Obama crushes Clinton; Huckabee pulls one out!
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080104/pl_nm/usa_politics_dc[^] I have to say, that was one combination I didn't expect. And Obama's 8 percent lead is more than anyone expected. Very awesome.
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
It is going to be an interesting election cycle. Neither Huckabee nor Obama have the national organization in place that many of the others have, so things are far from settled.
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all. Freedom is not something you express with your genitals, it is something you express with your mind.
-
It is going to be an interesting election cycle. Neither Huckabee nor Obama have the national organization in place that many of the others have, so things are far from settled.
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all. Freedom is not something you express with your genitals, it is something you express with your mind.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Neither Huckabee nor Obama have the national organization in place that many of the others have, so things are far from settled.
Obama has raised as much money as Clinton. If he wins in New Hampshire, he will be very difficult to stop. The Iowa win is huge for Obama. The record turnout and the fact that it favoured Obama speaks very loudly on the electability issue.
John Carson
-
I particularly enjoyed the look on Bill's face during Hillary's concession "onward and upwards" speech. He appeared to have eaten something that he didn't like the taste of.
Jon Information doesn't want to be free. It wants to be sixty-nine cents @ pound.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Neither Huckabee nor Obama have the national organization in place that many of the others have, so things are far from settled.
Obama has raised as much money as Clinton. If he wins in New Hampshire, he will be very difficult to stop. The Iowa win is huge for Obama. The record turnout and the fact that it favoured Obama speaks very loudly on the electability issue.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
The Iowa win is huge for Obama. The record turnout and the fact that it favoured Obama speaks very loudly on the electability issue.
Perhaps, but if the Democrats seriously believe that their former mosque-attending, cocaine-snorting, junior Senator with 1 year of practical experience in the Senate, Barack Hussein Obama, is going to win the White House, I think they are delusional. He is just as flawed a national contender as Huckabee is (whom I like only slightly more than the democrats). Clinton, Romeny, et al, have spent years building up national organizations that are committed to their various campaigns. Neither Huckabee nor Obama have that on such a scale. As the primary season drags on, that will make a difference. Iowa simply is not that important. (BTW, I predict Edwards will actually end up as the democrat candidate.)
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all. Freedom is not something you express with your genitals, it is something you express with your mind.
modified on Friday, January 04, 2008 8:39:38 AM
-
John Carson wrote:
The Iowa win is huge for Obama. The record turnout and the fact that it favoured Obama speaks very loudly on the electability issue.
Perhaps, but if the Democrats seriously believe that their former mosque-attending, cocaine-snorting, junior Senator with 1 year of practical experience in the Senate, Barack Hussein Obama, is going to win the White House, I think they are delusional. He is just as flawed a national contender as Huckabee is (whom I like only slightly more than the democrats). Clinton, Romeny, et al, have spent years building up national organizations that are committed to their various campaigns. Neither Huckabee nor Obama have that on such a scale. As the primary season drags on, that will make a difference. Iowa simply is not that important. (BTW, I predict Edwards will actually end up as the democrat candidate.)
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all. Freedom is not something you express with your genitals, it is something you express with your mind.
modified on Friday, January 04, 2008 8:39:38 AM
Stan Shannon wrote:
Perhaps, but if the Democrats seriously believe that their former mosque-attending, cocaine-snorting, junior Senator with 1 year of practical experience in the Senate, Barack Hussein Obama, is going to win the White House, I think they are delusional.
Roll on November. For the times they are a changin'.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Clinton, Romeny, et al, have spent years building up national organizations that are committed to their various campaigns. Neither Huckabee nor Obama have that on such a scale.
I think you will find that Obama's organization is a match for any of them. Huckabee will struggle anywhere that lacks a large proportion of evangelicals.
John Carson
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Perhaps, but if the Democrats seriously believe that their former mosque-attending, cocaine-snorting, junior Senator with 1 year of practical experience in the Senate, Barack Hussein Obama, is going to win the White House, I think they are delusional.
Roll on November. For the times they are a changin'.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Clinton, Romeny, et al, have spent years building up national organizations that are committed to their various campaigns. Neither Huckabee nor Obama have that on such a scale.
I think you will find that Obama's organization is a match for any of them. Huckabee will struggle anywhere that lacks a large proportion of evangelicals.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
For the times they are a changin'.
Where have I heard that before? Obama's support is every bit as much of a radicalized minority as the evangelicals represent, regardless of media efforts to characterize it differently. You are a perfect example of that. But the Clinton machine will begin hammering that alarm bell soon enough. The very instant either Obama or Huckabee begin the necessary move to the center, you will immediately see support shifting dramatically to the more traditional, power base, candidates. I predict the national tickets will be Romney/Huckabee against Edwards/Clinton.
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all. Freedom is not something you express with your genitals, it is something you express with your mind.
-
John Carson wrote:
For the times they are a changin'.
Where have I heard that before? Obama's support is every bit as much of a radicalized minority as the evangelicals represent, regardless of media efforts to characterize it differently. You are a perfect example of that. But the Clinton machine will begin hammering that alarm bell soon enough. The very instant either Obama or Huckabee begin the necessary move to the center, you will immediately see support shifting dramatically to the more traditional, power base, candidates. I predict the national tickets will be Romney/Huckabee against Edwards/Clinton.
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all. Freedom is not something you express with your genitals, it is something you express with your mind.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I predict the national tickets will be Romney/Huckabee against Edwards/Clinton.
Romney / Steele would be a terrific combo. But I wouldn't be surprised at all to see a draft Newt movement.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I predict the national tickets will be Romney/Huckabee against Edwards/Clinton.
Romney / Steele would be a terrific combo. But I wouldn't be surprised at all to see a draft Newt movement.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Anything is possible. But I think Huckabee would give Romney's campaign a needed populist touch. It would shore up his support in the south and the west. I can't think of anyone who could do that better than Huckabee. You have to be a real wonk to even know who Steele is. Thompson might be a good alternative to Huckabee though, but he really needs to work on his committment level. As much as I love Newt, I hope he doesn't muddy the waters more than they already are. I would like to see him come out in support of Fred though. I've been sending money to the Thompson campaign for all the good it is doing.
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all. Freedom is not something you express with your genitals, it is something you express with your mind.
-
Anything is possible. But I think Huckabee would give Romney's campaign a needed populist touch. It would shore up his support in the south and the west. I can't think of anyone who could do that better than Huckabee. You have to be a real wonk to even know who Steele is. Thompson might be a good alternative to Huckabee though, but he really needs to work on his committment level. As much as I love Newt, I hope he doesn't muddy the waters more than they already are. I would like to see him come out in support of Fred though. I've been sending money to the Thompson campaign for all the good it is doing.
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all. Freedom is not something you express with your genitals, it is something you express with your mind.
Stan Shannon wrote:
But I think Huckabee
I don't disagree, but is too much like Carter for my taste. I do like Fred and was excited when he got in but as much as his views are a continuation of RR he hasn't been able to inspire. However I also think that is because of the media focus on Huckabee who I believe is being touted because he's so buffoonish that Hillary would readily trounce him.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
John Carson wrote:
For the times they are a changin'.
Where have I heard that before? Obama's support is every bit as much of a radicalized minority as the evangelicals represent, regardless of media efforts to characterize it differently. You are a perfect example of that. But the Clinton machine will begin hammering that alarm bell soon enough. The very instant either Obama or Huckabee begin the necessary move to the center, you will immediately see support shifting dramatically to the more traditional, power base, candidates. I predict the national tickets will be Romney/Huckabee against Edwards/Clinton.
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all. Freedom is not something you express with your genitals, it is something you express with your mind.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Obama's support is every bit as much of a radicalized minority as the evangelicals represent, regardless of media efforts to characterize it differently.
On the contrary, the radicals generally favour Edwards. Obama has crossover appeal to independents and even some Republicans. I have seen several polls showing that Obama is the one candidate that Republicans are willing to consider (whereas none are willing to consider Clinton). It is true that Obama has a liberal voting record in the Senate, but this doesn't seem to bother people much, since the country is pretty liberal on domestic policy at the moment.
Stan Shannon wrote:
But the Clinton machine will begin hammering that alarm bell soon enough.
I don't see where Clinton has to go. She has been hammering the "experience" angle and the "work hard for change" and "policy expertise" angles. She has (via proxies) even raised the issue of Obama's youthful cocaine use. I think she has fired all her best shots and nothing has worked. Painting Obama as a radical isn't going to work because a) his policies aren't that different from hers, b) the Democratic base won't be scared off by such claims.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I predict the national tickets will be Romney/Huckabee against Edwards/Clinton
I think the Republican nominee will be either Romney or McCain (Giuliani has self-destructed over various scandals, Huckabee is an amateur, albeit one who talks well, and Thompson has run a lacklustre campaign). From the perspective of the Republican base, Romney's negatives are that he is a Mormon and doesn't have any principles. McCain's negatives are that he doesn't want to shoot illegal migrants and shows other occasional left-wing tendencies. No real joy for the base anywhere. It is rather early to be confident, but I suspect Clinton may be gone. In policy terms, she is the most qualified candidate but about 45% of the population won't vote for her under any circumstances, which is a huge negative as soon as some alternative comes along who looks at all credible. If so, then it comes down to Edward's radical populism vs Obama's less strident, "come together" message. I'm guessing Obama will win that contest.
John Carson
-
Oakman wrote:
He appeared to have eaten something that he didn't like the taste of.
One of Hillary's interns?
Faith is a fine invention For gentlemen who see; But microscopes are prudent In an emergency! -Emily Dickinson
:laugh::laugh::laugh:
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Neither Huckabee nor Obama have the national organization in place that many of the others have, so things are far from settled.
Obama has raised as much money as Clinton. If he wins in New Hampshire, he will be very difficult to stop. The Iowa win is huge for Obama. The record turnout and the fact that it favoured Obama speaks very loudly on the electability issue.
John Carson
This guy is a NOBODY (except for Oprah backing him --- hmmm, could it be because he's black like she is???). He has accomplished exactly the same thing as Hillary --- not a damn thing in the Senate the entire time they've been there. What legislation has been passed with either of their names heading that legislation? NOTHING! And this is 'electability'?? Wake up Carson. You'd vote for a 'pig in a poke' as long as it had Democrat written somewhere on it!
John P.
-
Funny how many people were talking about the results at the office's morning coffee - IMO it's good to see two winners who are not 'insiders' in their own party. People want change, don't they?
The most wasted of all days is that on which one has not laughed Fold with us! ¤ flickr
Iowa results are almost always meaningless. The whole structure of the caucuses there guarantees the that the candidate most popular with the extremes will win (as it did once again yesterday). No centrist candidate has ever stood a chance in Iowa, and the insiders are (relatively speaking) centrists in both cases. Sadly, Iowa damages the process by eliminating candidates whose funds run low if they perform too poorly there, furthering the polarization of politics in this country. Clinton will likely recover in NH, but Thompson may not live to see South Carolina or the February big state primaries. I wish we would require all parties to hold their primaries all on the same date (preferably late summer). The result would be more representative.
-
This guy is a NOBODY (except for Oprah backing him --- hmmm, could it be because he's black like she is???). He has accomplished exactly the same thing as Hillary --- not a damn thing in the Senate the entire time they've been there. What legislation has been passed with either of their names heading that legislation? NOTHING! And this is 'electability'?? Wake up Carson. You'd vote for a 'pig in a poke' as long as it had Democrat written somewhere on it!
John P.
You could add Edwards to that list also. Politically, their collective legislative output makes Dan Quayle look like Thomas Jefferson.
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all. Freedom is not something you express with your genitals, it is something you express with your mind.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Obama's support is every bit as much of a radicalized minority as the evangelicals represent, regardless of media efforts to characterize it differently.
On the contrary, the radicals generally favour Edwards. Obama has crossover appeal to independents and even some Republicans. I have seen several polls showing that Obama is the one candidate that Republicans are willing to consider (whereas none are willing to consider Clinton). It is true that Obama has a liberal voting record in the Senate, but this doesn't seem to bother people much, since the country is pretty liberal on domestic policy at the moment.
Stan Shannon wrote:
But the Clinton machine will begin hammering that alarm bell soon enough.
I don't see where Clinton has to go. She has been hammering the "experience" angle and the "work hard for change" and "policy expertise" angles. She has (via proxies) even raised the issue of Obama's youthful cocaine use. I think she has fired all her best shots and nothing has worked. Painting Obama as a radical isn't going to work because a) his policies aren't that different from hers, b) the Democratic base won't be scared off by such claims.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I predict the national tickets will be Romney/Huckabee against Edwards/Clinton
I think the Republican nominee will be either Romney or McCain (Giuliani has self-destructed over various scandals, Huckabee is an amateur, albeit one who talks well, and Thompson has run a lacklustre campaign). From the perspective of the Republican base, Romney's negatives are that he is a Mormon and doesn't have any principles. McCain's negatives are that he doesn't want to shoot illegal migrants and shows other occasional left-wing tendencies. No real joy for the base anywhere. It is rather early to be confident, but I suspect Clinton may be gone. In policy terms, she is the most qualified candidate but about 45% of the population won't vote for her under any circumstances, which is a huge negative as soon as some alternative comes along who looks at all credible. If so, then it comes down to Edward's radical populism vs Obama's less strident, "come together" message. I'm guessing Obama will win that contest.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
On the contrary, the radicals generally favour Edwards. Obama has crossover appeal to independents and even some Republicans. I have seen several polls showing that Obama is the one candidate that Republicans are willing to consider (whereas none are willing to consider Clinton). It is true that Obama has a liberal voting record in the Senate, but this doesn't seem to bother people much, since the country is pretty liberal on domestic policy at the moment.
Actually, I view Edwards as competing with Huckabee for the populist vote. Different strains, but the same basic appeal. Edwards views are certainly extreme, but they do conform to a certain pattern of American populism. Obama has not really committed as forcefully to an actual position. He is running the campaign Hillary wanted to run - a lot of meaningless platitudes obfuscating a trully radical agenda from any traditional American perspective - only he is doing it much more intelligently. Like Bill Clinton was able to do, he appears to be many different things to many different interest groups. Once he is forced to commit to an actual position, he will lose either the support from independents and wavering republicans or from his radical base. Edwards and Clinton will gain from that. <blockquote class="FQ"><div class="FQA">John Carson wrote:</div> I don't see where Clinton has to go</blockquote> I don't disagree - she is certainly damaged goods now and has little chance of winning - but she is not going to go away without the most vicious fight imaginable. Unless she relents to her better angels, which is unlikely, I think she is still capable of hurting Obama badly even if it does her no real good.
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all. Freedom is not something you express with your genitals, it is something you express with your mind.
-
You could add Edwards to that list also. Politically, their collective legislative output makes Dan Quayle look like Thomas Jefferson.
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all. Freedom is not something you express with your genitals, it is something you express with your mind.
Stan Shannon wrote:
their collective legislative output makes Dan Quayle look like Thomas Jefferson
:laugh::laugh::laugh:
"I guess it's what separates the professionals from the drag and drop, girly wirly, namby pamby, wishy washy, can't code for crap types." - Pete O'Hanlon
-
John Carson wrote:
On the contrary, the radicals generally favour Edwards. Obama has crossover appeal to independents and even some Republicans. I have seen several polls showing that Obama is the one candidate that Republicans are willing to consider (whereas none are willing to consider Clinton). It is true that Obama has a liberal voting record in the Senate, but this doesn't seem to bother people much, since the country is pretty liberal on domestic policy at the moment.
Actually, I view Edwards as competing with Huckabee for the populist vote. Different strains, but the same basic appeal. Edwards views are certainly extreme, but they do conform to a certain pattern of American populism. Obama has not really committed as forcefully to an actual position. He is running the campaign Hillary wanted to run - a lot of meaningless platitudes obfuscating a trully radical agenda from any traditional American perspective - only he is doing it much more intelligently. Like Bill Clinton was able to do, he appears to be many different things to many different interest groups. Once he is forced to commit to an actual position, he will lose either the support from independents and wavering republicans or from his radical base. Edwards and Clinton will gain from that. <blockquote class="FQ"><div class="FQA">John Carson wrote:</div> I don't see where Clinton has to go</blockquote> I don't disagree - she is certainly damaged goods now and has little chance of winning - but she is not going to go away without the most vicious fight imaginable. Unless she relents to her better angels, which is unlikely, I think she is still capable of hurting Obama badly even if it does her no real good.
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all. Freedom is not something you express with your genitals, it is something you express with your mind.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Like Bill Clinton was able to do, he appears to be many different things to many different interest groups. Once he is forced to commit to an actual position, he will lose either the support from independents and wavering republicans or from his radical base.
It is not clear that he will be forced to commit to a whole lot more than he already has. His health care plan is already out there; his somewhat vague Iraq withdrawal plan is out there. Neither of those seem to have scared people off.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Unless she relents to her better angels, which is unlikely, I think she is still capable of hurting Obama badly even if it does her no real good.
I can't see viciousness from Clinton happening, but time will tell.
John Carson
-
This guy is a NOBODY (except for Oprah backing him --- hmmm, could it be because he's black like she is???). He has accomplished exactly the same thing as Hillary --- not a damn thing in the Senate the entire time they've been there. What legislation has been passed with either of their names heading that legislation? NOTHING! And this is 'electability'?? Wake up Carson. You'd vote for a 'pig in a poke' as long as it had Democrat written somewhere on it!
John P.
jparken wrote:
You'd vote for a 'pig in a poke' as long as it had Democrat written somewhere on it!
This from the discerning supporter of George W Bush. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
John Carson
-
Iowa results are almost always meaningless. The whole structure of the caucuses there guarantees the that the candidate most popular with the extremes will win (as it did once again yesterday). No centrist candidate has ever stood a chance in Iowa, and the insiders are (relatively speaking) centrists in both cases. Sadly, Iowa damages the process by eliminating candidates whose funds run low if they perform too poorly there, furthering the polarization of politics in this country. Clinton will likely recover in NH, but Thompson may not live to see South Carolina or the February big state primaries. I wish we would require all parties to hold their primaries all on the same date (preferably late summer). The result would be more representative.
Rob Graham wrote:
Iowa results are almost always meaningless. The whole structure of the caucuses there guarantees the that the candidate most popular with the extremes will win (as it did once again yesterday). No centrist candidate has ever stood a chance in Iowa, and the insiders are (relatively speaking) centrists in both cases.
Hardly meaningless:
But Iowa remains a search for the grail of the Big Mo, for one inescapable reason: since 1976, whoever has won both Iowa and New Hampshire has gone on to become their party's candidate for president: In 1976, both Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford; in 2000, Al Gore; and in 2004, John Kerry. Of six contested Democrat caucuses in Iowa since 1976, the Iowa winner won the nomination 4 times. Of five contested Republican Iowa caucuses, only three winners went on to get the nomination. So winning Iowa is a big deal, but it's the one-two Iowa-NH flurry that is truly decisive.
http://blogs.smh.com.au/whitehouse08/archives/2008/01/big_mo_and_how_to_read_iowa.html[^]
John Carson
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080104/pl_nm/usa_politics_dc[^] I have to say, that was one combination I didn't expect. And Obama's 8 percent lead is more than anyone expected. Very awesome.
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
Isn't Huckabee that "bomb us back into social stone age 1880" guy?
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
My first real C# project | Linkify!| FoldWithUs! | sighist