"HK" wrote in message
...

I have no problems with any of the Democratic frontrunners winning the
nomination. I've always liked Mrs. Clinton, I think Obama is aces, and I
think Edwards' heart is in precisely the right place.


I noticed something this morning that surprised me. I realize that
politicians are .... well, politicians, but this was still surprising and it
makes me wonder what is really going on:

Yesterday I watched Biden and Dodd being interviewed. Both recognized and
acknowledged their respective slim chances in Iowa, but hoped for the best.
Dodd in particular indicated that beyond Iowa he expected support for him to
surge later in the primary season and was confident of his chances.

After the first "contest" both folded and went home. What gives?

Eisboch

HK wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...

On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 22:12:08 -0500, HK wrote:

There's going to be a landslide vote for the Democratic candidate in
November. The populace is tired of the S.O.S. from the Republicans.
I'm not sure about that at all.

I'd argue the point, but it wouldn't change your mind. :)


My sense, after seeing the results in Iowa, is that Harry is probably
correct.
The Democrats came out in force (numbers) to support their candidates,
much more so than the Republicans came forth to support theirs in an
otherwise red state.

People have had it with the current state of affairs and are looking
for a breath of fresh air, I think. That includes the "business as
usual" candidates of both parties like Clinton and McCain, so it
really only leaves Obama and possibly Romney. I don't think Romney
would stand a chance against Obama, even if he manages to get the
nomination.

Edwards is still a remote possibility however.

Eisboch



More than twice as many Democrats came out to the caucuses than
Republicans.

That in itself says a lot about the excitement Dems have for their
candidates, and the lack of excitement Repubs have for theirs.

CBS News reported that the Republican turnout was much higher than it
was last election cycle. Excitement is high on both sides for this
event, selecting the respective nominees from both parties.

Add in the crazy procedures the Dems use in the Iowa caucuses, and the
time it takes. You have to be motivated to hang around for two hours for
that madness. Contrast that with the Repub caucus procedure...just make
a mark on a paper ballot and go home.

What about the report Fox News report that the Iowa Cacuses don't
accurately reflect the way Iowans vote in the general election?

John McCain is too conservative for my taste on several issues, but he'd
be a more than competent president. I do worry about his age, though. I
don't think the Repubs are wise enough to nominate him.

If McCain doesn't win in New Hampshire he is gone. He may stick around
through South Carolina, however, Huckabee will get the South Carolina vote.

Romney! Ha! Romney has a hairdo, a lot of nice suits, and a lot of
money, but he has flip-flopped on so many big issues, he makes John
Kerry look like a guy wearing concrete overshoes.

Romney comes across as more presidential than Kerry could ever dream of.

My ideal Republican candidate, though, is Mike Huckabee. He's just
perfect for the GOP.

He is perfect for the Democrats. If he was on your slate he would win
your party's nomination.

Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...
I have no problems with any of the Democratic frontrunners winning the
nomination. I've always liked Mrs. Clinton, I think Obama is aces, and I
think Edwards' heart is in precisely the right place.


I noticed something this morning that surprised me. I realize that
politicians are .... well, politicians, but this was still surprising and it
makes me wonder what is really going on:

Yesterday I watched Biden and Dodd being interviewed. Both recognized and
acknowledged their respective slim chances in Iowa, but hoped for the best.
Dodd in particular indicated that beyond Iowa he expected support for him to
surge later in the primary season and was confident of his chances.

After the first "contest" both folded and went home. What gives?

Nobody gives. Gives money to either one. They couldn't put together a
national organization. Both have been in the Senate too long and people
know where the both stand and they are not national candidate material.

Obama, Clinton and Edwards have absolutely noting in their Senate
records, they haven't actually done anything except show up for some
votes. No track record means they can say what they want and people will
believe them.

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 03:34:36 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
m...
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?


More interesting to me, since I don't care which Dem wins the
nomination,
so long as the winning Dem wins the election is this:

The total number of voters in Iowa who came out on a really cold night
to
vote for Democratic candidates was well over 200,000, significantly more
than came out to vote for the Republicans. In Iowa, a red state that
Bush
carried in 2004.

There's going to be a landslide vote for the Democratic candidate in
November. The populace is tired of the S.O.S. from the Republicans.

There'd better be a landslide if Huckabee is the Republican candidate.
He's
dangerous. He's successfully pandering to right wing Kristians, and it's
working. If they see him as more ethical than Bush, he could be a real
problem.

Can we agree to stop using Kristians? It's insulting and not
neccessary.


I use that term to describe the sect that meddles a bit too much, to the
point of trying to prevent the distribution of condoms in Africa as part of
our AIDS prevention assistance. You know why, and you know they're wrong.
People are dying, and these Kristians are trying to connect condoms with
loose morals because of something they read in an old book written by people
who were no holier than you or I. It's pure bull****.



With pandering, what is politics but for pandering? Come on - he's
attractive to them because he's one of them and based on his largely
Pro-Life stance. What they don't realise is that he's a Democrat in
every other sense of the word - a true Fred Harris style populist.


What concerns me is that ALL new presidents are in danger of being crushed
by an onslaught of powerful influences who have publicity machines that are
as powerful as the president's. I want someone who's capable of saying "Get
the phuque outta my office and don't EVER come back." I don't know about
either Huckabee or Obama. For reasons I can't explain, I think McCain's
capable of that. Lee Iacocca, too, but he's too smart to run for president.

Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...
I have no problems with any of the Democratic frontrunners winning the
nomination. I've always liked Mrs. Clinton, I think Obama is aces, and I
think Edwards' heart is in precisely the right place.


I noticed something this morning that surprised me. I realize that
politicians are .... well, politicians, but this was still surprising and it
makes me wonder what is really going on:

Yesterday I watched Biden and Dodd being interviewed. Both recognized and
acknowledged their respective slim chances in Iowa, but hoped for the best.
Dodd in particular indicated that beyond Iowa he expected support for him to
surge later in the primary season and was confident of his chances.

After the first "contest" both folded and went home. What gives?

Eisboch




They read the handwriting on the wall. I really like Biden, by the way,
but I never thought he had a chance. Dodd is articulate, but he's never
gotten anywhere as a national pol. Maybe it is the ghost of his father
hanging over him.




--
George W. Bush - the 43rd Best President Ever!

"Jim" wrote in message
...

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...

On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 22:12:08 -0500, HK wrote:


There's going to be a landslide vote for the Democratic candidate in
November. The populace is tired of the S.O.S. from the Republicans.

I'm not sure about that at all.

I'd argue the point, but it wouldn't change your mind. :)


My sense, after seeing the results in Iowa, is that Harry is probably
correct.
The Democrats came out in force (numbers) to support their candidates,
much more so than the Republicans came forth to support theirs in an
otherwise red state.

People have had it with the current state of affairs and are looking for
a breath of fresh air, I think. That includes the "business as usual"
candidates of both parties like Clinton and McCain, so it really only
leaves Obama and possibly Romney. I don't think Romney would stand a
chance against Obama, even if he manages to get the nomination.

Edwards is still a remote possibility however.

Eisboch

Oh heavenly father, I pray that Eisboch is wrong. Go Romney

Yeah. Multiple choice Romney.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...

On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 22:12:08 -0500, HK wrote:

There's going to be a landslide vote for the Democratic candidate in
November. The populace is tired of the S.O.S. from the Republicans.
I'm not sure about that at all.

I'd argue the point, but it wouldn't change your mind. :)

My sense, after seeing the results in Iowa, is that Harry is probably
correct.
The Democrats came out in force (numbers) to support their candidates,
much more so than the Republicans came forth to support theirs in an
otherwise red state.

People have had it with the current state of affairs and are looking for
a breath of fresh air, I think. That includes the "business as usual"
candidates of both parties like Clinton and McCain, so it really only
leaves Obama and possibly Romney. I don't think Romney would stand a
chance against Obama, even if he manages to get the nomination.

Edwards is still a remote possibility however.

Eisboch

Oh heavenly father, I pray that Eisboch is wrong. Go Romney

Yeah. Multiple choice Romney.




I don't understand why anyone would be "for" Romney, unless they were in
to haircuts and haberdashery. There's nothing under than $2500 suit.

"HK" wrote in message
...

John McCain is too conservative for my taste on several issues, but he'd
be a more than competent president. I do worry about his age, though. I
don't think the Repubs are wise enough to nominate him.


My dad's 86 and still runs a company. His intelligence, energy and
competence are almost intimidating to people who haven't worked with him for
a while. Never count anyone out because of age. I think McCain would do just
fine. And, I don't think he'd cave in completely to the religious right.

I wonder when we'll have a candidate who's ready to kick the jambs out from
under the right wing religious freaks by addressing the issues that concern
them, but in ways that they hate (because those ways make sense).

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 14:12:12 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

I use that term to describe the sect that meddles a bit too much, to the
point of trying to prevent the distribution of condoms in Africa as part of
our AIDS prevention assistance. You know why, and you know they're wrong.
People are dying, and these Kristians are trying to connect condoms with
loose morals because of something they read in an old book written by people
who were no holier than you or I. It's pure bull****.

Odd - I never thought of you as a bigot.

I'm disappointed.

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 12:56:30 -0000, wrote:

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 07:41:26 -0500, HK wrote:


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."

Some whiteys, perhaps, but Iowa is 2.5% black. There were a lot of white
people who caucused for him. While I think it's silly, I've heard more
grumbles about Romney's Mormon religion, than I have about Obama being
black, or Hillary being female.

You would be surprised.

Without specifically stating who, what and where, I have a very close
relationship with one of the members of the interviewing committee for
a major national Union with an eye towards endorsements.

This particular person did not care for Senator Obama at all - thought
he was an empty suit with nothing to recommend him other than he has a
nice appearance and an pleasing speaking style. Senator Clinton came
across well, but didn't really have any answers, refused to articulate
any specific answers to questions only answering in broad,
non-specific statements. Senator Edwards was a non-sequitar - smarmy
and, this is kind of amusing, late by 40 minutes. Everybody else was
an also ran.

Oddly, this individual, a true blue Democrat/Unionist liked what
Huckabee had to say with the sole exception of his approach to the A
word. Also McCain.

Very interesting - small sample I know, but still...