HK wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 21:19:06 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote:

On Jan 3, 6:42?pm, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 13:00:17 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing

wrote:
I'm thinking Obama gets out with a lead of three or four points over
Edwards in second and Clinton a very close third to Edwards - say
within a point or two.
Did I call that one right or what?
Tada.....

Too bad about the *other* half of your prediction, however. You didn't
account for the political muscle of the evangelical Christian
contingent.

Yep - that one surprized me that's for sure. What interests me is
that Huckabee would be the ideal Democrat candidate. What he proposes
isn't conservative Republican in any sense of the word. I think he
was selected on the strength of his faith and his pro-life stance - in
ever other aspect, he's a Democrat.


Huckabee is a simple-minded Christian evangelist, sugar-coating his
Ayatollah side in pseudo-populism. He's perfect for about a third of
modern-day Republicans who want to move the calendar backwards. While
anything is possible, it is hard to imagine the Yankees in New Hampshire
going for the Elmer Gantry from Arkansas. On the other hand, the rest of
the Republicans are such a pack of losers, *real* losers, that anything
could happen.

I was surprised but not displeased by Obama's win in Iowa. He's a very
appealing guy, and articulate. My fear is that despite his qualities, in
a general election, whitey isn't going to vote for "the black guy."



Ok, so Republicans are 33.3% simple-minded Christian evangelist and
66.6% losers. You seem to have them all figured out.

Even though Iowa voted heavily for Obama, you want to play the race card.