white house.

In a perfect world, Edwards would be our next President. Unfortunately Americans are generally stupid and dont care enough about politics unless it directly affects their pocketbook. Edwards is by far the most qualified and the most articulate. He is not getting the same campaign financing because he doesnt bow down to special interests and is interested in completly overhauling campaign finance and lobbyist political contributions.

Lobbyist system= 3rd world corruption. Lobbyist should be called bribe artists but Americans always like to make shit shine and call it gold so they have termed them "lobbyists'

To me, I think the biggest news is that Huckabee won Iowa going away. I really don't think that the nation as a whole is ready for a zealot to run the country. It is one thing to be religious but this guy takes it to a new level. I mean that in a bad way.

My feeling is that no matter who it is, Clinton, Obama or Edwards, they all beat Huckabee. If the Republicans have any chance, they need to produce someone that is more moderate, and Huckabee is clearly not it.

The Democrats don't appear to be interested in the candidate with the most experience, since that would be Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, or Bill Richardson, two of whom called it quits today after their 1% showings. I too have had my doubts about Obama's electability, but after hearing that speech last night, I'm starting to come around. A lot of candidates talk about bringing the country together, but damn, that guy's convincing!

The real fun is watching the Republicans devour themselves. The fight between the "Christian Leader" and the Mormon/venture capitalist/born again social conservative has been a hoot. And don't be surprised to see McCain scratch his way past those two.

Hey, maybe we should oraganize a Political Action Committee....Mongers for Whoever the Democrat Nominee Is.

In response to Sniper's comment about taxes: Although the notion of replacing income taxes and the IRS with sales or VAT taxes may have some appeal, it would be near impossible to implement in anything other than a chaotic way. One issue I have yet to seen addressed, is the unfairness of the proposal to those who have spent their lives saving portions of their earnings. For example, there are those close to retirement who have substantial savings and paid income tax throughout their lives. So now you implement a national sales tax of more than 20 percent (in addition to state taxes) and those who have already paid income taxes on their earnings are then effectively double taxed. That would be very unfair and it is difficult to find a credible way to deal with these sorts of problems if the sales tax is introduced and the IRS eliminated suddenly. I suppose one way to mitigate the problems inherent in a sudden change would be to phase in the change over perhaps 30 or 40 years, but that would require maintaining two tax bureaucracies during this period, which certainly is not what Hic-klebee is proposing.

(Message edited by LAguy on January 04, 2008)

Assuming it's three-way races on both sides, this is how I handicap it.

Obama-Huckabee Obama wins
Obama-McCain McCain wins
Obama-Giuliani Giuliani wins

Edwards-Huckabee Edwards wins
Edwards-McCain Toss-up
Edwards-Giuliani Edwards wins

Clinton-Huckabee Clinton wins
Clinton-McCain Toss-up
Clinton-Giuliani Clinton wins

I first saw and heard the name Barack Obama during his keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. I said to a close friend at the time, "this man is going to be president one day."

By one day, I meant 8 to 12 years later. Not four years later. I was so impressed with him that night and have followed his career ever since. He is so articulate and well-spoken (in a way very similar to Bill Clinton) and he has a way about him that just puts me at ease. I was surprised he threw his hat into the ring for the 08 election, but I have supported him ever since. He is currently my choice to be the next president.

That being said, I feel both he and Clinton are probably very close to unelectable in a national election. (I hope I am wrong.)

I feel Edwards probably gives the Democrats the best chance to win the White House. I was just as impressed with Edwards' speech last night as I was with Obama's. Like others have said, Clinton is way too divisive a character to win. And a black man (even half black) with big ears and a full name of Barack Hussein Obama (as Ann Coulter always makes a point of referring to him as) will have an extremely difficult time winning a national election.

Again, I hope I am wrong. But wait until the Republican machine gets fired up if Obama wins the nomination. You ain't seen attack ads yet.

Rove will just orchestrate something against Obama like he did against John McCain in 2000 in South Carolina with push polling. They will find something. (If you are unfamiliar with the incident I am talking about see this link: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/8/26/31853/5881)

Or they will just "Harold Ford Jr." him somehow. (Again, see this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWkrwENN5CQ)

Some of you may not know who Harold Ford, Jr is. He is a black man and a former member of the United States House of Representatives from Tennessee. In 2006, he ran for the Senate seat vacated by Bill Frist.

He is what Ford's Wikipedia page says about the RNC attack ad.

In October 2006, as polls indicated that Ford maintained a slight lead in the Senate race against Bob Corker, the Republican Party ran a television advertisement[39] wherein a blonde white woman, played by Johanna Goldsmith, talks about meeting Ford, who is unmarried, at "the Playboy party."[40] The ad was denounced by many people, including former Republican Senator and Secretary of Defense under Bill Clinton, William Cohen, who called it “a very serious appeal to a racist sentiment.” Corker himself asked the Republican leadership to pull the ad, which it refused to do. Corker subsequently pulled ahead in the polls and went on to defeat Ford in the November election.[41][42]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Ford,_Jr.

Everyone talks about experience. How much experience did Bush II have?

Tong,

That's part of the point. At least Obama has some brains but he's still very inexperienced, with no real track record to look at.

Can someone name a piece of legislation he's sponsored in the past 3 years as a Senator?

By the way, my overall current handicapping of the election in general is that Democrats have a 75% chance of winning this year. I would be very happy with Edwards, I'm comfortable with Clinton, Obama I just don't think will win unless the Republicans nominate Huckabee or they really explode on the trail.

I look at it this way - I'm fairly heavily involved in Democratic politics and most of the Obama supporters I know were Dean supporters in 2004. I don't think many of them have much of a clue and just want the next new guy they can root on.

I think Clinton will stabalize things fairly quickly. She has the majority of the party backing, at least for now, and there are a lot of primaries to be fought in the next couple of months. Obama hasn't made any mistakes yet, but he will.

Bush Jr was governor of Texas and this is often the job that leads to a Presidency in recent history.

Look at our past presidents back to Jimmy Carter.

George W Bush - Texas Governor - January 17, 1995 – December 21, 2000
Bill Clinton - Arkansas Governor - January 11, 1983 – December 12, 1992 and January 9, 1979 – January 19, 1981
George H.W. Bush - Vice President of the US - January 20, 1981 – January 20, 1989
Ronald Reagan - California Governor - January 3, 1967 – January 7, 1975
Jimmy Carter - Georgia Governor - January 1, 1971 – January 14, 1975

And I think you may make the point. Look at how much experience Bush had and look at the mess this country is in right now.

Senators almost NEVER become president. Not in recent history they don't.(I think Kennedy was the last.) This does not bode well for Edwards, Clinton or Obama.

It does bode well for Romney and Huckabee.

Johnson was a Senator, although it is doubtful he would have made it to the Presidency had he not been picked by Kennedy for Vice President.

Gore also was a Senator (and Vice President) and later was elected President.

Interestingly, every single one of the governors listed above by Xenono governed like rank amateurs during their first couple of years in office. I don't think we can afford amateurs at this stage. There is something to be said for experience.

(Message edited by LAguy on January 04, 2008)

If you guys want experience then you should really take a look at Bill Richardson. Just take a look at this guys resume.

Congressman for the state of New Mexico at age of 35
United States Ambassador to the United Nations, under Bill Clinton
Secretary of the Department of Energy
Governor of the State of New Mexico

He has been nominated for the Nobel peace prize 5 times.

Give him a look. http://www.richardsonforpresident.com/

RG.

I used to think Richardson would make a great VP candidate based on his resume, particularly for a Presidential candidate with little foreign policy experience. But IMHO he doesn't have the charisma to get elected President, and, unfortunately (not only for Richardson but also for Dodd and Biden) charisma counts for something when choosing which candidate should represent a party in the general election.

I'm not sure anymore though whether he would even make a good VP candidate. The seed of these doubts was planted when I saw the following exchange re whether being gay was a choice or not (ignore the you tuber's caption):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBaoLiZGNsI

Although I can't be specific owing to my less than stellar memory, there have been other instances where statements he has made raised questions in my mind as to whether he is the right guy. I don't really know the answer to the question, but I am wondering whether he is a dumb guy with a fine resume, or, alternatively, a smart guy who has more than his share of bad days.

Also, as to the experience issue generally, my take on it is that experience isn't everything, but it also isn't nothing. Put another way a lack of experience can be a real impediment to a successful presidency, but experience is not a guarantee of success (duh!). So it is hard to choose between Obama (minimal experience) and Hillary ( reasonable amount of experience, but then again . . . ). Edwards probably meets the experience threshold, although just barely. Given the three viable Democratic candidates for President, my gut tells me he would be better than the other two both as a candidate, and as President.

Not that my opinion counts for much. My support usually means that a candidate is going to lose, with some rare exceptions.

(Message edited by LAguy on January 05, 2008)

"Assuming it's three-way races on both sides, this is how I handicap it.

Obama-Huckabee Obama wins
Obama-McCain McCain wins
Obama-Giuliani Giuliani wins

Edwards-Huckabee Edwards wins
Edwards-McCain Toss-up
Edwards-Giuliani Edwards wins

Clinton-Huckabee Clinton wins
Clinton-McCain Toss-up
Clinton-Giuliani Clinton wins"


You forgot the most likely rep candidate-- Mitt.

I agree with most everyone that Edwards is prob the best choice out of the "most likely", however he's pretty much all done unless he gets some big wins FAST. He's out of cash or close to it.

As for Obama, He's passionate, articulate, and intelligent-- far better than what we've had for the last 8 years. I personally don't care if he's purple, green, black, brown, or white.

Mitt will be out of the race by Feb 5. The Republican base simply doesn't support him because of his cult religion - hey, I'm pretty much non-religious and view all religions as being basically cults but even I think Mormonism is fucking retarded and goofy. Independents and moderates won't support him because he's changed his platform around depending on what he's running for. Running for office in liberal MA? He's a nice fiscal conservative/social moderate. Running for President? He's a big social conservative all of a sudden. Which is he really? Who the fuck cares, he thinks he'll get his own planet when he dies and wears special "holy" underwear.

Here's an interesting write-up, which really underlines why caucuses are really shitty ways to do nominations.

Iowa Results don't give the whole picture
by: cdgoin
Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:31:08 AM EST
Just got back from Iowa, I have to say it was really fun.. even if the results weren't what we had hoped. What got a little news coverage on caucus night and not much since was the leg up the Richardson campaign gave to the Obama campaign.

The reason I think it got little traction in the media is simple. While the media made it sound like there was a "Deal" in place, there wasn't. So the campaigns denied there was a "Deal" thus end of story.. as far as the media seems to be concerned.

That said, all the denials by the Richardson and Obama campaigns about there not being a "Deal" were correct. There was no "Deal" because the Richardson campaign never talked to the Obama campaign nor told them what we were doing. Since the only way to have a "Deal" is if the other campaign was working with the other and is getting something out of the "Deal".

I can say this with certainty as I flew out to Iowa to help the RIchardson campaign and was a Richardson Precinct Captain. I was in the office helping out while the office staff was calling all the precinct captains to tell them explictly to switch thier people to Obama if we were not viable. I heard those calls being made, and was told to my face to do it. Trust me it wasnt idle rumor.. it was fact.

I can also say without a doubt Richardson on average pulled 7-11% across the state. There is no doubt we had those numbers, just not enough to be viable. In my precinct, we only had a bit over 100 in the caucus, but had 10 delegates to elect so it was easy to get the extra 4-5 supporters I needed to be viable and get a delegate for Richardson. We were the exception though. In larger caucuses they were much more confusing and much harder to get viable. Due to the way the delgates in Iowa are distributed, there were caucuses of 250-500 that only had 6-8 delegates making it much harder to get viable. In those kinds of cuacuses, it also makes throwing a extra 30 supporters to one candidate much more important.

Even in my precinct if I had not worked hard to get viable there would have been a big chance in percentage. Instead of the final 30% Obama/30% Edwards/30% Clinton/10% Richardson result, the result would have been 40% Obama/30% Edwards/30% Clinton. Numbers look familiar to anyone?

How about this.. One set of exit numbers were showing roughly:

Obama: 30
Clinton: 29
Edwards: 27
Richardson: 8
Biden: 4
Others: 2

Biden supporters were breaking between Clinton and Edwards for the most part.

Without the Richardson supporters the seperation between Obama, Edwards and Clinton would have been VERY VERY TIGHT.. and would have just confirmed what the media was expecting..

Instead it came out:
Obama : 37.58%
Edwards : 29.75%
Clinton : 29.47%
Richardson : 2.11%
Biden : 0.93%
Uncommitted : 0.14%
Dodd : 0.02%

So what was the reason for Richardson to throw his supporters to Obama? This wasn't done to "help" Obama.. far from it.. it was to help Richardson in the long run. The real intent was to hurt the Clinton and Edwards campaigns, and have the media doubt themselves.

Guess what.. it worked !

This was worth the sacrifice and quite simply, Richardson can not breakout in this four way race.. but if Hillary stays wounded, Obama and Hillary go negative and Edwards drops out before Feb 5th. Then on Feb 5th, if niether Hillary or Obama come out a clear winner and split up the states and Richardson picks up a few of the western states. There would be a chance for a surge for him.

So the media should not read a lot into the 8% spread Obama had.. The Richardson campaign had enough support to throw one way or the other to have given the win to any one of the three.

The other story they are completely missing is that over 70% of Iowan Democrats didn't want Hillary.. I think the same will be true in New Hampshire.

The unfortunate consequence of all this is that the bounce and the media have buried this news and made it seem like it was all Obamas duing and thats why he won so big.. Which may be our own undoing.

I guess we will find out once New Hampshire and Nevada come around.

I really do not know what to make of IOWA. The IOWA state voter registration is:

576,213 republicans;
606,209 democrats;
742,127 others (independents, commies, etc);

For some reason I expected the buckle of the bible belt to be 80% republican, but (R) is actually the smallest peice of the pie. The best numbers I have been able to find for caucus attendence are:

239,000 democrats;
115,000 republicans;

It was really exciting to learn that over twice as many voters caucused with DEMs than with REPs. Since any voter can attend any caucus, the IOWA results can be strongly biased in comparison to states that limit voting to members of their respective political parties. The New Hampshire primary will also allow "others" to bias the reults.

The Obama phenomona was strongly driven by the "others" and it was no surprise that Hillary landed at third place in open caucuses, but it is premature to count her out. It was especially refreshing to hear that the "youth" vote decided to show up for a change. Have the youngsters finally figured out that it is their future being destroyed by republican policy and international arrogance?

On the republican side, major media polls reported that over 60% of caucusers were self annointed born again evangelical christians. These are the same intolerant people who destroyed the republican party and still worship Bu$h, so it is no surprise that the wacky, intolerant, preacher was their overwhelming choice. Jesus was a liberal, so these people invented a different Christ! The pitiful turnout shows that sensible republicans have given up on their party and independents just said "no". This gives us hope for restoring democracy!

Priew -- I am caucasian and you are black, but I would not hesitate to vote for you. I cannot think of a better ambassador for our hobby. Racism is still thriving in America, especially among xenophobic republicans who see latinos as illegals. If Obama is the Democratic party choice, we must hope that he excites enough color blind and young voters to overcome the bigots of our nation.

RoadGlide -- Bill Richardson is my favorite too and will get my vote if still in the race on FEB 5. Although he has no real chance of topping the ticket, he will make an incredible Secretary of State. We need to keep Biden & Dodd in the senate until another dozen (R) seats get flipped. Anybody but Hillary is fine during primaries, but we must vote for anybody but REP during the general election.

Don Marco -- I live in Arizona and McCain has been just about worthless his entire life. He married into a political family that bought him a senate seat (so much for campaign finance reform). Johnny boy is all about getting his face on Sunday morning television where he sounds half way sensible on occassion, but this guy it a fraud and his ego makes me nauseous. Will McCain lovers ever wake up?

Smitopher -- My modest unit was imported from Germany where the best African genes have been replaced by great automobiles. So much for that "superior race" myth.

LaGuy -- There is a lot to like about Edwards, but he damn near lived in Iowa for the past six years and spent most of his money in Iowa and still came in second. I think of him as a one trick pony whose weak organization elsewhere means a very low probability of success and his experience in elected office is also insufficient.

Catocony -- I am not convinced that the Obama phenomona will last through the primaries either, especially when we get to party exclusive states and drive by voting. Like you, I am heavily involved in Democratic Party politics and can confirm that Hillary love is notably lacking in our progressive movement, but they will be with her if she survives the primaries. Hillary's bigger problem is 20 years of right wing hate propoganda that has portrayed her as divisive. This will take a toll amongst the lazy uninformed bastards who vote once every four years. I consider Romney to be the best that repubs have, but also expect their primary voters to chose the worst.

Sniper -- Interesting voyeuristic occupation for a monger. Please memo my inbox when you expand to Arizona. Nobody loves taxes, but you have to be pretty damned rich and spend most of your money overseas before a national sales tax is to your advantage. You have to be kidding about Gulliani, he is a war monger par Cheney and even more corrupt than Bu$h if that is possible.

I am happy to see that at least a few of my fellow mongers pay attention to what is going on in America. What else are we to do between monger trips, certainly not chase domestic pussy. The American economy is really in trouble because of debt and deficit spending. Mongers see this early in foreign exchange rates, but it will soon come home to roost in the form of recession and inflation. The Bu$h economy depends on phony loans and personal debt. 2008 will be a very interesting political year. I hope that the electorate strongly rebukes what the republican party has become and renders them impotent. Otherwise, I will seriously consider retirement at 55 and expatriate.

It will be very interesting to watch the ABC New Hampshire debates this evening. CNN has the primary for the Democrats at Obama 33%, Clinton 33%, and Edwards 20%. Clinton desperately needs to win the primary, and Edwards desperately needs to gain a few percentage points. All the makings for a very lively debate (which will include only four candidates on the stage).

Hot4-- how did you attach McPrune to my name? I ain't pulling for him.

Cat-- Wanaa make a small wager on Mitt-- he'll be going strong feb 5th! You think they are going to stick with the old prune or huckleberry to go up against the dems? NO WAY. Giully will be toast tho in a week or two and huckleberry should be on the brink.


For the record, I'm pulling for Obama, Mitt, Edwards in that order. Hillary is my last choice followed by huckleberry.

I can understand someone saying they like Obama and Edwards. I can also understand someone saying they don't like either. Their political philosophies seem similar enough (although this is not to discount that someone could differ in their views about their personal characteristics).

But I don't understand supporting Romney, and particularly not in the same breath as Obama and Edwards. IMHO it is impossible to know what his political philosophy would be as President, i.e., whether he would govern as a conservative or as a moderate.

In this regard, Romney reminds me of George Bush running in 2000. Commentators and voters alike debated whether he would govern as a conservative or a moderate, and he sent out signals supporting each view. His "compassionate conservative" slogan basically obscured what he would do as President and sent mixed signals, his comments about religion, social values, and so forth were skewed to attract evangelical conservatives, and his "I'm a uniter, not a divider" slogan was meant to appeal to moderates. We didn't know until after he became President which philosophy he would follow, and he chose (for the most part; I don't know anymore whether fiscal irresponsibly is right-wing, or something else)) to follow the most right-wing path the voters could have imagined when they elected him.

So, would Romney govern like the Massachusetts moderate (sometimes even liberal) that he was, or the very conservative candidate he was in Iowa (and will be in South Carolina if he gets that far), or the moderate/conservative candidate he may portray himself as in the short time running up to the big-state primaries on Feb. 5 (unless, of course Guiliani is the most viable alternative candidate then, in which case Romney would portray himself as a conservative ceding the moderates to Guiliani? (I won't extend this out to the general election because it is unlikely he will be around to portray himself as anything at that point).

Would the real Romney please stand up (and given that that will never happen, DM, I'm interested in your rationale for including him with Obama and Edwards on your list).

(Message edited by LAguy on January 06, 2008)

My problem with Romney is I don't think HE believes what he is saying on the campaign trail. (For the record, I don't think Bush II knew or understood what he was saying. He was just a trained parrot.) I agree with LAGuy, we haven't seen the real Romney yet - although I have no idea who the "real" Romney might be. At least Huckabee speaks his mind and stands by the stupid shit he says. I wouldn't vote for him, but he'd get my vote before Romney solely based on the candid factor.

I agree with whoever said it earlier in the thread, Romney's big problem with Joe Average Citizen (JAC) will be his affiliation with the Mormon Church. Remember that this is a country that has only elected one Catholic president. Catholicism, as mistrusted as it still is in much of the U.S., is MUCH more mainstream than Mormonism. Can you imagine the leap of faith that JAC will have to take to embrace Romney and his religion? Dig a little into the tenets of the Mormon church and you'll find one of the more bizarre "major" religions in this country. Which I, for one, find to be absolutely hilarious. For the record, I'm about as a-religious as a person can be. By that I mean, I don't care what you believe as long as you keep it to yourself.

EA

One of my all time favorite politicians--Mo Udall--was technically a Mormon, but not a practicing one.

I cannot think of a single mainstream western religion that is not fucking bizarre. We would be a lot better off if there WAS a religion test for the presidency: you only can assume the office if you have none.

I like Edwards or Obama. I'm just sick of almost 16 years of back and forth Clinton-Bush family political dynasties.

After carefully analyzing all of the candidates both
Republican and Democrat, it seems that there is only one logical candidate to restore hope and prosperity to the American people. I support a constitutional amendment to allow a minimum of 4 more years of George W Bush.

"Bush goes to Hel. That's what a lot of people want." --George W. Bush, on his visit to the Hel Peninsula, Gdansk, Poland, Jun. 8, 2007

Don Marco,

Obama-McCain McCain wins
..
Edwards-McCain Toss-up
..
Clinton-McCain Toss-up

Sorry if you felt that I painted you as a McCain lover. I was commenting on your prognosis being so favorable to Johnny boy. He has been getting a free ride for years, but I do not see him as a strong general election candidate because of his continuing support for war and lack of platform for domestic concerns.

H4A2

LAG,

Fair nuff question. Given that no one is curious about my obama/edwards picks, I'll go right to Mitt...

I've had to pleasure of hearing Mitt speak several times, seen him firsthand as gov in a pretty challenging environment, and watched his record somewhat closely while in charge.

I like presidents with some brains, and Mitt has shown to be pretty astute in the private sector, won an election in one of the most liberal states, and put together a pretty good record while on watch (i.e. worked well with lefties). All in all, he's articulate, intelligent, and sucessful.

In terms of political philosophy-- he's def a moderate/middle of the road republican. In terms of being a "conservative", I would say he wore that label best in terms of being a fiscal conservative, which I applaud (an earns him major points in my book over dems). In terms of everything else, he's pretty much middle of the road and is a fairly straight shooter (vs toeing party lines).

You know as well as I do that before one can be president that one must win primaries and who votes in primaries? The most liberal dems and the most conservative repubs. He's got to sing and dance a bit to win the party nomination, which to me is only common sense. I personally toss out election rhetoric and look at their record and what they voted/said prior. He's a stand up guy. With that said, he looked quite frazzled coming out of Iowa. Hell, I could of put together a better statement.

hot4-- you give mccain wait to much credit. NH wil be the only place he grabs votes-- just like last election. He doesn't have the cash to ride it out and has run several times already. If he couldn't beat Bush...
As for Edwards, I listed him 3rd-- he ain't winning anything either.

(Message edited by donmarco on January 07, 2008)

DM: I understand your point, but see a possible problem with assuming based on his prior record Romney would revert to moderation once elected President. These days the first day of a new presidency is also the first day of the campaign for re-election. If Romney figured he needed conservative or far-right support to win re-election, and calculated this was more important than moderate voters (a calculation Bush apparently made), Romney would likely govern as a conservative, and most particularly with respect to social issues. Owing to Romney's Mormon religion and suspicions held about it by evangelical Christians in particular, he would likely need to go the extra mile to get and retain the evangelical Christian vote, which many Republicans believe is necessary for them to win. For the evangelicals conservative fiscal policy pales in importance in comparison to conservative social policy.

Although there is merit to the view politicians pander during the primaries, and perhaps more so than during the general election campaigns, Romney seems to have taken this to an extreme. My concern is his views would reflect whatever he calculates is necessary to first win the primaries, then the general election, and then re-election. Perhaps his calculations in this would be different than Bush's, but I fear they would not be.

Well if he gets to nomination, we shall see. While one must cater to the right (or left) to get the nod, one must then switch gears and play the moderate (vs the opponent) to grab the general election (usually). If any repub plays the right card, he's dead in the water, just as the dems who were too far to the left got buried by the current turkey.

I'm calling it like I see it.....Barack Obama is now taking this Country by storm!!

Not only are the polls giving him significant advantages in New Hampshire and electability overall.....but ALL the candidates are attempting to copy his theme for change in America. Again....this speaks volumes about the threat of this individual and his overall potential....that many doubted in the beginning!!

Every day that appears to go by, every packed audience he speaks to.....it appears to increase his overall momentum of support, that continues to flow his way. It's hard to deny this...

It is now reported that he is the only candidate that actually has bus loads of media hounds following his every move.

What is also not surprising, is the fact that after Iowa's big win, the Secret Service has stepped up his security to rival that of the sitting President....to include dog stiffing and advance teams to all of his events.

Even reporters are now complaining the Obama's Secret Service agents are rude, aggressive, have no patience and is making it very difficult for them to cover the candidate. Further indicating they are required to go thru numerous other restrictions....(having their equipment checked, constant verification of creditials....etc)...unlike they ever seen with any other candidate.

Nonetheless....the Secret Service is reportedly standing by their actions....and defended its actions by simply stating.."...they are not taking any chances...."

Further indicating his increased popularity and potential for presidential candidicy has put them in a position to have to continually evaluate his needs for overall protection and make changes accordingly.

Needless to say....I am glad this agency recognizes the obvious threat involved here and I applaud them for their efforts....

Granted.....although I am VERY excited for Obama, I am even more worried about his overall safety. Although this Country has come a long way with his prejudices....it is still present and must be considered.

Now....this is getting more interested that I previously expected!!

Go Obama....Go Obama....LOL!




(Message edited by priew100 on January 07, 2008)

I say it will be Obama and Huckabee - Obama Wins ?

If Obama were to keep his momentum moving forward, let's think about the potential lineups - Survey USA's latest poll has Obama losing only against McCain in OH, with McCain at 50%, and Obama at 43%. He beats every other R running.

Obama v. McCain '08 = Kennedy v. Goldwater in '64?

I like Obama, he would probably be my choice for the Democrats. But it aint going to happen.

Priew, I'll make you a bet. We'll have to come up with terms!

Well, Kennedy was dead in 1964 and didn't run, and McCain is not an ultraconservative, so that's a bad analogy. It will be a month or two before we know, no sense in jumping on and off bandwagons at this early stage. Remember, Howard Dean was going to run away with the nomination in 2004, he was the agent of change, lots of fired up neophytes supporting him. It happens when there is a very open election, on both sides, something not really seen in 40 years.

True but there are really only a few viable candidates.

Democrats really don't know how to run an election since Bill Clinton. They are inept and always put forth non viable candidates. The minute they put in a moderate candidate like Bill Clinton, we flock to him.

The problem is, we don't have any moderate candidates. Hilary can say she is moderate, and perhaps she is to a large extent. But she is too damn divisive to the American people. That doesn't mean that she won't be on the ticket. I think she will.

I predict it will be Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama. Otherwise known as the losing party...yet again. I'll vote for them, but I know I'm going to lose.

Republicans, are going to have at least one zealot on the ticket. The Christian right make up way too much influence. I don't see it changing in this election.

While Rudy may be a war mongerer, he's a moderate war mongerer that will be forced to pull troops to some extent during his tenure. I don't see him as the moral majority type, which is good for me.

Regardless of who wins, I only see moderate troop withdraws over the next 4 years. I bet you we are still there to some extent for the next 10 years.

No politician has ever won the election that didn't at least place in the top 2 of Iowa and New Hampshire. Rudy didn't even campaign there. He's hoping his national appeal will take over. I hope he is right. If it doesn't, we'll see perhaps Huckabee/Romney or vice versa.

I think we may see a Guiliani/McCain ticket if he picks up steam. I don't see Rudy picking up the religious right. But I could be wrong.

I hope we all agree Huckabee is a scary guy if he gets into the oval office. Lets hope it doesn't happen.

It is of some interest that Bradley, who just endorsed Obama, endorsed Dean last time around. Gore also endorsed Dean last time, which in my mind really raised questions about Gore's judgment. I wonder if and when Gore will end up endorsing Obama and whether it will actually help this time.

One difference between the Obama phenomenon and the Dean phenomenon is that the Dean endorsements (and anointment as the Democratic nominee by the media) occurred before a single vote was cast, i.e., before Iowa. I never could figure out how the thing got to the point it did with Dean before any vote was cast, particularly given Dean's very sparse resume and track record. At least with Obama there are the results of the Iowa caucuses, as well as the near-certain victory tomorrow in New Hampshire to back up the hype.

I just hope we are not getting ourselves into another Dukakis situation, where this relatively unknown initially ran way ahead of Bush in the polls, but the more people learned about Dukakis, and the more the Republican smear ads took hold, the less popular he became.

(Message edited by LAguy on January 07, 2008)

Obama will not pick Clinton. He will pick either Richardson, Mark Warner, or Jim Webb. That is my prediction, and it is probably wrong.

(Message edited by LAguy on January 07, 2008)

Maybe General Zinni?