U.S. Presidential Elections 2008

[Guest American Woman]

I agree with everything you said, Carinthia. It's my thoughts exactly regarding Hillary and Obama. I think you really hit the nail on the head regarding Hillary. I'm even starting to agree with you about Huckabee; or at least I'm willing to give it more thought. My preference was Romney until it's been pointed out time and again that he's a flip-flopper. We sure don't need that from either party. We need someone who is straightforward no matter who wins. I've dismissed Huckabee based on the Evangelical part, which I'm not thrilled with either. I guess in my mind it's too "Bush-like." I want someone completely different from a "born-again" trying to instill their beliefs on all of us, but I do realize that's being biased too. I can't assume Huckabee is another Bush just because of the religious part, but I have to say, it does give me cause for concern. Yet my parents, whom I repect deeply, would say what you have said. As for Guiliani, again, I agree.

[Kitchener]

I agree with everything you said, Carinthia. It's my thoughts exactly regarding Hillary and Obama. I think you really hit the nail on the head regarding Hillary. I'm even starting to agree with you about Huckabee; or at least I'm willing to give it more thought. My preference was Romney until it's been pointed out time and again that he's a flip-flopper. We sure don't need that from either party. We need someone who is straightforward no matter who wins. I've dismissed Huckabee based on the Evangelical part, which I'm not thrilled with either. I guess in my mind it's too "Bush-like." I want someone completely different from a "born-again" trying to instill their beliefs on all of us, but I do realize that's being biased too. I can't assume Huckabee is another Bush just because of the religious part, but I have to say, it does give me cause for concern. Yet my parents, whom I repect deeply, would say what you have said. As for Guiliani, again, I agree.

I know what you mean by Bush-like, but I think at most Huckabee really is what Bush pretended/was coached to be. But that quite rightly should sink his chances, since Bush's pretense was sufficient to do all sorts of damage (undermining CS separation, flooding federal appointments with evangelical law graduates from 5th rate degree-mills, defunding international programs that might have included instructions on how to have sex without getting pregnant, etc.)

[Oleg Bach]

I know what you mean by Bush-like, but I think at most Huckabee really is what Bush pretended/was coached to be. But that quite rightly should sink his chances, since Bush's pretense was sufficient to do all sorts of damage (undermining CS separation, flooding federal appointments with evangelical law graduates from 5th rate degree-mills, defunding international programs that might have included instructions on how to have sex without getting pregnant, etc.)

There are no leaders to be elected. America has no future in these regards - all we have are committees of money mongers - the secretly control any candidate eventually. There are just theatrical front men who will do what they are told - to enforce a crazed and lost status quo bent on the destruction of what is remaining of the empire. Not with intent - just out of sheer stupidity - the worst and most richest and cruel now rule the roost - and they buy presidents as if they are show horses.

[BubberMiley]

The Democratic Convention is always a raucus affair, with "progressives" fighting with "moderates" for control of platform issues. VP choice goes into the same mix. Republican conventions are quite dull in comparison.

The power struggles within the Republican party appear to be more raucous than usual this time around. Many Republicans are openly contemptuous of Huckabee and there appears to be more of a divide between the "evangelicals" and the "establishment."

[bush_cheney2004]

The key to presidential elections is how much support one party can absorb from its opponent. In that battle, yesterday also showed significantly more "vote-lending" going from Republican to Democrat.

But it's true that Iowa is but one state and provides an extremely limited view. It does, however, give some insight into trends that may or may not play out nationally.

I don't know how that is possible in Iowa, where the Democrats use a closed caucus system. One must be a registered Democrat to participate in their caucus voting, and there are other arcane rules as well. The Republicans have no such restrictions.

[sharkman]

So my comments about Obama and Hilary doing well amongst Dems only in Iowa was pretty accurate.

Some of the posters have inferred that born again Bush had tried to instill his beliefs into Americans, and that surprised me. Could you name some incidents which back up that claim? I know he gave fatih based charities more money to help the homeless and asked people to pray at certain times, but that doesn't equal forcing religion on people.

As for those who are tired of those saying Americans aren't ready for a black or woman president, that's not the point. I'm referring to the Americans who wouldn't vote for a woman or a black and don't need to be told not to. They are a voting block that can't be ignored.

[bush_cheney2004]

So my comments about Obama and Hilary doing well amongst Dems only in Iowa was pretty accurate.

Exit polls suggest that Hillary only did better with 55 and older Democrats. Obama earned the larger share of new and younger party members.

Some of the posters have inferred that born again Bush had tried to instill his beliefs into Americans, and that surprised me. Could you name some incidents which back up that claim? I know he gave fatih based charities more money to help the homeless and asked people to pray at certain times, but that doesn't equal forcing religion on people.

The largest faith based "incidents" for Americans resulted from 9/11....before...and after.

As for those who are tired of those saying Americans aren't ready for a black or woman president, that's not the point. I'm referring to the Americans who wouldn't vote for a woman or a black and don't need to be told not to. They are a voting block that can't be ignored.

A large voting block never casts votes at all...for any candidate. Perhaps they are not ready for a "white male" president?

[August1991]

I will say that Obama taking "white" Iowa was refreshing in that it tells the world we are ready for a black president. I hope it shuts at least some of the 'critics' up.

So much is being made of this that it deserves an explanation.

The Iowa caucuses are the weirdest way to pick anything. A few active Democrats in church basements physically choose to stand in a corner to pick somebody who will pick a candidate. A very small percentage of Democratic voters are involved. It's easy for a "radical" candidate to get control of the process and win. That's what Huckabee and Obama have done. It makes sense when such a candidate does not have the resources for advertising or organization. The free publicity in the week after is worth alot.

We'll see now whether this strategy pays off in NH. I think not. First, the NH primary uses broad-based suffrage and NH party-declared voters are not the kind to be influenced by the national media going ga-ga over the Iowa caucus results.

Let's see how the NH (and NV and SC) voters view Obama and Huckabee. On the Dem side, I still think Clinton can't really lose and I still think Obama is doing a Kennedy-in-1956 preparation run. (Maybe I\m wrong.) On the Republican side, this thing is still wide open.

In November, the Dems will lose with either Clinton or Obama.

If a Republican has to take it, I hope it will be Huckabee. The Evangelical part doesn't thrill me, but I like him none the less.

Huckabee has alot more going than the son-of-a-preacher angle. He's one of the few that I've heard who seems willing to talk policy. Huckabee has made the extremely good point that as governor, he actually ran something. Neither Obama nor Clinton, as senators, haven't managed more than a shoe store.

On the other hand, you have Huckabee. He clearly appeals to the hardcore religious right, since he seems to actually be what they thought Bush was: a creationist, theocratic fundamentalist. He'll get the church vote out, but I get the feeling that the more libertarian, competence-oriented, fiscally conservative Repub voters are frankly sick to death of that wing of the party, are happy that Bush has stopped catering to them quite so pathetically, and don't want Chuck "I are a World Nut writer man!" Norris for Secretary of State. So they won't donate or volunteer or vote in quite the same numbers, either -- in fact, they might even vote for a Dem.

I detect a note of Yankee arrogance in that post and it explains in part why only a southern Democrat can win for the Dems in November. Edwards just can't win the nomination so the Republicans will win by default.

Anyway, the South (and Baptists) are a far more varied and sophisticated group than Hollywood and the Democrats typically believe.

Edited January 5, 2008 by August1991

[Kitchener]

Anyway, the South (and Baptists) are a far more varied and sophisticated group than Hollywood and the Democrats typically believe.

I don't doubt it, and never denied it.

What you have to take seriously is that the margins of victory in many key states are incredibly tight. What makes a candidate a loser in such a context can be simply that all his party's supporters don't come out to vote.

No matter who the Dems put up, virtually all their supporters (and a good many of their non-supporters) will come out to vote for them. The reason is sitting in the White House. The same is not true of the Republican candidates, each of whom represents some split in the coalition of corporatists, libertarians, and religious social conservatives that Atwater-Rove forged and held together increasingly shakily. Not even hatred of Hilary or fear of a black president is sufficient to bring low-tax secularists out to vote for Huckabee, or anti-gay fundamentalists out to vote for 9iu11iani.

In my opinion, of course. This is guesswork from all of us, at this point.

[Higgly]

I'd like to see Obama as Prez and Oprah as VP. I think Oprah would bring a lot of dignity and credibility to the position of VP after the Bush/Cheney abomination has sullied it beyond recognition.

I was pretty disturbed when Huckabee won Iowa for the Republicans. Haven't we had enough of these religious jackasses yet? Christian, Jewish, Moslem What difference does it make? These people are idiots.

Clinton is too New York and too beholden to the old process that has been compromised for too long by big money backroom politics. Clinton will never solve the Middle East problem, and the Middle East problem is the key to peace in our part of the world.

It is just about time that a Black team, after all they have given to America, gets a chance to call the shots.

[bush_cheney2004]

Because we all know what a powerless "second banana afterthought" Dick Cheney has been, eh?

Yes...we do. Vice President Cheney already had a political career in Congress and as Defense Sec'y long before #43 took office. Not a candidate as all, he was asked to find a suitable VP, but President Bush selected Cheney instead.

Another good decision.

[sharkman]

Yeah, Oprah's got plenty of experience and after all, her ratings are so high. Any party dumb enough to have such a running mate for VP would be trounced. So I hope they do it, not that the Republicans need the help.

[Higgly]

Yes...we do. Vice President Cheney already had a political career in Congress and as Defense Sec'y long before #43 took office. Not a candidate as all, he was asked to find a suitable VP, but President Bush selected Cheney instead.

Another good decision.

Another one? What was his first? Having Jeb as his brother?

[bush_cheney2004]

I'd like to see Obama as Prez and Oprah as VP. I think Oprah would bring a lot of dignity and credibility to the position of VP after the Bush/Cheney abomination has sullied it beyond recognition.

I was pretty disturbed when Huckabee won Iowa for the Republicans. Haven't we had enough of these religious jackasses yet? Christian, Jewish, Moslem What difference does it make? These people are idiots.

I think we have a winner....anyone despised by the designated maroons from Canada is best for America.

Clinton is too New York and too beholden to the old process that has been compromised for too long by big money backroom politics. Clinton will never solve the Middle East problem, and the Middle East problem is the key to peace in our part of the world.

Well, it sure as hell ain't gonna be Stephane Dion.

It is just about time that a Black team, after all they have given to America, gets a chance to call the shots.

Yessss-suh...we sho 'nuf need 'mo patronizing like 'dat.

[jdobbin]

In November, the Dems will lose with either Clinton or Obama.

I'll save this for later mea culpas. heh

It was sort of fun pointing out later errors by some of the right about the mid-term elections.

Edited January 5, 2008 by jdobbin

[BubberMiley]

Let's see how the NH (and NV and SC) voters view Obama and Huckabee. On the Dem side, I still think Clinton can't really lose and I still think Obama is doing a Kennedy-in-1956 preparation run. (Maybe I\m wrong.) On the Republican side, this thing is still wide open.

Post-Iowa polls of NH are coming in and they are indicating a huge surge for Obama. http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2008/01/arg_...oints_in_nh.php

There are also indications that Obama is generating a lot of support among Blacks in South Carolina, now that they're seeing evidence of his broad appeal among mainstream democrats. If Clinton loses New Hampshire, her campaign will have to act fast to try and change momentum before Super Tuesday if she's to stand a chance.

On the Republican side, it appears to be a horserace in NH between Romney and McCain. I think McCain has the edge in terms of positive momentum, particularly after Romney's disappointing showing in Iowa.

[bush_cheney2004]

I'll save this for later mea culpas. heh

It was sort of fun pointing out later errors by some of the right about the mid-term elections.

You mean like this:

jdobbin posted:

Yes, I suppose the Republicans could trend upwards, as you say, because the United States is not ready for a black, a Hispanic or a woman candidate but I have seen no indication thus far that this is the trend.

[jdobbin]

Post-Iowa polls of NH are coming in and they are indicating a huge surge for Obama. http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2008/01/arg_...oints_in_nh.php

There are also indications that Obama is generating a lot of support among Blacks in South Carolina, now that they're seeing evidence of his broad appeal among mainstream democrats. If Clinton loses New Hampshire, her campaign will have to act fast to try and change momentum before Super Tuesday if she's to stand a chance.

On the Republican side, it appears to be a horserace in NH between Romney and McCain. I think McCain has the edge in terms of positive momentum, particularly after Romney's disappointing showing in Iowa.

It is quite the surge for Obama. I suppose we'll be inundated with polls between now and the vote.

The Reuters poll shows some sag and was taken through Iowa and after. Clinton still has her lead in that one.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22514808/

New Hampshire - Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican John McCain hold shrinking leads in New Hampshire three days before the state's presidential nominating contest, according to a Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby poll released on Saturday.

Most of the polling in the four-day tracking survey was taken before the Iowa caucuses on Thursday, when Democrat Barack Obama and Republican Mike Huckabee sailed to wins in the opening test of the U.S. presidential campaign.

In New Hampshire, Clinton's lead over Obama in the Democratic race shrunk slightly to four points, 32 percent to 28 percent. John Edwards, a former North Carolina senator who finished second in Iowa, was in third place with 20 percent.

Romney just won the Wyoming caucuses. He really had no challenges there.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22517585/

Mitt Romney captured his first win of the Republican presidential race, gaining most of Wyoming's delegates at stake in GOP caucuses on Saturday.

The former Massachusetts governor won six of the first eight delegates to be selected. Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson and California Rep. Duncan Hunter won one apiece, meaning no other candidate could beat Romney. Caucuses were still being held to decide all 12 delegates at stake.

The win was a boost for Romney, coming two days after his loss to Mike Huckabee in the Iowa caucuses and three days before the first-in-the-nation primary in New Hampshire. Those two states have attracted most of the political attention. Wyoming had scheduled its GOP county conventions earlier to attract candidates to the state but had only modest results.

Edited January 5, 2008 by jdobbin

[Carinthia]

My prediction for the NH primary on Tuesday will be an Obama win for the Dems. Hilary's persona during the ABC TV debate tonight was a complete failure. The look she was casting upon Obama can only be compared to a north wind jet stream. Very revealing!

The talking heads are predicting that McCain will win in NH because he won over Bush there in ’04. Now, NH is viewed as an intelligent state therefore, Huckabee will probably take it, as we all know that Bush ain’t that big on intelligence and most of us with any, knew this at that time. As for the repugs, from what I could discern, they don't have a clue what they stand for other than who belongs to what church and I don't see how that has anything to do with the price of bread in Harlem or gas at the pumps anywhere. The ex TV star, whats his name, was nothing short of verbally confusing as well as lazy. I think, he thinks that if Reagan and The Terminator can reach great heights, he will be a shoe in with the pop culture faction.

Edwards was pretty crafty in his appearance of an endorsement with Obama over Clinton's attack on Obama for apparently changing his mind 4 times on health care. Edwards knows that if he doesn't split the vote, he's out.

Highly entertaining!

[Guest American Woman]

Re: Huckabee-- this is the kind of thought that I don't want to see in the White House (his ads promote him as a "Christian leader," which I don't agree with, and is just one of the reasons I think he's too "Bush-like")--

Among the controversial statements or policies now being attributed to Huckabee:

. He suggested in 1992 that people infected with the AIDS virus be quarantined.

. As Arkansas governor, he lobbied for the release from prison of a convicted rapist, Wayne Dumond, who sexually assaulted and murdered another woman after being paroled.

. He condemned common-law couples for living an alternative, "demeaning" lifestyle.

. He described homosexuality as "an aberrant, unnatural and sinful lifestyle" that posed a "dangerous public health risk." Link

It was nice of him to congratulate Canadians on preserving their national igloo, though. And of course that comment makes me think of GW's lack of intermational experience/knowledge too.

I honestly can't say that I care for any of the Republican candidates, and I really can't believe they couldn't come up with anyone better.

[Kitchener]

I honestly can't say that I care for any of the Republican candidates, and I really can't believe they couldn't come up with anyone better.

Point taken about Huckabee.

The problem for the Republicans (even more than for the Dems, who have a similar version), I think, is that their current "grassroots" mechanisms make it hard for sensible candidates to get to the fore without essentially perjuring themselves. So either you have to genuinely think that abortion should be outlawed, for example, or you have to betray your principles by saying that you do. Leading to Huckabee and Romney, respectively. It's sort of like polarized filters set at right angles: together they mean that a candidate who is both sensible and principled can't even get off the ground.

[sharkman]

Re: Huckabee-- this is the kind of thought that I don't want to see in the White House (his ads promote him as a "Christian leader," which I don't agree with, and is just one of the reasons I think he's too "Bush-like")--

Among the controversial statements or policies now being attributed to Huckabee:

. He suggested in 1992 that people infected with the AIDS virus be quarantined.

. As Arkansas governor, he lobbied for the release from prison of a convicted rapist, Wayne Dumond, who sexually assaulted and murdered another woman after being paroled.

. He condemned common-law couples for living an alternative, "demeaning" lifestyle.

. He described homosexuality as "an aberrant, unnatural and sinful lifestyle" that posed a "dangerous public health risk." Link

There are quote lists like this for every single candidate,gathered by various political organizations who like to one up each other.

If you don't like the idea of a christian leader in the white house, then you better vote none of the above. Clinton was a christian and occasionally had photo ops while walking out the church doors with wife in one hand and bible in the other.

Did you see the debate in which the God question was raised? All of the leading Dem candidates professed to be Christians, especially Obama.

[bush_cheney2004]

....The look she was casting upon Obama can only be compared to a north wind jet stream....

Well, we all know where the north wind comes from.

The talking heads are predicting that McCain will win in NH because he won over Bush there in ’04. Now, NH is viewed as an intelligent state therefore, Huckabee will probably take it, as we all know that Bush ain’t that big on intelligence and most of us with any, knew this at that time.

Yea, President is so stupid he only wins elections against smart people.

Edwards was pretty crafty in his appearance of an endorsement with Obama over Clinton's attack on Obama for apparently changing his mind 4 times on health care. Edwards knows that if he doesn't split the vote, he's out.

Edwards is already in second banana mode, just like last time.

[Lazarus]

There are quote lists like this for every single candidate,gathered by various political organizations who like to one up each other.

If you don't like the idea of a christian leader in the white house, then you better vote none of the above. Clinton was a christian and occasionally had photo ops while walking out the church doors with wife in one hand and bible in the other.

Did you see the debate in which the God question was raised? All of the leading Dem candidates professed to be Christians, especially Obama.

There is a marked difference between a "Christian Leader" and a leader who is a Christian. I believe that many Americans feel more comfortable with a President who has some spiritual or religious convictions to guide them, but by the same token do not want a President who would push or force his or her religious values or views on to public. Same holds true in Canada.

[BubberMiley]

There are quote lists like this for every single candidate,gathered by various political organizations who like to one up each other.

All candidates have positions they have taken in the past that might negatively affect them, and all of these quotes will be exposed in the due process of an election. The question is which ones stick in voters' minds and which ones are dismissed. Huckabee has stated clearly that he would make abortion illegal in all cases (see Meet the Press last week), so he is still coming up with controversial views now, never mind the distant past.

It's true that every candidate has negatives, but one still has to win, so the voting public has to decide which negatives they feel are least important.