Obama crushes Clinton; Huckabee pulls one out!
-
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 -
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.
We got a cokehead alchoholic draft-dodger with absolutely no relevant political experience in the White House, so why not?