Obama and Huckabee win.  Thoughts?

Democrats--79% Precincts Reporting

Barack Obama: 36.09%
John Edwards: 30.49%
Hillary Clinton: 30.27%
Bill Richardson: 1.9%

Republicans--65% Precincts Reporting

Mike Huckabee: 25,510 votes (33.97%)
Mitt Romney: 18,668 votes (24.86%)
Fred Thompson: 10,308 votes (13.73%)
John McCain: 9,891 votes (13.17%)
Ron Paul: 7,674 votes (10.22%)
Rudy Giuliani: 2,708 votes (3.61%)
Duncan Hunter: 324 votes (0.43%)

http://www.politico.com/iowacaucuses/iowamap-popup.html

Why Huckabee?  WTF are they thinking? 

Oh yeah, Obama FTW!

Why Hackable?  WTF are they thinking? 

That's because they have alot of "Born again Christains" there, don't expect the same results in New Hampshire.

That's because they have alot of "Born again Christains" there, don't expect the same results in New Hampshire.


I guess.  Huckabee makes no sense :P

Huckabee makes no sense :P


http://www.taxhikemike.org/

Mike Huckabee: 25,510 votes (33.97%)
Mitt Romney: 18,668 votes (24.86%)
Fred Thompson: 10,308 votes (13.73%)
John McCain: 9,891 votes (13.17%)
Ron Paul: 7,674 votes (10.22%)
Rudy Giuliani: 2,708 votes (3.61%)
Duncan Hunter: 324 votes (0.43%)


Clearly FOX news was correct last week when they said that any candidate with less than 5% of the vote should be barred from participating in the debates.  Five candidates oughta be enough.  Do we really need to give every fringe candidate and last-ditch hanger-on a podium?  Networks depend on selling advertising airtime to candidates -- if a candidate can't fundraise and is polling below 5%, what's the point?  Kick him out and use the podium space for someone with better polling numbers and enough cash to buy some airtime.

Not that it'll ever happen, but it'd be funny as all hell if...

Clearly FOX news was correct last week when they said that any candidate with less than 5% of the vote should be barred from participating in the debates.  Five candidates oughta be enough.  Do we really need to give every fringe candidate and last-ditch hanger-on a podium?  Networks depend on selling advertising airtime to candidates -- if a candidate can't fundraise and is polling below 5%, what's the point?  Kick him out and use the podium space for someone with better polling numbers and enough cash to buy some airtime.

Not that it'll ever happen, but it'd be funny as all hell if...


Yep.  See ya later Rudy!

Pleased with Obama winning the Democrat caucus by a nice margin.  Hillary being in third (although a close third) is also great because we don't need a continuation of the Clinton Dynasty.  We don't need 4 years of Bush, 8 years of Clinton, 8 years of Bush, and another 4/8 years of Clinton.  

As for the Republicans...well, Huckabee winning is just sad.  Hopefully Ron Paul performs better in New Hampshire.  New Hampshire is much closer to Ron Paul ideologically than Iowa is with its 60% Evangelical Christian vote.  I swear, Evangelical Christians are the some of the worst kind of people this country has ever seen.  Remember, they're the ones who got us into the Bush mess and now they want four more years of it, just under a different name.

I'm happy about Obama, Huckabee is just no good though Romney ain't any better...

I think it's a three way race for the Democrats still, neither of those margins is very large.  Kucinich wasn't even allowed on the ballot

The Republicans... by the numbers it looks like just two... but Rudy didn't campaign in Iowa.  Funny thing about Rudy, the more he campaigns in an area, the more his numbers drop.  He's hoping for a good showing in NH, but I think his attack ads aren't going to help him much.

Huckabee is an extremist, something this country has had enough of for the last 8 years.  He won't stand a chance in a national election when some of his views become more well known.  The Republicans won't stand a chance with him at the helm, a candidate has to have an ability to play to the middle and that's something he will fail at.  I hate Mitt after his 6 year stint in Mass., but if I had to choose between him or Huckabee it would be him. 

Clearly FOX news was correct last week when they said that any candidate with less than 5% of the vote should be barred from participating in the debates.  Five candidates oughta be enough.  Do we really need to give every fringe candidate and last-ditch hanger-on a podium?  Networks depend on selling advertising airtime to candidates -- if a candidate can't fundraise and is polling below 5%, what's the point?  Kick him out and use the podium space for someone with better polling numbers and enough cash to buy some airtime.

Not that it'll ever happen, but it'd be funny as all hell if...

The mainstream is terrified of alternative views, left or right, and if they can shut minority views out, they will.  They wouldn't even let Ralph Nader in the building.  It's ideas they're scared of.

Anyway, I heard Rush Limbaugh on FOX News last night.  Clinton Derangement Syndrome is still ruling his pea-brain.  It was less important that Obama and Huckabee won, and more important that Hillary lost.  Man, he was vitriolic about it.  If Hillary wins the presidency, maybe some of these right-wing blowhards will have to be institutionalized, and that would be a relief!  
::)
Limbo did talk about Huckabee; he whined that Democrats want Huckabee to be the nominee so they can beat up on Christian evangelicals.  I think he's onto something there.  Not so much about Democrats beating up on the Christian Right (which the mainstream of the party does not do), but that a defeat for Huckabee could spell the end of the era of Christian Right domination.

I'd put my money on Romney in NH.  I don't see Huckabee winning there, but who knows?  He might.  I'm stunned he's gotten as far as he did. I'm guessing Hillary on the other side, but if Obama can win in Iowa, he can win in NH.


I hate Mitt after his 6 year stint in Mass., but if I had to choose between him or Huckabee it would be him. 

Same here; however, if I had to choose between either of those clowns, I'd have to go with Huck.  He's a bit more populist and not a total corporatist like Mitt.

  The early results are interesting.  Substance seems to be winning out over finance...

  Seven years of Bush, six years of GOP control of Congress, and a year of the Democrats refusing to change anything can do that to people.  One wonders if, given both the White House and Congress, the Democrats will also realize that they are vertebrates...

 

Huckabee is an extremist,


Huckabee?  The guy who defended his in-state tuition for illegal aliens as Arkansas governor in the YouTube debate with the "we're a better country than punishing kids for their parents' decisions" line?  The guy who raised more taxes as Arkansas governor than Clinton did while he was Arkansas governor, and who turned a six billion dollar Arkansas state government into a 16 billion one by the time his second term was over?  Mr. "Jesus would want welfare for the poor" himself?

Mr. "Jesus would want welfare for the poor" himself?

I guess Huckabee's a Bible Christian rather than a Wall Street Christian like Dubya.

I have been shaking my head about Huckabee all day.  Who in god green earth? man o man...  At least Rudys flame is hitting the water, but of course never say never.

I hope the actual election ends up being Obama vs. Huckabee.

Obama actually does stand a good chance of becoming the first black president -- especially if he can mobilize the Southern Black vote.

I hope the actual election ends up being Obama vs. Huckabee.

Obama actually does stand a good chance of becoming the first black president -- especially if he can mobilize the Southern Black vote.

Dubya's boys mobilized the Southern Black vote....to turn yer car around and go home before something bad happens, boy!
:P

im totally bummed biden dropped out. i'm a big biden fan. :(

im totally bummed biden dropped out. i'm a big biden fan. :(

I liked him too.  He could have done much better, guess he didn't get enough Joe-mentum early on!
:-\\

...especially if he can mobilize the Southern Black vote.


What southern state, aside from Florida, are you expecting Obama to possibly win?  South Carolina?  Georgia?  Tennessee?  Mississippi?  Alabama?  Louisiana?  Not likely.

Maybe Arkansas....but not if Huckabee is the republican nominee.

What southern state, aside from Florida, are you expecting Obama to possibly win?  South Carolina?  Georgia?  Tennessee?  Mississippi?  Alabama?  Louisiana?  Not likely.

Maybe Arkansas....but not if Huckabee is the republican nominee.


South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana all have large black populations.  Assuming the majority of black people favor Obama, there is a very real chance that Obama will win those states if black people actually get out to vote.  The problem is that black people generally have a much lower voter turnout % than white people.  Now that a black candidate might actually be running, that may change.

What southern state, aside from Florida, are you expecting Obama to possibly win?  South Carolina?  Georgia?  Tennessee?  Mississippi?  Alabama?  Louisiana?  Not likely.

Maybe Arkansas....but not if Huckabee is the republican nominee.


  I don't envy the GOP voters their candidates this cycle...

  While Huckabee's outlook certainly appeals to many born-again Christians, certain aspects of that appeal might endanger his appeal to voters in the general election.  Young-earth creationism and absolutism in the abortion debate may not play well in the swing bloc...

Obama's winning speach in Iowa was pretty good I thought.

What southern state, aside from Florida, are you expecting Obama to possibly win?  South Carolina?  Georgia?  Tennessee?  Mississippi?  Alabama?  Louisiana?  Not likely.

Maybe Arkansas....but not if Huckabee is the republican nominee.
if the south doesnt vote for obama because he's black, they should consider seceding again. maybe the whole region is just too primitive to be part of america. ::)

I have a question to ask based on a discussion from another board I belong to.  This seems as good a place as any to ask it.

Does the US constitution allow for there to be a female president?

"The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:


No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

(In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.)

The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them."

I have a question to ask based on a discussion from another board I belong to.  This seems as good a place as any to ask it.

Does the US constitution allow for there to be a female president?

"The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:


No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

(In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.)

The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them."


The thought of that being in question made me throw up a little in my mouth 8-P

The term he is now meant to encompass all.

if the south doesnt vote for obama because he's black,


Or maybe the south and middle America wouldn't vote for Obama because he's a leftist with absolutely no substance.

Or maybe the south and middle America wouldn't vote for Obama because he's a leftist with absolutely no substance.
and they voted for w. bush, twice, because he's so substantive?

and they voted for w. bush, twice, because he's so substantive?


No, because Gore and Kerry were liberals with no substance ;D

No, because Gore and Kerry were liberals with no substance ;D
well, in kerry's case, at least, i'd be inclined to agree with you. kerry and bush were sorta yale-dee and yale-dum. gore looked like a sclub when he ran in 2000 but has since redeemed himself. obama and edwards both promise to be stronger candidates than they've put forward in the past, though i think if hillary wins the nomination she'll go down the same road. she's a better candidate than kerry but not by much. i will never understand why the dems nominated kerry -- obviously his veteran status had something to do with it but still, it was a dumb move.

i think the right has good reason to fear obama. they'll walk all over hillary though. :(

The thought of that being in question made me throw up a little in my mouth 8-P


Well, this is how American society is sometimes viewed by others

<-- :)


Well, this is how American society is sometimes viewed by others


I think once the women's suffrage amendment was passed the androcentric language of the Constitution lost a bit of its thunder.  Good argument though depending on whether the Supreme Court wants to be douchebags that day...

I have a question to ask based on a discussion from another board I belong to.  This seems as good a place as any to ask it.

Does the US constitution allow for there to be a female president?

"The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:


No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

(In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.)

The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them."



When the Constitution was written in 1789, women could not vote or hold any office. Women had made strives throughout the 19th Century-starting with Wyoming granting women's suffrage in 1869. Finally, the passage of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution in 1920 granted universal women's suffrage-women were then able to participate in every aspect of politics.

They just never changed the wording in the Constitution.


BTW, as I was looking for dates and such for this post, I came across this site. Very interesting, indeed.

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/womensfirsts1.html


Cat 

if the south doesnt vote for obama because he's black, they should consider seceding again. maybe the whole region is just too primitive to be part of america. ::)


Um...  Look, I don't think anyone's going to argue with you that a lot of racism exists in the South, but the real issue here is whether or not the black community actually gets out and votes.  If they don't stand up for Obama, then either they feel that he doesn't represent them appropriately, or they're just too apathetic to get out and vote.  This is a conflict that depends on action, because black people outnumber white racists in this country -- unless you actually believe that 15% of the general population is actually strongly racist against blacks.  I mean, I could see how that is possible, but if that's true, then you might as well leave the country.  If I could verify that at least 15% of America was racist against blacks, I'd probably move to Canada out of disgust.

unless you actually believe that 15% of the general population is actually strongly racist against blacks.  I mean, I could see how that is possible, but if that's true, then you might as well leave the country.  If I could verify that at least 15% of America was racist against blacks, I'd probably move to Canada out of disgust.
i dont think it's necessarily that simple. a lot of people might not identify themselves as racist but may still entertain notions such as, a black guy isn't ready to run the country because their culture is so different, or they harbor too much resentment toward whites, or... whatever, the sad list of rationalizations for not voting for a candidate because he's black goes on and on. do i think that southern whites are likely to have a disproportionate problem with voting for a black guy for president? yes, sorry, fraid i do, and i say this as a white guy who grew up in the south. that's how i know. racism is culturally endemic there. you should see if you can google last year's class photos for some elementary schools in the south, just at random. you'll see what i mean. de facto segregation there is not rare, at least it wasn't when i left (which, admittedly, was a while ago -- but was still a solid quarter century after desegregation). plus there's the matter of racially motivated gerrymandering to consider. the republicans have been busy for the last two decades carving out and neutralizing the black vote in the south, and using lots of code words and wink-wink-nudge-nudge type messages, largely vectored through this whole xenophobic anti-immigration flap, to stir up racial animosity in their base. sad but true.

i'd love to move to canada but a. too cold, b. it's hard to get a visa, and c. my country needs me because it's going to s**t, and 4. i'd rather move to europe.

i dont think it's necessarily that simple. a lot of people might not identify themselves as racist but may still entertain notions such as, a black guy isn't ready to run the country because their culture is so different, or they harbor too much resentment toward whites, or... whatever, the sad list of rationalizations for not voting for a candidate because he's black goes on and on. do i think that southern whites are likely to have a disproportionate problem with voting for a black guy for president? yes, sorry, fraid i do, and i say this as a white guy who grew up in the south. that's how i know. racism is culturally endemic there. you should see if you can google last year's class photos for some elementary schools in the south, just at random. you'll see what i mean. de facto segregation there is not rare, at least it wasn't when i left (which, admittedly, was a while ago -- but was still a solid quarter century after desegregation). plus there's the matter of racially motivated gerrymandering to consider. the republicans have been busy for the last two decades carving out and neutralizing the black vote in the south, and using lots of code words and wink-wink-nudge-nudge type messages, largely vectored through this whole xenophobic anti-immigration flap, to stir up racial animosity in their base. sad but true.

i'd love to move to canada but a. too cold, b. it's hard to get a visa, and c. my country needs me because it's going to s**t, and 4. i'd rather move to europe.


Well, I agree that a lot of rationalizations are thrown around to not trust blacks, but I think you'll find there is a greater divide between urban and rural populations than between any particular regions of the country.  For example, Charlotte, NC is much more racially tolerant than a tiny town like Hickory.  My town of Greensboro is certainly more progressive than neighboring High Point.  So, I think your assessment rings truer between urban and rural areas throughout the whole country rather than just in the South.  Things have changed a lot since the Civil Rights Movement, so big cities everywhere tend to be less racist than small towns.  Oftentimes, the most racists areas are in the middle of states that have very few minorities, since the only perceptions these people have of them are generally influenced by the news and rumors.

I have said before that I am staying close to the border, I am not half joking.

i dont think it's necessarily that simple. a lot of people might not identify themselves as racist but may still entertain notions such as, a black guy isn't ready to run the country because their culture is so different, or they harbor too much resentment toward whites, or... whatever, the sad list of rationalizations for not voting for a candidate because he's black goes on and on. do i think that southern whites are likely to have a disproportionate problem with voting for a black guy for president? yes, sorry, fraid i do, and i say this as a white guy who grew up in the south. that's how i know. racism is culturally endemic there. you should see if you can google last year's class photos for some elementary schools in the south, just at random. you'll see what i mean. de facto segregation there is not rare, at least it wasn't when i left (which, admittedly, was a while ago -- but was still a solid quarter century after desegregation). plus there's the matter of racially motivated gerrymandering to consider. the republicans have been busy for the last two decades carving out and neutralizing the black vote in the south, and using lots of code words and wink-wink-nudge-nudge type messages, largely vectored through this whole xenophobic anti-immigration flap, to stir up racial animosity in their base. sad but true.

i'd love to move to canada but a. too cold, b. it's hard to get a visa, and c. my country needs me because it's going to s**t, and 4. i'd rather move to europe.

^ What he said.

Unfortunately, there is de facto segregation up here in the Northeast as well.  You could run the same experiment with elementary class photos in Massachusetts or Connecticut with virtually the same results.

If Obama gets the nomination, the racist beast will rear its ugly head like we haven't seen in forty years.  The racist rhetoric will all be disguised in Karl Rove/Frank Luntz style smoke and mirrors.  I guarantee -- I'll eat my sneakers if this doesn't happen -- the day Obama gets nominated Rush Limbaugh and Mike Reagan will say it proves the Democrat party is racist because they only nominated Obama because Obama is black to assuage their white guilt and bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch......
::)

yeah, it'll be hideous. but one thing you can count on is rush and the swiftboaters are gonna be hideous. where would we be if they weren't consistently running the country down?

If Obama gets the nomination, the racist beast will rear its ugly head like we haven't seen in forty years.  The racist rhetoric will all be disguised in Karl Rove/Frank Luntz style smoke and mirrors.  I guarantee -- I'll eat my sneakers if this doesn't happen -- the day Obama gets nominated Rush Limbaugh and Mike Reagan will say it proves the Democrat party is racist because they only nominated Obama because Obama is black to assuage their white guilt and bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch......
::)


Isn't it better to fight the beast and prove you're right rather than pander to the Clinton machine and prove your party is no different from the Republicans (in that money conquers all principle)?

At the very least, running Obama will allow us to better identify who the true racists are in this country.  Some people will vote against Obama because they disagree with his policies, but others will make it rather obvious that his skin color is an issue to them.

I like Obama, and would vote for him in a heartbeat at election time. But my candidate of choice is still Hillary, mostly because I love Bill, but also because while I know she's yapping about centrism and pandering to the Right at the moment, I have a feeling that once she's in and the Democrats have at least two years to pass whatever legislation they want, then the real liberal in Hillary won't be afraid to come out.

Plus I think she deserves it more than Obama. She's come a long way and had to go through quite a lot to get to this far. And people just despise her, and I can't really say why...

People say she's just power hungry, she just wants to become president... well DUH! Like every other candidate for the presidency, yes, Hillary wants to become president. So thanks for clearing that up for everyone, Hillary-bashing jackass political pundits...

And no one would accuse her of power hunger if she were a man. People talk about racism being a difficulty for Obama, but the sheer and ugly sexism that Hillary is treated to EVERY DAY openly in the press is staggering. And it's like people are too ignorant (or guilty of it themselves) to notice it and to correct it. Did you SEE that wrinkly photo of Hillary, or perhaps hear the slanderous remarks about it on Fox News or on Limbaugh? Tell me, have wrinkles and being in one's golden age ever been an issue in the race for the presidency before? What's next? A close-up of Obama's blackness? I think not.

And I wonder if and when South Park will be doing another episode about another ex first lady's snatch...? Nancy Reagan perhaps... Barbara Bush? Probably not, that would be inappropriate, but it sure didn't stop them from doing it to Hillary. Why? Because it's socially acceptable and fashionable to hate and slander Hillary Clinton.

I like Obama, but Hillary takes way more sh!t for being a woman than Obama does for being black.

Isn't it better to fight the beast and prove you're right rather than pander to the Clinton machine and prove your party is no different from the Republicans (in that money conquers all principle)?

At the very least, running Obama will allow us to better identify who the true racists are in this country.  Some people will vote against Obama because they disagree with his policies, but others will make it rather obvious that his skin color is an issue to them.


I think you misunderstand.  I like Obama.  I'd vote for him before I'd vote for Hillary.  The ugly Rush statements on the evening of the caucus were aimed at Hillary because the Right feels terribly frightened by Hillary.  If Hillary is out of the race, they'll swiftboat Obama.

But my candidate of choice is still Hillary, mostly because I love Bill, but also because while I know she's yapping about centrism and pandering to the Right at the moment, I have a feeling that once she's in and the Democrats have at least two years to pass whatever legislation they want, then the real liberal in Hillary won't be afraid to come out.


8 years ago, a guy won his party's nomination because most of his delegates said something like this:

"Mostly because his dad wasn't that bad, but also because while I know he's yapping about compassionate conservatism and pandering to the Left at the moment, I have a feeling that once he's in and the Republicans have at least two years to pass whatever legislation they want, then the real conservative in Dubya won't be afraid to come out."

Careful what you wish for.  You just might get it.

8 years ago, a guy won his party's nomination because most of his delegates said something like this:

"Mostly because his dad wasn't that bad, but also because while I know he's yapping about compassionate conservatism and pandering to the Left at the moment, I have a feeling that once he's in and the Republicans have at least two years to pass whatever legislation they want, then the real conservative in Dubya won't be afraid to come out."

Careful what you wish for.  You just might get it.


Sounds like they were absolutely right in their prediction. The real Neocon Bush came out, with a passion. That's what I'd like to see from Hillary. I'm a lefty.

Um...  there's a good chance that Hillary is actually somewhat of a neocon in waiting as well....

  As if liberalism isn't just another flavor of conformity demanding authoritarianism...


http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/Unmasked-X.gif

 

8 years ago, a guy won his party's nomination because most of his delegates said something like this:

"Mostly because his dad wasn't that bad, but also because while I know he's yapping about compassionate conservatism and pandering to the Left at the moment, I have a feeling that once he's in and the Republicans have at least two years to pass whatever legislation they want, then the real conservative in Dubya won't be afraid to come out."

Careful what you wish for.  You just might get it.



He scared the s**t out me 8 years ago, he scares the s**t out of me now.


Actually, I like all of the Dems but Hillary is on the bottom of my list. If she gets the nom, I will hold my nose and vote for her. Why don't I like her? I'll tell ya. Personally, I think she is "Republican-Lite". On the campaign trail, she is saying that as president, she would end the war. But, as a senator, she has voted for the war, and voted to fund the war. Personally, I don't see her putting her money where her mouth is. Probably not a good choice of words I'm sure. It really cracks me up when people say that she is too liberal or like that cartoon comparing her Marx. These people don't have a clue. BTW, take a look at that other thread and you will see just how far to the RIGHT Hillary is.


Cat

here's something interesting about Iowa's primary I didn't know

http://cashewlib.wordpress.com/2008/01/05/superdelegates-are-super-fudgeing-stupid/

Technically, Hillary was the winner due to some bizarre "super delegates" system they concocted. Yet another reason to have political parties in general.

Um...  there's a good chance that Hillary is actually somewhat of a neocon in waiting as well....


Based on what exactly?

She's only spent the past, I don't know, 40 years of her life hammering for the Dems as a liberal. Sure, she started out her life as a Young Republican, but left the party before she graduated from university.

A lot of politicians start out on the opposite end of spectrum from the one they end up championing. Hell, Stephen Harper started in politics as a Trudeau Liberal, but left the party before graduating from university, and has spent his whole career vocally despising Pierre Trudeau.

Trudeau himself, the Liberal champion of Canadian federalism and centralisation and multiculturalism, began his political education as a staunch Quebec separatist, a fascist and an anti-semite.

I see no proof or reason to think that Hillary Clinton would be a 'neo-con in waiting'. The only thing I see is a one bad decision, namely, her vote to send troops to Iraq. But like the rest of the US, she was duped by a team of skilful liars who played upon the public's fears.

He scared the s**t out me 8 years ago, he scares the s**t out of me now.


Actually, I like all of the Dems but Hillary is on the bottom of my list. If she gets the nom, I will hold my nose and vote for her. Why don't I like her? I'll tell ya. Personally, I think she is "Republican-Lite". On the campaign trail, she is saying that as president, she would end the war. But, as a senator, she has voted for the war, and voted to fund the war. Personally, I don't see her putting her money where her mouth is. Probably not a good choice of words I'm sure. It really cracks me up when people say that she is too liberal or like that cartoon comparing her Marx. These people don't have a clue. BTW, take a look at that other thread and you will see just how far to the RIGHT Hillary is.


Cat


I don't put too much stock into where they place people on that graph who haven't themselves submitted to the test. I know nothing of the process they used to place the popular political figures they mentioned. They may have said they used their voting records, but having submitted to the test myself, I must say that even then it wouldn't be perfect.

I look at Mrs. Clinton and I see a woman who has worked hard in politics her whole life, was active in the civil rights movement, who has championed campaigns for healthcare, for children's health, vaccinations, written books, won Grammys and has 8 years behind the scenes experience in the White House as a very involved First Lady. All this is much more than the other Democratic candidates can put on their own CV. She and I may not be twins when it comes to political views, but there are a lot of things to consider when thinking about who can win a presidential campaign. And Denis Kucinich just can't do it, even though I wish he could.

Besides, if Bill is half as active as First Gentleman as she was as First Lady, you can bet I want her to run and win.

I like Obama, but Senator Clinton was getting her political feet wet back when Obama was a seven year old boy. He needs to earn his keep a bit. I would love to see him as Senator Clinton's VP running-mate. And as for Edwards, I like him but he lost his fresh new-car smell when he lost the election with Kerry in '04, something that I'm still quite bitter about. Not at Edwards personally because as I said, I like him, but at the whole ordeal.

   As if liberalism isn't just another flavor of conformity demanding authoritarianism...


http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/Unmasked-X.gif

   

Davester,
You're too smart for that.

Davester,
You're too smart for that.


   Sorry bout the swiftboating...

   How some American people have been taken in by Rovian media efforts is beyond me.  No one who supports NAFTA is "liberal", no one who attempts to funnel a national health care plan through private insurance companies is "liberal", no one who abets Chinese outsourcing without labor contingencies or "free enterprise" zones on Pacific islands is "liberal".  Hillary Clinton is not a liberal politician.  One can't make the term stretch that far without breaking it...

   Hillary tries to garb herself in populist sentiment and sometimes speaks in quasi-socialist terms.  For her to do so, when she and Bill have very obviously made heaps of money from "public service", is patently ridiculous, and I think people should be aware of it...

  I'm also concerned about her menopause.  Menopausal women can be scary.  And dangerous.  If she's on hormone replacement "therapy", that could be troublesome as well...I kid...

   

   

That's because they have alot of "Born again Christains" there, don't expect the same results in New Hampshire.


The Midwest and South are highly Republican, wheras the Rust Belt and Coast Areas are Democratic. Where I live is half-and-half, but I like how Obama is in the lead. :)

The Midwest and South are highly Republican, wheras the Rust Belt and Coast Areas are Democratic. Where I live is half-and-half, but I like how Obama is in the lead. :)


http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/20080106/cartoon20080106.jpg

  Sorry bout the swiftboating...

  How some American people have been taken in by Rovian media efforts is beyond me.  No one who supports NAFTA is "liberal", no one who attempts to funnel a national health care plan through private insurance companies is "liberal", no one who abets Chinese outsourcing without labor contingencies or "free enterprise" zones on Pacific islands is "liberal".  Hillary Clinton is not a liberal politician.  One can't make the term stretch that far without breaking it...

  Hillary tries to garb herself in populist sentiment and sometimes speaks in quasi-socialist terms.  For her to do so, when she and Bill have very obviously made heaps of money from "public service", is patently ridiculous, and I think people should be aware of it...

  I'm also concerned about her menopause.  Menopausal women can be scary.  And dangerous.  If she's on hormone replacement "therapy", that could be troublesome as well...I kid...

 

 



I don't think you have to worry about her being menopausal. I think she is probably pass that.



Cat

I don't think you have to worry about her being menopausal. I think she is probably pass that.



What's sad is that it's not even the first time I've seen someone refer to a female politician in their 60s as being menopausal.  How clueless can some men be about women? 

 

  I'm also concerned about her menopause.  Menopausal women can be scary.  And dangerous.  If she's on hormone replacement "therapy", that could be troublesome as well...I kid...

   

   

Calls to mind all the dumb jokes stand-up comics used to make about a woman being president.  Dangerous?  How much crime is committed by menopausal women?  How much crime is committed by men at any age between 16 and 70?
::)

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/20080106/cartoon20080106.jpg

Great 'toon, Chucky!  I just worry about Obama coming to the same end as Lincoln.
:o

What's sad is that it's not even the first time I've seen someone refer to a female politician in their 60s as being menopausal.  How clueless can some men be about women? 



Thank you. At least you are one man that has a clue. And karma to you.



Great 'toon, Chucky!  I just worry about Obama coming to the same end as Lincoln.
:o



Unfortunately, that thought has crossed my mind, too.



Cat

I don't think you have to worry about her being menopausal. I think she is probably pass that.



Cat


If it's not menopause, there will always be someone out there worrying about PMS as well.


Great 'toon, Chucky!  I just worry about Obama coming to the same end as Lincoln.
:o


I have worried about that myself. 

I have worried about that myself. 


I think that has crossed a lot of people's minds. :-\\

Great 'toon, Chucky!  I just worry about Obama coming to the same end as Lincoln.
:o


well, there's always the hope he picks a good running mate then I guess...

or maybe a really awful one.  heck, I bet the fear of Dick Cheney taking the actual office is enough to keep any would be assassins at bay.

After seeing Huckabee hem and haw when asked if he raised taxes..he wouldn't give a yes or no answer and that turned me off to him...among things.

Hillary claiming she has made changes for 35 years..Uh,...'what' changes?

McCain-'I will change Washington'...he IS Washington

I always see women in strong positions getting there by themselves, sory Mrs. Clinton..not for me

We'll see who squirms in the next round....

After seeing Huckabee hem and haw when asked if he raised taxes..he wouldn't give a yes or no answer and that turned me off to him...among things.

Hillary claiming she has made changes for 35 years..Uh,...'what' changes?

McCain-'I will change Washington'...he IS Washington

I always see women in strong positions getting there by themselves, sory Mrs. Clinton..not for me

We'll see who squirms in the next round....

Of course Huckleberry would raise taxes; if nothing else, he would rescind the Dubya tax cuts for the rich, which were outrageous to start with.  You have to run a government and you can't run it like that.  When the corporate media with its partisan Republican pundits asks if a candidate is going to raise taxes, they mean: "Is more of the tax burden going to be shifted to those making over $250 grand a year?"


The wheels appear to be coming off Hillary's campaign.  Fine by me.

Based on what exactly?

She's only spent the past, I don't know, 40 years of her life hammering for the Dems as a liberal. Sure, she started out her life as a Young Republican, but left the party before she graduated from university.

A lot of politicians start out on the opposite end of spectrum from the one they end up championing. Hell, Stephen Harper started in politics as a Trudeau Liberal, but left the party before graduating from university, and has spent his whole career vocally despising Pierre Trudeau.

Trudeau himself, the Liberal champion of Canadian federalism and centralisation and multiculturalism, began his political education as a staunch Quebec separatist, a fascist and an anti-semite.

I see no proof or reason to think that Hillary Clinton would be a 'neo-con in waiting'. The only thing I see is a one bad decision, namely, her vote to send troops to Iraq. But like the rest of the US, she was duped by a team of skilful liars who played upon the public's fears.


People change.  She's been bought.

Then again, I guess you could probably say that of any candidate....

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/20080106/cartoon20080106.jpg


Lincoln sucked actually...  But Northern historians certainly like to act as if he's some kind of saint.

Whatever the case, I'll probably be voting for Obama anyway.

I don't think you have to worry about her being menopausal. I think she is probably pass that.



Cat


  I was kidding.  We were talking earlier about Hillary and my gf joked about a menopausal woman being anywhere near the red button...

Sounds like they were absolutely right in their prediction. The real Neocon Bush came out, with a passion. That's what I'd like to see from Hillary. I'm a lefty.


You miss my point.  Given the choice between Bush and Gore (and Kerry), most those of us on the (economic) right held our noses and voted for Bush.  We figured the "compassionate" (read: "spending huge sums of money to make the world safe for Jesus") part of his conservatism was just an act, mere pandering to the Left, and would be discarded when he got elected. 

And on 9/11, we figured the "compassionate" parts of his foreign policy (read: "spending huge sums of money to make the world safe for Democracy") part of his foreign policy were also just acts, mere pandering to the humanitarian Left, and we'd just kill everything in sight for a couple of months, and after 20,000,000 dead, we'd take the damn oil for ourselves.

The last thing we wanted was someone who'd actually try to make the world safe for Jesus and Democracy.

I humbly submit, that when Clinton II is crowned, that you'll eventually realize you're making the same mistake.  You're going to discover the same thing that Bush II's followers did: that the "pandering" is the real candidate.  Like Bush II, she's a True Believer.

Lincoln sucked actually...  But Northern historians certainly like to act as if he's some kind of saint.



Yes he did,bless him.  He wasn't a saint, but I'll take his kind of sin over the sins of what he had to deal with any day.

Yes he did,bless him.  He wasn't a saint, but I'll take his kind of sin over the sins of what he had to deal with any day.


Why did he suck now? I could look it up, but I'm too lazy, and I know we have a lot of history buffs on here.

Why did he suck now? I could look it up, but I'm too lazy, and I know we have a lot of history buffs on here.


Well most of the south figured he sucked because he didn't allow secession.  Although slavery ended with the War of the Rebellion he would not have ended it in order to preserve the union, then there was the the mass hanging of 38 Native Americans that he okayed, "the largest mass hanging in US History". 

www.unitednativeamerica.com/hanging.html

But Maphisto, this is the kind of man who you say is needed.  Why do you see him as so terrible as these actions embody all that you believe necessary?

  I was kidding.  We were talking earlier about Hillary and my gf joked about a menopausal woman being anywhere near the red button...



Well, you know, you really shouldn't make jokes about menopausal women, you never know where one may be lurking and you know how unstable they can be.  ;)



Cat

Well, you know, you really shouldn't make jokes about menopausal women, you never know where one may be lurking and you know how unstable they can be.  ;)



Cat



he doesn't know how close he came  http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/15/violent1.gif

he doesn't know how close he came   http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/15/violent1.gif


  Kinda like an Iranian speedboat, huh..? :-\\

  I coming to get you...

Lincoln sucked actually...  But Northern historians certainly like to act as if he's some kind of saint.


Lincoln, a Republican, had more brains in his pinky than all the Republicans campaigning today put together.  

You know who else made Lincoln some kind of a saint?  Thomas Dixon, author of "The Clansman," the 1905 novel D.W. Griffith adapted into a screenplay called "Birth of a Nation."  Forty years after his assassination, Lincoln was untouchable; therefore, it served the racist cause well to make him their friend who would have let the South go on about its racist ways had he not been killed.  Thus, Dixon called him "friend to the South."  

Did you ever notice how the biggest right-wing louts out there like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity make saints out of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King?  Same principle.  Like Lincoln, Kennedy and King both died with their work unfinished.  What they would have done if they had lived to ripe old ages is up for speculation.  Kennedy cut taxes, so he's on the same page as Dubya.  King said some stuff about not judging by skin color, so he's on the same page as Clarence Thomas, etc. etc. etc.
::)

  Now they're called talking points...

   Now they're called talking points...


Back in the '70s we used to call it "bullsh*t"!
::)

Why did he suck now? I could look it up, but I'm too lazy, and I know we have a lot of history buffs on here.


He imprisoned some of his critics in the press.  He suspended habeas corpus.  Things like what Bush is doing now in terms of violating the Constitution.

Lincoln, a Republican, had more brains in his pinky than all the Republicans campaigning today put together.  

You know who else made Lincoln some kind of a saint?  Thomas Dixon, author of "The Clansman," the 1905 novel D.W. Griffith adapted into a screenplay called "Birth of a Nation."  Forty years after his assassination, Lincoln was untouchable; therefore, it served the racist cause well to make him their friend who would have let the South go on about its racist ways had he not been killed.  Thus, Dixon called him "friend to the South."  

Did you ever notice how the biggest right-wing louts out there like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity make saints out of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King?  Same principle.  Like Lincoln, Kennedy and King both died with their work unfinished.  What they would have done if they had lived to ripe old ages is up for speculation.  Kennedy cut taxes, so he's on the same page as Dubya.  King said some stuff about not judging by skin color, so he's on the same page as Clarence Thomas, etc. etc. etc.
::)


This clip should give you an idea of what Lincoln would have done if he had lived longer...  and why he sucked.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6-VQpY1NJM

This clip should give you an idea of what Lincoln would have done if he had lived longer...  and why he sucked.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6-VQpY1NJM


Oh please!  The whole premise of Lincoln being the worst was the because he suspended the writ of habeus corpus?  The Article of the Constitution states , and I quote

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 9 - Limits on Congress

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.


Lincoln slaughtered 650,000 Americans?  The War of the Rebellion wasn't started by him, the South drew "first blood".  It was a war that was inevitable, because of the aristocratic pretensions and greed of the planters, the minute John Hancock penned his signature. Washington, Jefferson, and Adams all knew it.  Besides, this is the kind of "oppression" that you say is inevitable and necessary.  You seem to believe oppression is ok, as long as it doesn't apply to you, well wouldn't that be nice, but it doesn't work like that. Lincoln wasn't a saint, but he was better than anyone else then and since.

Didn't South Carolina and some other states secede before Lincoln even took office?

According to this site South Carolina seceded in December 1860 and Mississippi seceded in January 1861.

South Carolina was stamping its foot and bawling like a baby before that.  There was the Nulification Crisis during Andrew Jacksons administration.They also like to whine and say that the southern states would not have entered into the union if they thought they couldn't  leave.  Well Article 13 of The Articles of Confederation says different. What's the matter, those guys not smart enough to know what they were signing? Or did they get mad when they couldn't have it all their own way?

Article XIII. Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.

Oh please!  The whole premise of Lincoln being the worst was the because he suspended the writ of habeus corpus?  The Article of the Constitution states , and I quote

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 9 - Limits on Congress

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.


Lincoln slaughtered 650,000 Americans?  The War of the Rebellion wasn't started by him, the South drew "first blood".  It was a war that was inevitable, because of the aristocratic pretensions and greed of the planters, the minute John Hancock penned his signature. Washington, Jefferson, and Adams all knew it.  Besides, this is the kind of "oppression" that you say is inevitable and necessary.  You seem to believe oppression is ok, as long as it doesn't apply to you, well wouldn't that be nice, but it doesn't work like that. Lincoln wasn't a saint, but he was better than anyone else then and since.


It didn't apply to most of my ancestors.  Most of my ancestors were either aristocrats living around the D.C. area or living in the U.K. until the early 1900s.  I see what you're saying though.

I'm descended from both Alexander Hamilton and George Mason.

South Carolina was stamping its foot and bawling like a baby before that.  There was the Nulification Crisis during Andrew Jacksons administration.They also like to whine and say that the southern states would not have entered into the union if they thought they couldn't  leave.  Well Article 13 of The Articles of Confederation says different. What's the matter, those guys not smart enough to know what they were signing? Or did they get mad when they couldn't have it all their own way?

Article XIII. Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.


You do realize that the war was primarily fought for economic reasons.  The South was "bawling" because they didn't like being the North's bitch.  As long as they remained in the Union, they would stay that way.

You do realize that the war was primarily fought for economic reasons.  The South was "bawling" because they didn't like being the North's bitch.  As long as they remained in the Union, they would stay that way.


INS guy:  Just say slavery...

Apu:  Slavery it IS!

:)

INS guy:  Just say slavery...

Apu:  Slavery it IS!

:)


LOL...  well, that is an interesting metaphor actually.  I guess you could say the North enslaved the South's economy, while the South enslaved an entire race of people.  From that perspective, I guess you might call the Civil War karma....

You do realize that the war was primarily fought for economic reasons.  The South was "bawling" because they didn't like being the North's bitch.  As long as they remained in the Union, they would stay that way.


Well you can see the point, as I said, you sympathize with oppression as long as it is you or yours that benefits, and oppression doesn't work that way.  The economic question was much more complicated than that for the working and poor classes.  The would be Aristocracy did quite nicely, more than a bit of greed involved in the North and South



It didn't apply to most of my ancestors.  Most of my ancestors were either aristocrats living around the D.C. area or living in the U.K. until the early 1900s.  I see what you're saying though.

I'm descended from both Alexander Hamilton and George Mason.


COUSIN

Not being "legitimate issue", (the descendants of female slaves and their masters are just beginning to be recognized,)  I would have to rely on DNA to show Randolph/Lee connections.  Considering the near incestous nature of the families of Virgina we are related in some way, I am sure.

"Paris Hilton is a direct descendant of George Mason. Mason's tenth son Thomas Mason was Paris Hilton's seventh great grandfather"(Wiki)

When is the reunion?

Well you can see the point, as I said, you sympathize with oppression as long as it is you or yours that benefits, and oppression doesn't work that way.  The economic question was much more complicated than that for the working and poor classes.  The would be Aristocracy did quite nicely, more than a bit of greed involved in the North and South


COUSIN

Not being "legitimate issue", (the descendants of female slaves and their masters are just beginning to be recognized,)  I would have to rely on DNA to show Randolph/Lee connections.  Considering the near incestous nature of the families of Virgina we are related in some way, I am sure.

"Paris Hilton is a direct descendant of George Mason. Mason's tenth son Thomas Mason was Paris Hilton's seventh great grandfather"(Wiki)

When is the reunion?


Good points...  and my mother was adopted anyway, so she could be related to anyone.  I don't even know what half of my ancestry is.