Huckabee won in Iowa last night. Obama won as well.
Huckabee? Are you kidding me? Come on, America!
Huckabee’s win is more than surprising to me, shocking even. If he does become the Republican candidate in the general election, we’re going to see more and more of his past come to light. Of course, it may be too late by then (for Republican voters).
Here is how Huckabee feels about a woman’s role in marriage.
“I affirm the statement on the family issued by the 1998 Southern Baptist Convention.” The family statement from the SBC was: “A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ.”
Huckabee carried Republican women voters last night, picking up about 40 percent of women Caucus goers. Romney got 24 percent.
Huckabee doesn’t believe in evolution and instead believes God set things in motion, that there was a “creative process”.
“If you want to believe that you and your family came from apes, I’ll accept that… I believe there was a creative process.”
When asked about the evolution question he said, “I’m not sure what in the world that has to do with being president of the United States.”
I’d say a clear misunderstanding about science has much to do with being president. Considering he has very little grasp on what evolution even is, and he and his administration would become responsible for the education of our children, I shudder to think what he’ll do to and in our public schools.
Evolution is not about developing from apes, Huck! That simplified, stupid cartoon is nothing more than a lazy rhetorical device.
I’m flabbergasted that such a man made it this far. And the fact that he did so on the female vote, scares me even more.
Fellow Democrats (and Dem-leaning indys): we need Edwards to be our Democratic candidate.
Kerry wasn’t electable. A lot of Democrats felt someone let the air out of their tires 4 years ago after Bush won for a second term. It wasn’t that everyone loved Bush, it was that nobody liked Kerry.
I really believe that if it comes down to a white guy like Huckabee and a white woman or a black man, the knee jerk reaction, Democrat, Independent or Republican, will be to vote for the white guy. I agree with many that Obama is great, I may even vote for him. But is he electable? Put your personal feelings aside and really ask yourself that.
Sure, he won the Democratic majority in Iowa but will he win a general election? I say the same thing about Hillary. As much as I like her (I read her book many years ago and from that point on I have a soft spot in my heart for Hillary, in spite of her many flaws) I fear her electability.
While I’d probably enjoy seeing Hillary or Obama go head-to-head with the Republican I really think Edwards is our most electable candidate. No matter what happens, please, please, please don’t tell me that Huckabee is going to be the next President of the United States.
I just had a son. This idea makes me very uneasy.
Edited to add: My thoughts have changed over the course of the day. Perhaps Obama is electable. I hope that he is. I look forward to what he has to say and am excited to see where his campaign goes. Also, if he does get it, I suggested getting Kucinich for VP. heh
I agree with you. Unless something drastic happens, I am definitely an Edwards supporter. I guess I’d be considered an Independent all the way in terms of idea, but I know that it will be a Dem or Rep that is elected, and I struggle with who to support each election year. On top of that, my husband is a staunch Republican (no matter how much he hates a candidate will never vote against the party…yes, it drives me insane, but hey – conversation is always abundant in our household). With that, I am a faithful Christian and I probably have many of the same beliefs as Mr. Huckabee in my personal life, but there’s this small little thing known as “separation of church and state” that I am an unwavering supporter of and I just cannot believe that someone with his beliefs of mixing faith & politics actually made it so far. It blows my mind and I will fight hard for ANY other candidate if it comes down to him as the Rep nom.
P.S. I realize that the above is probably very scattered and all over the place, but yeah…I agree with you!
After living with the Huckster as our state’s Gov for FAR too many years, the idea of him running our country scares the pants off of me.
In case anyone missed the Arkansas Twitterers tossing this back and forth, please, read….
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/11/13/huckabee/
Huckabee won through a series of essential flukes of the system. While he has SOME chance of winning, his win in Iowa shouldn’t be construed as a sign he’s hugely ahead of everyone else. Romney was his only serious competition, as Giuliani and and McCain weren’t campaigning there at all.
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.
From what I’ve read, Edwards or Obama would beat Huckabee in the general election. I’m not surprised at all that Huckabee won. The religious right would pick him over any of the other candidates, whose divorce rates and wavering pro-life stance are questionable in their eyes. For fiscal,small-government,old-school republicans, John McCain is the choice. And he is the only one who could possibly make Edwards or Obama sweat. Hilary is not electable. It is sad, but true. Thanks for writing about politics. While I enjoy reading and talking about my children and others, I do enjoy something that stimulates my brain! :)
Is that consensus taken from only Democratic voters? Does it include Republican voters?
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.
PS My comment was in response to Rick’s.
Why do you think Hillary isn’t electable and Obama is? curious, sarah.
It makes me sad that you feel that a black man isn’t an electable candidate. Just sad.
god that is scary. I have uber republican cuban parents (they once sat next to jeb bush at a fundraiser – i have since prohibited them giving away my inheritance to politics unless they are mine) and i cant even say hillary w/o getting into a fight. The reps cant stand Bill and and therefore Hillary. My ENTIRE family loathes hillary, more so than Bill. Sadly, I think my mom is a bit too racist (that I might be right breaks my heart) for Obama. She just gets drunk and spouts off that we cant have a president that sounds like his last name might be Osama, just another form of racism I guess. But hey a Pres that doesnt get basic 8th grade science, thats just fine w/ her. She doesnt even believe in God and is for legalization of pot. The kicker is they are both good people, and by that i mean vegetarians and they give tons of money to tons of animal causes. Hey mom, can i have $20 for shoes? and i get cussed out. Hey mom, will you buy a $50 cookie for the husky rescue? – sure no problem.
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
It seems to me that the primaries (and any election, for that matter) shouldn’t be about who’s “electable”, but about who would be the best person for the job. Maybe that’s overly optimistic of me, but I’d rather see a great candidate in the fall elections than a mediocre one, just because he or she may or may not offend the other side as much.
Isn’t that what democracy is about?
Kathryn: I personally would vote for Obama. I have no problem with a black president or a female president. I DO have a problem with an overly Christian one, someone unable to separate church from state. If you misunderstood my point, then I am very sorry about that. Given what I know about my fellow voters and Americans, I am just not so sure that a black man will win the vote in this day and age. What people say and what people do behind closed curtains during voting time are two very different things. Please do not take this post and run with it. Do not assume I am racist in any way. That is unfair entirely. If I need to back up my stance, I will do so. Maybe. If it doesn’t take more time away from Em, of course.
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.
Please, for those of you who think I’m being bigoted, etc read this article. I’m not alone with my fears.
Hi-I know you are not racist. I never even thought that. Don’t worry. I assumed (like me) you are just concerned that the democratic candidate will be someone whom parts of the population won’t vote for based on how they look (black or female). I think this country could have a female president, just not Hilary. So many people just plain hate her. Here’s an interesting article about the Baby Boomers vs. the younger generation, conservatism vs. liberalism. Thanks for the link!
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/12/obama-conservat.html#more
Sorry I’m not as computer savvy as the rest :)
As a Canadian I cannot really comment on who you should vote for but I do want to say one thing. Those of you who are acting like Michele said something racist or that she is a bigot because of what she said are just as bad. I could easily tell what she meant when she said he wasn’t electable. Not because he is black but because people as a whole might not all agree on ignoring the colour of his skin when they place their vote. What is sad is that she can’t even write something without one person being an arse about it. I enjoy reading the comments that have an educated comment within them and a fair argument/debate. Please don’t ruin a good post and a good debate with petty and mean comments. /rant
Katherine: Why wasn’t saying that a woman can’t win equally as sad for you? You are a woman, one would think you might relate to that a bit more, no?
One of my vote issues is same-sex marriage and, while it’s now irrelevant in Canada where I live, I still watch for what is going to happen in the US where my partner is from (thinking about one day when it might be possible for us to live anywhere in North America is fun).
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.
Why do people dislike Hilary? I think the media has boosted the notion that she’s unlikeable, and that’s simply not true. I personally believe that Mitt Romney’s pretty darn unlikeable; he’s a slimy liar.
So this is an interesting bit of information. Apparently Kucinich told his people after the first round came in, if he doesn’t have 15% of the vote, to go to Obama. Now, there’s no word on whether or not he’s going to do this with say New Hampshire, but it’s very interesting.
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.
I do think Obama is electable. But only because the U.S. is so scared of having another Bush-style president. If this were any other normal election in which the parties go in “equal” I think he’d have a harder time with it. But having the world so fed up with the Republicans should definitely give him a boost.
But yeah, your whole post just pretty much backs up my motto in life: THAT is why I live in Chile.
I gotta tell you, I think Obama could win. There were many cross over republican and independents last night who voted for Obama. I really like Hillary but she has shit splatter on her from earlier White House antics. I say that while I would pull the lever 2 times for Bill if he were to run today. People have a really difficult time with strong women. I really think that people got put off by Hillary because she wasn’t the type of first lady they were used to. Felt like she did not know her place. Wake up America, the face of the democratic party is reality. The country is not solely made up of rich old white guys.
Sadly, I think I would rather have a christian president than a moron, um, I mean Mormon.
I think that the fact the democratic Iowans picked Obama over Edwards and Clinton proves our country is ready for a black president. I have a lot of family in Iowa, strong democrats, who unfortunately are also very racist. They all were seriously considering Obama when I visited over the summer. I am sure there will be some resistance in the southern states. What I am hoping is that Obama’s laid back style of speaking and easy demeanor will make non business men and working class feel more comfortable. Honestly, John Edwards makes me uneasy.
Well, I hope that’s true. I really like Obama but I worry that when it comes to “pulling that lever” those with racist inclination will lean toward whatever white guy is up there.
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. :]
Are you joking about Ron Paul? He is just as bad as all of the other Republicans. Apart from Iraq – which he opposes – he is the same on the issues. He opposes abortion rights and wants Roe v Wade overturned. He is also absolutely against the legalization of illegal immigrants and is even against “birthright” citizenship. For those people who are part of an international family, with the two partners from different countries, those thoughts are just scary. And it points to wanting to make the US a more homogeneous country: no more foreigners to mix things up!
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
thats all well and good…but did you see chuck norris’ shit eating grin behind huckabee while he made his victory speech? hilarious (and at the same time, terrifying)!
I am happy you posted something about this – I have also gone back and forth on the Democrat candidates – so much so that when people ask me who I am supporting, I merely shrug my shoulders (which confuses people to no end – I have an MA in International Relations and taught politics for two years…my friends seem to assume that I will have this all sussed out).
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.
Living in the D.C. metro area (heavily democratic), I sometimes have a hard time relating to what America at large thinks about various hot button issues. The idea of either a woman or a black president doesn’t seem like a big deal. But when I go to the Midwest (where I was born) or New England (where my husband was born), I get the chance to have the blinders removed from my eyes a bit. That’s when I see that not everyone is a democrat, not everyone thinks Bush is an idiot, not everyone thinks religion is a non-issue, etc.
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.
@Lowy – “He opposes abortion rights and wants Roe v Wade overturned.”
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.
I know several people personally, who would not ever vote for a black person no matter what they say or who they are. Granted, a lot of these same people don’t vote, but still, they are very much out there. I also don’t think they spend a lot of time online reading blogs, etc. My point is, I think it’s easy for us to forget that a lot of America may not be ready to except a minority (or woman) as their president.
But there’s hope.
This is good news.
“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 interprets the 2nd Amendment as meaning today, in 2008, people should be able to buy and use guns as they choose. Many Constitutional scholars do not interpret it this way. He supported a bill repealing the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act.
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?
@lowy – I’m reading nothing but empty rhetoric there. Well, empty and confused rhetoric.
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.
This is EXACTLY why I will never have dinner at your house, Lowy, unless I have an IV filled with antacid. Also, booze. A lot of booze. It’s nothing personal, it’s just that, for the most part (and it could very well be the fact that we’re on the Internet and I can’t read a tone with you) you come off as very, very aggressive. I immediately shutdown when someone is so seemingly aggressive especially online but in real life too. (Just ask TJ) I’m just not all that great at firing off statistics. I trip up. I sound (for lack of a better word) stupid. Maybe I am?
So, I’m going to take the route where I come off as someone who has no idea what she’s talking about and not discuss politics with you. On line. I do not want to kill the conversation however, which was about Obama, Hillary and Fuckabee.
I, like most, hope for a better world here in America. I want my son to see peace. I want him to be educated. I want him to be kind. I want to die knowing that he’s in a decent world. That’s all I really care about right now.
TJ: You name called. That’s a big no-no on this Web site. I could delete your comment, I could turn this off entirely, but I’m going to let it go. Let’s play nice, shall we? Can we play nice? A little bit?
You big bunch of sphincters.
@lowy – sorry, I had to reply to one paragraph.
“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.”
This is the silliest Monty Python-esque sketch of States’ Rights I’ve ever seen.
The people who believe in States’ Rights are the people who believe in the foundational principles of this nation. Those who would sacrifice the limited sovereignty of states in favor of easy relocation in a fantasy land of wildly heterogenous legal landscapes are certainly the ones caring only “about their own little lives.”
Certainly, interstate commerce regulation, federal subsidies for political/economic gains, and opportunistic grey areas in enumerable federal jurisdiction create a VERY strange set of concerns for States’ Rights advocates. In fact, if you’d had the clarity to bring those issues into play, I’d have enjoyed the discussion. I think about them often.
I think you should take a break from the Internet, buy a copy of The Federalist Papers, and learn a little political history.
I simply must say one more thing.
When you start a conversation/retort/whatever with “Are you joking about Ron Paul? He is just as bad as all of the other Republicans.” Immediately you come off as “I’m right. I get it. What is it you’re not getting here?” Do you see what i mean? I am assuming you’d like it if more folks saw it your way, so I am not sure I’d go about educating the opposition by opening your point of view with an insult. Because, whether you mean it or not, it reads as an insult.
You have done this before as well. You have written something and it just comes off as harsh and presumptuous, as if you have the answers and everyone else needs to figure it out already. I have done this so many times before, which is why I’m aware of it. I am one Dem in a house of Republicans. Your comments are exactly why people get so angry with the right or the left, liberal or conservative.
Point is: We can’t go around saying one person is wrong and we are right no matter how passionate we are about the subject matter. It’s counterproductive and rude.
I’m babbling. I am tired. I hope to not offend. But you really struck a nerve here. Perhaps it’s because I”m finally figuring out why I pissed my family members off for so long. I assumed I knew what was right and they just hadn’t figured it out yet.
I’m hoping that Edwards will get the nomination, and immediately pull in Obama as VP. I think that would solidify the left , motivate a new generation of voters, capture a significant majority of swing & start to co-opt the republican base.
I don’t agree fully with Obama’s stances to hope he comes up top, and am more closely aligned with Edwards. The fact that Obama doesn’t have the ‘management’ experience makes me worry that he could lose appeal to the necessary swing voters – I see a lot of potential for republicans getting vicious on that. I also see that as easily setting up an Obama 2016-2024 seat. Edwards is smart, savvy, and ( aside from ‘Change’, which is 100% Obama ) the source of more popular positions/stances/proposed reforms. When candidates can’t win minds on their own positions, they start to incorporate Edwards’.
I really hope Clinton does not get the nomination – if she gets it, we may as well forgo the election process and gift it to the republicans – she’s completely unelectable. Hillary is much more like Bush#2 than her husband – people either love her or hate her, and there is no middle ground. I know a lot of liberals who would have issues with voting for her, and I see little chance of swing appeal. A lot of people say that Hillary is carrying Bill’s burden – I think it’s the opposite; that he’s the only reason why she’s viable for the nomination. I’d vote for Bill again in a second; Hillary’s problems are her due to her own policies, pandering, pr and personality. Before people look at her stance on issues, they have to get past her arrogance and smugness – and when they look at her stances, its often vague rhetoric that borders on pandering to special interests. Add to that her proclivity to stage events / sound-bites / press-moments to manipulate people through the media – and I just can’t support her in any way.
When considering Huckabee, I think it’s important to remember which caucus he won. He’s an evangelical Christian campaigning hard in a state where 60 per cent of the population self-identifies as an… evangelical Christian. Remember, too, that other than Romney, serious Republican nominees cut their losses and allocated time and resources to other states rather than “waste” them. Reading that Huckabe had won freaked me the h* out, but I find it very reassuring to remember that he was selected as a nominee by Republicans in Iowa, not by a mixed field of liberal and conservative voters across the nation. His win doesn’t mean anything except that the conservative folks of Iowa are pretty damn conservative, and that’s not exactly earth-shattering. (At least, this is what I keep telling myself.)
I’m an Edwards supporter, personally, and am actually much more concerned about Obama’s win than anything relating to Huckabee…
I didn’t read all of the comments so I apologize if I am repeating what someone else has said. I do think Obama is electable. I am from Iowa and I think that if Iowans say it’s OK for a black man to be president, then he’s electable. Iowa, as most people know, is not very diverse. In my precinct, I had just as many older people supporting Obama as young people. People are fired up! I think we are just ready for a change.
ok, so first, hey. how are y’all. hope well. second, re: obama & edwards et al: i have not been an obama fan up till now and i remain … well, nonplussed, though i did find both the victory and the speech in iowa impressive. mostly i think he’s a dodger. and one of the things he consistently dodges is how he’s gonna reconcile his vague yet vehement claims to progressivism with his equally vague yet vehement claims to post-partisanism. i know how he’s gonna do it doing the campaign
– well-spoken platitudes are still platitudes (though it was one hell of a speech) –but i have yet to hear how he’s gonna do it in office, when the legislative rubber hits the deliberative road. i understand why people are yearning for post-partisanism; i myself yearn for it, much as i love to get my mad on. but yearning and lawmaking are two different things. it’s fine for independents and liberal republicans to “switch” in order to vote for obama (is that like a mac-pc thing?); but when he presents his legislative agenda they’re either gonna have to shelve a lifetime of political judgment or realize postpartisanism is easier said than done. or, i guess, maybe the progressive community will have to do that. either way.second thing i don’t dig is his healthcare plan. quite frankly it is lipstick on a pig, and it reeks, in my mind, of intellectual dishonesty. optional coverage is not gonna be sustainable, cause healthy people will just opt out till they need it, and the system will remain underfunded. nevermind that the hmo stranglehold
– which pleases no one except execs and top shareholders –will go unfixed. it all adds up to a band-aid that, yes, admittedly, stands a better chance of getting passed than something more honest, but that will only postpone the inevitable overhaul for another five or ten years. like i said, dishonest. haven’t we done enough postponing of the tough fights?ok. so, that said, edwards is the one who’s unelectable in this picture. he’d be my personal first choice, but he won’t be too many others’. he won’t even do well in the south; he’s not well-liked there. word-wise he’s on the money, but the base he’d need to support that rhetoric is, while large enough, not engaged enough. sad but true. also, a letter i got from the kucinich campaign (ok, he’d be my real first choice, if only so i could hear his wife quote “pulp fiction” the first time some reporter asked her why she’s got the tongue ring), in which kucinich explained why he asked supporters to favor obama instead of edwards. he expressed concerns over some hedge fund in which edwards is heavily invested. i’d love to chew on that, but i’m convinced it’s irrelevant. edwards might make a decent AG if someone’s got the sack to offer it to him, but he won’t be pres.
lastly, can i confess that i am both saddened and gratified by what appears to be the progressive (no, not in that sense) devolution of the clinton campaign? and that i’m a little ashamed of feeling both?
y’all be good. shout-outs to the young sportsman.