P.S. I realize that the above is probably very scattered and all over the place, but yeah…I agree with you!

And if it’s any consolation, Hillary, Edwards and Obama all trounce Hucakabee in the polls in head to head competitions. And, contrary to your intuition, the general consensus of polls is that Obama is actually the most popular democratic candidate in any head to head competition with any republican contender.

And I do know that both Giuliani and McCain barely touched Iowa but I worry that since our media loves to talk a big talk, people will lean toward Huckabee now that others seemingly have. Does that make sense?

I am scrolling through the polls directly to find out if that’s the case. Perhaps I should wait to post this comment until I am finished with that.

Why do you think Hillary isn’t electable and Obama is? curious, sarah.

I am not a fan of Edwards but its just a gut feeling and I wont vote w/ that, but if Iowa, which seems about at white as you can get, voted for Obama, maybe most americans arent as moronic as i think. oh for the days when people remembered the concept of separation of church and state… I always wondered why we had to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in Elementary school, even back then religion gave me the creeps it guess. The whole hand on heart and lets all say it together every day thing was as close as i ever came to religion. Ewww

Isn’t that what democracy is about?

Jess, yes. You are right. If I had my way, I would like to see Ron Paul out there. He is all but ignored through all of this and I like him. I really like Kucinich as well but we all know he doesn’t stand a chance out there.

It all comes back to who’s electable, in my opinion. Hillary is not because so many people hate her. Obama? Maybe, I hope so. But I’m not convinced. Edwards seems like our best bet.

Did I not make that clear up there? Do I come off as racist? Bigoted? I never meant to. That would suck.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/12/obama-conservat.html#more

Sorry I’m not as computer savvy as the rest :)

Edwards stated unequivocally that he does not support same-sex marriage (though apparently his wife Elizabeth does) which really puts me off him. But, Mihow, I think you’re right in that he is most electable of the three big Dem-contenders.

If it comes down to Edwards and Huckabee, it’s another case of voting for the lesser of the two evils (like back in 2000 when you could find me cheering for Nader at his rallies in NYC). But, overall, I’d definitely take Edwards over Huckabee anyday and your post today detailing the beliefs of the latter just reinforces that.

Just thought I’d share.

MJ: I can’t stand Romney. He’s a flip-flopper and he tied a dog to the roof of his car, for pete’s sake. That’s just wrong. Wrong wrong wrong. Plus, who gets a woman pregnant that many times and only has boys? I know, that has nothing to do with this, but it adds to his weirdness.

But yeah, your whole post just pretty much backs up my motto in life: THAT is why I live in Chile.

Sadly, I think I would rather have a christian president than a moron, um, I mean Mormon.

As the day wears on, however, i am starting to think people are ready for change – a big change. If Obama can appease the Christians, we may have a chance with him. And I’m not saying I love Edwards, but when I woke up this morning and wrote this I felt that he might be the right guy to pick for the Dems over the others. We’ll see.

I agree with Rachel, poor Hillary got too much taint on her. But I also agree that if Bill were running I’d too pull that lever twice. I am a minority in my family, all of my family hates the guy, but I am very fond. I am also fond of the idea of having a mother become president. I like the idea of a woman president. I really do.

Well, let’s just hope it isn’t Huckabee. :]

I will vote for Obama in my primary and hopefully in the election. And I think the win in Iowa is a good sign that he is electable, although if you read a breakdown in the voting he won mostly due to his strong showing in the counties with larger populations. A liberal will not have a problem voting for him. And from what I’ve read, many people dislike Hillary not because she is a woman: voting for her means effectively voting to continue the Clinton legacy. This would mean that since 1988 – 20 years ago – there has only been either a Bush or Clinton in the White House. Americans hate monarchies, and this is coming dangerously close to one. Obama is running on a platform of change and is probably the most charismatic of the top 3. He is trying to run a positive, unifying campaign, and I think this appeals to many Americans as well. I’m sure if he got the nomination his camp would think hard about balancing him on the ticket with someone safer. And if he doesn’t get it, I hope he gets the VP nom.

A good breakdown of the candidates on major issues:
http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/issues/index.html#/context=index/issue=abortion

I saw Edwards on a television show about a year ago, and I said to my husband – ‘that man could win the presidency’. I believe that. But I still want Hillary or Obama. It is not only reactionary (though that has something to do with it – how is it that we as a nation have only ever elected white men??). But, my pragmatic side – the side of me that always tells people off for NOT voting because ‘all the parties are the same’ – worries that I am just dooming our country to another 4 to 8 years of Republican reign.

I live overseas so I am a bit more detached from all this – I am not as angry as I was 8 years ago (or even 4 years ago, when I was in the middle of teaching a bunch of 18 year old English kids about politics). Maybe it is also age, but I think it is just because I have allowed myself to be shrouded in ignorance.

Anyway, what really scares me is the Republican nomination. I was just back in Seattle visiting my parents (who are Republicans – they are from Wyoming and personally know Dick Cheney) and listening to them talk about the upcoming election put the fear of God in my (atheist) heart.

For example, I was hit over the head last summer when I was chatting with my in-laws about the various candidates and their attributes. When we got to Obama (my personal choice), my mother-in-law said, with complete sincerity, that he shouldn’t be allowed to run for president…because he’s not even an American. There was a moment of utter silence as I tried to understand what she meant, but then she went on, “I mean, he’s not even from the U.S.” After explaining that yes, actually, he was born in Hawaii, she waved her hand in my face and replied that it didn’t matter where he was born, he’s still not American. I had to stop talking. I had no idea what to say to that…at least not anything that wouldn’t cause World War III.

Now, do I really think that the majority of Americans think the way my in-laws think? No, I don’t. But nevertheless, it makes me realize that not everyone thinks the way I do.

Ron Paul, like many, many others who see its flaws, like Roe overturned. This has less to do with abortion rights than with the use and abuse of the Constitution.

While Pauls is personally pro-life he sees abortion rights as a States’ Rights issue.

While it is less than ideal to impose such important personal choices to the tyranny of the majority, controlling the granularity of that majority is important – and is the preference of Federalists.

On the illegal immigration note – I’m what you might call a “law and order liberal” in that I hold the respect of law to be one of the most critical foundational principles but recognize pragmatic needs for change in order to do the least harm to individuals.

We are able to respect and enforce the law precisely because people have the power to change unjust laws, and because we have checks and balances that – when not crippled by politicization – protect the minority from unjust popular rule.

Popular acceptance of lawbreaking subverts the drive and power to change laws. That’s not how the US should operate.

I take issue with some of Ron Paul’s positions (especially personal positions, such as his being unequivocally pro-life), but not those you mention.

If the worst that can be said about him is that he is a Federalist who supports the power of the people to make and enforce laws, I don’t see a deal breaker.

But there’s hope.

“Obama backed by 60% of Iowa voters under 25.”

That means the youth are awesome. The future looks bright. Now, let’s hope they actually show up to vote this time around. (Hilary and Bill did such a great job with that in the past, hopefully Obama can as well.)

NH? How about your voters? What are we looking at? I can’t hardly wait!

Ron Paul also feels the current health care system, with some minor edits, is essentially OK. Socialized medicine is bad, in his opinion.

He wants to abolish the Dept of Education. (!)

He makes no mention on his web site (sources for all the above) of the issues of women or minorities.

If you have ever lived in a country with socialized medicine – which I assume you have not – you would understand that, despite its many flaws, it is a huge security net and an acknowledgment of a basic right of citizens, of humans. If you don’t have a job, or lose a job, you don’t have to worry about going into debt to pay for childbirth or minor surgery or just basic office visits for your children. How is this freedom?

If you have ever lived in a country where there is gun control, you would understand how bewildering it is that some lunatic can amass guns and kill their family or random strangers. How is this freedom?

And really, how is it freedom to live in a country where every time you move from state to state your entire life changes because of the difference in laws? It’s ridiculous. The people who support these views are people who tend to not care about “the majority” and only care about their own little lives.

Finally, on immigration: Do you personally know any illegal immigrants or legal immigrants? Do you know the process? Do you know what is involved? Or are you just one of the millions of Americans – myself included – who enjoys, on a daily basis, the fruits of the labor of the illegal immigrants: clean, bussed tables; harvested fruits and vegetables; etc. If all these “lawbreakers” are deported, who’s going to take over? And what would you do if your country was in turmoil, you had a family to support, and an offer of a menial but paying job in another country? Turn it down and let your family starve because you wouldn’t dare break the law of another country?

I don’t really see you addressing any of the previously mentioned topics, only introducing new soundbites.

It’s important to note, I think, that I’m no Paul apologist or supporter. I saw your earlier problems with him as superficial, and thought it worthwhile discourse to engage those weaker points.

Instead of responding in kind, you’ve thrown more empty kindling into the pit in hopes of what? A Digg-style flame war for armchair punditry?

There’s no cohesion in your comment and thus no room to offer any answers.

Paul’s history, campaign, and opinions are what they are. I don’t personally see fault in Federalist principles, in being a firm supporter of the Constitution, or of the order of law.

Who I know, and what my background happens to be only come into play as a weak ad hominem dodge on your part.

I imagine the fault here is with the medium: perhaps comments on a blog aren’t the place for discussing what are, to me, clear and substantial opinions of an official political campaign. Perhaps I’ve assumed a bit too much about the level of engagement, of the clarity of subtext.

Regardless, I see many paragraphs, but few points in your comment.

Re-read mine. Stop and consider the meaning in the phrases I so poorly typed (lots of typos!).

Find any remote relevance to gun control or socialized medicine and I’ll both buy you a pint and stop referring to you as “that idiot on your blog” to Michele.