On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 03:34:36 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
...
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.

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.

I do agree with you on the ethics thing, but that works both ways.
Clinton isn't viewed as ethical in any sense of the word and nobody
really knows if Obama is ethical or not.

What bothers me most about the Democrat slate is that none of them,
with the exception of Richardson, is truly experienced enough to do
the job of President.

I'm not persuaded by the argument of either side.