Obama and Huckabee

[Joe Beaudoin Jr.]

So now that Obama and Huckabee have won the Iowa caucus, what are people's thoughts?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/04/iowa.caucuses/index.html

[Shane]

Iowa is not the real race.

[Joe Beaudoin Jr.]

Iowa is not the real race.

Uhm, it does have bearing on the political landscape. It's weeded out several so-called "candidates" already (Biden and Dodd are out -- and good riddance -- and I hope Ron Paul gets kicked in the arse as well).

Although I may need to point out (more for the people outside the USA) that Bill Clinton only got a little over 2% of the Iowa caucus vote in 1992, so the caucus may not mean much in the long run.

It's still interesting to see what Iowans think, and I find it interesting that Obama and John Edwards schooled Hillary Clinton, and that Huckabee schooled the Republican mainstays.

At the risk of probably pissing off a few poeple, I think the problem with the Republican side -- and why Huckabee won the Iowa caucusing -- is that people are really sick of 9/11 and "vote for me if you want to live" ads being shoved down their throats. (Which is why Juliani and McCain didn't succeed in Iowa, and the less said about Romney the better.)

[Steelviper]

As a conservative (though more libertarian than republican):
None of the republicans are particularly appealing, but of the bunch Huckabee is the least objectionable to me... though I think him unlikely to be able to carry a win on the national level. (The big blue states will destroy him easily.)

Obama is an appealing alternative to Hillary, and in fact, at this point I'll almost take anybody to avoid her. However, his stated position on particular issues (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.gun.html) scares me (but seems par for the course for most democrats).

Sadly, whichever way this works out is unlikely to see much significant change, one way or the other.

[Spencerian]

Obama was an interesting surprise. I don't think he's experienced enough, but I'd prefer him over H. Clinton without hesitation.

The Republican race is more like "Who don't we know? We'll vote for him!" Guliani should be the most logical choice. I don't understand Huckelbee's appeal at all (and probably mispelt his name, I know so little about him). My vote (generally a conservative one) is still in waiting as a whole.

But my girlfriend and I plan on wearing the following shirt (http://www.zazzle.com/don_t_blame_me_i_voted_for_roslin_gold_red_shirt-235910668615858960) on election day.

[Steelviper]

In general I think that "experience" is probably overrated. I think the people that are really running things (on a day-to-day basis) are the cabinet that they surround themselves with.

Apparently Huckabee's real draw is with the evangelical crowd, which is a big seller up for the Iowegians. 2nd amendment is a major issue for me, and that's where he scores really well, especially compared to Giuliani. I do think Giuliani would be an easier sell to actually win, since he could secure NY voters and probably some of the other blue staters.

[Shane]

well... I see H. Clinton winning the whole thing in November with Obama as the running mate.

2nd Amendment is an issue for me, but I doubt I see anything repealing that law anytime soon. The thing I worry about the most is the person in charge of picking judges for the US Supreme Court, who has the final say in a law.

[BklynBruzer]

Huckabee is an... interesting candidate. I'd never vote for him, the religion is a dealbreaker, but... he's interesting. My preferred candidate is Thompson, but it's unlikely that he'll win.

[Joe Beaudoin Jr.]

Huckabee is an... interesting candidate. I'd never vote for him, the religion is a dealbreaker, but... he's interesting. My preferred candidate is Thompson, but it's unlikely that he'll win.

I agree. The reason I would likely never vote for Huckabee is the serious religion issue. Then again, we've had presides of faith before, like Jimmy Carter and JFK. However, I believe in the efficacy of the separation of church and state, and I believe Huckabee is, on some level, a threat to that.

Having said that, I think that Huckabee is the more likable of the bunch and the most honest. Juliani, in my opinion, has basically profited off of 9/11 and that sickens me to the very fibre of my being. (People seem to forget that before 9/11, New Yorkers were ready to throw him out of office, and his management skills are piss poor at best.) And I find his war mongering stance to be very anti-American, at least in my view, and his ads are disgusting.

Although he's not as bad as Mitt Romney, who is a blowhard of the highest degree.

And Ron Paul... I liked Ron Paul for his thoughts on the Iraq war, that is until I found out his stance on civil rights issues, and decided that he doesn't represent my best interests.

Back in 2000, I would have voted for McCain, but his record as a congressman and his ever-switching, inconsistent positions have made me indifferent to him.

Thompson seems the most intelligent of the bunch and talks about the constitution and how it should be used today. However, he won't get anywhere.

As for Hillary, I have little love of her. Right now, I'm leaning towards Obama. Edwards I'm not so sure about. I wasn't sure about him back in 2004, and I'm not sure about him now.

As for the experience thing, I feel that experience is important. However, so is intelligence and wisdom. If the president surrounds himself by intelligent people who have the country's best interests in mind and the necessary experience, then we'll be better off.

[Steelviper]

2nd Amendment is an issue for me, but I doubt I see anything repealing that law anytime soon. The thing I worry about the most is the person in charge of picking judges for the US Supreme Court, who has the final say in a law.

I'm not expecting her to attempt to repeal a Constitutional amendment (that's nearly impossible). However, through the passage of various gun-unfriendly laws (renewal of Assault Weapons ban, national ban on concealed carry, gun registration, gun per month limitations) she can make that right (it's an inalienable right, not a power granted by a law) downright impossible to exercise. That, and as you point out, appointing people who'll interpret the law unfavorably towards the individual right to bear arms would be another way she might go after it. Let's just say I'm not a fan...


The reason I would likely never vote for Huckabee is the serious religion issue.

Thompson seems the most intelligent of the bunch and talks about the constitution and how it should be used today. However, he won't get anywhere.


As much as religion is made an issue of in the selection process, I'm wondering how much actual effect it'd have on day to day operations. I think the hardcore evangelicals would be disappointed, and the hardcore separationists (I'm not sure if there's an existing term for that) would be relieved. But I could be wrong.

I really like Thompson as well. Having the DA from Law and Order would also be interesting in and of itself. I think the closest equivalent would be Ronald Reagan, who I only ever knew as a president. I think Thompson would do a fine job, and I like what he has to say... he's just not getting any traction. I don't know if people can take him as seriously (even though he really is sharp), and he did kind of come out of nowhere for most folks.

If I could handpick a candidate, it might have been Colin Powell. From what I understand, though, his wife has forbidden him from running. He seems like somebody that might be able to bridge the gap enough to win, and is also demonstratively a really sharp guy.

In the meantime, I'm just hoping Obama can hold off Hillary.

[Joe Beaudoin Jr.]

I'm not expecting her to attempt to repeal a Constitutional amendment (that's nearly impossible). However, through the passage of various gun-unfriendly laws (renewal of Assault Weapons ban, national ban on concealed carry, gun registration, gun per month limitations) she can make that right (it's an inalienable right, not a power granted by a law) downright impossible to exercise. That, and as you point out, appointing people who'll interpret the law unfavorably towards the individual right to bear arms would be another way she might go after it. Let's just say I'm not a fan...

I believe that, over the years, the whole Second Amendment issue has been disfigured by both hard-core pundits (like the NRA) and unrealistic, rosy-eyed people who detest guns.

The issue with the second amendment is not only does it give people the right to bear arms, but also notes this thing called a "well-regulated militia".

I think there should be some sort of safeguards to prevent the wrong kind of people (criminals and the mentally unbalanced) from getting a hold of weapons. Should lawful citizens have a gun? Sure. Once they pass the checks.

I have no problem with hunting rifles either. However, I draw the line at automatic guns. There is absolutely no reason why civilians should have such things, since automatic weapons are designed to kill smarter creatures (read: humans) and not animals.

As much as religion is made an issue of in the selection process, I'm wondering how much actual effect it'd have on day to day operations. I think the hardcore evangelicals would be disappointed, and the hardcore separationists (I'm not sure if there's an existing term for that) would be relieved. But I could be wrong.

I've wondered the same thing myself. Frankly, I think my problem is I've seen how Bush has applied his religious beliefs into the government and that probably turns me off to anyone with a strong religious background.

Otherwise, I find Huckabee a reasonably sensible person.

I really like Thompson as well. Having the DA from Law and Order would also be interesting in and of itself. I think the closest equivalent would be Ronald Reagan, who I only ever knew as a president. I think Thompson would do a fine job, and I like what he has to say... he's just not getting any traction. I don't know if people can take him as seriously (even though he really is sharp), and he did kind of come out of nowhere for most folks.

The issue is that he didn't hit the campaign trail hard enough before Iowa and he seemed to waiver in confidence, or so I thought anyway. I did find him very confident in the debate last night. But I think it's a little to late for him now.

If I could handpick a candidate, it might have been Colin Powell. From what I understand, though, his wife has forbidden him from running. He seems like somebody that might be able to bridge the gap enough to win, and is also demonstratively a really sharp guy.

I have no problem with Powell as a candidate. He's plenty experienced and I respect him.

In the meantime, I'm just hoping Obama can hold off Hillary.

So say we all!

[Steelviper]

I believe that, over the years, the whole Second Amendment issue has been disfigured by both hard-core pundits (like the NRA) and unrealistic, rosy-eyed people who detest guns.

The issue with the second amendment is not only does it give people the right to bear arms, but also notes this thing called a "well-regulated militia".

I think there should be some sort of safeguards to prevent the wrong kind of people (criminals and the mentally unbalanced) from getting a hold of weapons. Should lawful citizens have a gun? Sure. Once they pass the checks.

I have no problem with hunting rifles either. However, I draw the line at automatic guns. There is absolutely no reason why civilians should have such things, since automatic weapons are designed to kill smarter creatures (read: humans) and not animals.

Heh. You might be surprised to know that there are REAL hardcore 2nd amendment folks that think the NRA is a bunch of wimpy anti-gun collaborators... the spectrum is quite wide.

I don't think most reasonable pro-gunners are even into the automatic weapon fight. The NRA certainly isn't interested in that battle. The fact that our own military has abandoned automatic fire in their main battle rife should speak volumes to the exaggerated effectiveness of said functionality. Full-auto is great... for wasting a lot of ammo, and that's about it. It's not even useful for killing people. The fact that full-auto has been nigh-illegal since the National Firearms Act (1934) has meant that this has really been a non-issue for a looong time.

The issues that have pushed of late generally seem to have no other effect than to hassle the law-abiding gun owners while having little (or likely no) impact on the criminals that the bills claim to be stopping.

Felons aren't allowed to have guns. Period. If that law (and other reasonable laws already on the books) were actually enforced, I think everybody (pro- and anti- gun) would be pleased with the results.

*Sigh*. Sorry to derail things. Just a topic that I (obviously) am a bit passionate about.

[BklynBruzer]

One thing that few people seem to get is that it is NOT passing new laws. It's enforcing the ones already on the books.

[Shane]

I think I am outnumbered. :)

[Aset]

I as a self ascribed liberal agree, the laws on the books need to be enforced. Most of the problems today have to do with irresponsible, at best, sellers. That said I do not think it unreasonable that a background check be done. Anything further than that is not necessary.

On to my view of the race. I have not been a Hilary fan since she was First Lady. She was great on the campaign trail with Bill in '92. When they got in office I slowly lost any respect for her I had. I also don't like that she presents herself as something she is not. It also cracks me up that the ultra conservatives try to paint her as the ultimate Liberal, she is nothing of the kind. I personally am leaning towards Edwards, but I am also realistic enough to realize that he more than likely will not get the nomination. I also wouldn't categorize his squeaking by Hilay as "schoolnig" her. I did find it rather amusing that she did come in third with the Clinton maching behind her. The more I see of Obama the more I like him though.

As for Huckabee, I too am extremely hisitant on the religion issue. I would like to think he can seperate it from governing, however, the evangelical agenda does not leave him rom for that. It will be interesting to see if/when he starts to drift from that & how he does it. Romney has basically cut his own throat at this point. Even if he does get the nomination (which I doubt), he wouldn't have a prayer in the general election, he's done too much attacking & he's changed his stances entirely too much. If he had stuck with what he was, a moderate, I think he'd probably be doing a hell of a lot better. People are tired of extreme's, they want some middle ground here. I for one am tired of the rhetoric & the mud slinging. In the end the majority of the country are moderates & want some healthy balance, it's the details they disagree on. Compromise has been lost. Thompson at this point is too little too late. McCain is an interesting man & I love him when he goes on the Daily Show, but the man doesn't have a prayer. Guiliani makes me see red. His outright lies & distortions are borderling criminal in my book. I also wouldn't count on New York for him either, they know what he did. 9/11 isn't enough & the politics of fear are almost over, and invoking Ronald Reagan ad nauseum isn't gonna do anything for him.

I almost forgot Ron Paul! Man his social policy is downright scary. He talks a good game about Iraq but has no plans other than "get out." That's not enough. He wants to make wholesale changes yet has no plans on how to go about that without throwing the country into massive chaos.

As for the experience question. Experience got us into the mess we're in now, frankly I don't think it's that great an asset right now. I also think it's damn funny that someone without a security clearance would try to claim their years in the White House as the SPOUSE of the President qualifies as experience. I may like my Dr, I sure as hell don't want his wife doing my diagnosis. Even if she is the office manager.