Iowa wins for Huckabee and Obama

Sureal wrote:Snoink: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_ ... rack_Obama

Oh, I know. Now he has it all up and pretty. But the fact that he didn't have it then on his site when I looked is slightly disconcerting to me.

But that makes you think he's an idiot? Disconcerting website-wise, perhaps, but not idiotic. Don't judge a candidate by his website

Well I was up till about 1: 30 a.m. watching it on TV. I thought the way certain candidates addressed the public was rather..humorous. My thoughts on some of the democratic candidates' speeches:


Edwards: Completely got off track. Though it's not a rule to address the other candidates in the party; it is normally done. Alright, let's assume that he was trying to be different. Bad news for you buddy, it didn't work. He started off by saying "status quo has been emitted" and was obviously referring to Clinton with that statement. Ok, maybe Clinton deserved it. Then, he completely shifted gears by talking about a girl who had some form of cancer but didn't get healthcare coverage. Ok, talking about national issues; I can accept that but what I can't accept is his redundancy over the issue. I'm not saying the girl didn't deserve to be mentioned, what I don't understand is WHY he's doing it now. The speech's chief function is to generalize (key word) his experiences in Iowa and push forward by talking about his strategy in NH. Half-way through, i was just utterly bored.... After talking about the girl, he moved on to mention hospitality the Iowans have shown him which was a good point but then, he talked about one specific family...for over ten minutes. He didn't talk about himself at all but I think vaguely mentioned 'storming' into NH. In my opinion, he should've promoted the thoughts of unity and used the specifics in debates or pre-election. Though he effectively used the example to evoke emotion, it was rather bland. Overall, a let down (the speech, I mean).

Clinton: By far the most amusing. Maybe it's just me but her speech was an excuse. She went on and on about how she's ready and how she's elated by Iowa's response. What response? Lady, you came in third. The women didn't back you up, they took abandoned you by sticking with Obama. Before the Iowa Caucus, she mentioned a few factors which seemingly provided her with an unfair advantage. 92% of the population was white and the hope and belief that women would back her up, etc. I mean, everything backfired, and I was eagerly waiting for her response. She completely ignored it; she humbly congratulated both Edwards and Obama and gave a humble speech. She mentioned that she was glad to be here and that she was so happy that the democrats have received such a tremendous response...Basically, she hoisted herself with the other candidates....instead of speaking about her results which weren't that great. Biill Clinton stood behind her, clapped once in a while, and basically seemed like a puppet. Hillary was pushed to a corner, she couldn't talk about her turnout without seeming negative so she talked about herself..her experience with being in the White House, her integrity and all that jazz. It was an intelligent speech for someone who came in last, and she has all the money in the world so I don't expect she'll be quitting soon.

Obama: His speech gave me goosebumps: "This isn't the red states, or the blue states, this is the United States..." Sheer brilliance, he used ethos to unify the crowd and the nation. Personally, he seems like a breath of fresh air. I mean, the news talked about the concept of out with the old and in with the new..which I can understand. The man knows what he is talking about. Yet, after watching the speech, I couldn't help but worry about his future. He started off his speech by criticizing those who said he couldn't beat the odds and that he did. He's not the underdog anymore, so, how is he going to behave now? Hillary isn't gone, she can make a strong comeback. As we've heard, he's dominated in a largely white state. His speech sort of reminded me of Martin Luther King Jr. speech, especially the part on hope. Nothing more to say, best speech by far when compared with the other two.

Many of you might already know this but, it is ironic that Clinton talks about bringing the troops home and war when she voted for it! I mean, I understand that you can change your mind but, it is sort of hypocritical to condemn Bush when Clinton and Bush were on the same page at one point!


I'll write about the Republicans later...a lot to say about them too.

I dorked out and stayed up to watch Obama's victory speech. I'm turning into one of those voters who isn't basing their decision on the issues, but rather the approachability of the candidates. After watching the CNN/YouTube Democratic Debate (which I thought was a complete waste of time), I was impressed with Obama's casual nature in answer the questions that were sometimes trying too hard to be funny. It was almost like he wasn't running for president at all, but rather he just happened to be up there. This isn't a bad thing -- I'm a hardcore supporter of Obama -- but it was refreshing to see someone treat the debates not as a battle, but rather as a discussion. I was also rooting for Joe Biden, but he dropped out of the race with Chris Dodd after Iowa.

I was watching Brian Williams last night on NBC Nightly News, and he mentioned that Obama may have a greater chance over Huckabee or Romney with the Independant voters, simply because he appeals more to them. I'm hoping for an Obama win in NH. He seems like someone I could trust running the country, even though he doesn't have the foreign policy experience.

On that note, if Clinton gets the Democratic nomination, I'm voting Republican. She's too cold and unapproachable for my tastes. I want to feel like I can question my President without feeling like I just cussed in front of the Pope.

Jack--


Americans also value other meaningless things, like how many ex-wives a candidate has had, why they left him, and whether or not a candidate watches pornography.

=]

But I do agree with Snoink. Obama's plan seems to involve getting all the nations of the world together and holding hands while walking down a beach during sunset. He has good (if depressingly cliché) ideas, but has not yet presented any plan to see those ideas acted upon

--


As for the rest of it, I think that the media is singing "Huckelujah!" ought to tell Republican voters he's not who he's packaged himself as.

Mike Huckabee's a gigantic toolbox who wears his faith on his sleeve to get the votes of Evangelicals.

No thanks.

Prokaryote

I don't know much about politics, and I won't be old enough to vote in the election. My dad says it's going to be Huckabee v. Edwards, and hopefully Edwards can win.

I dislike Huckabee. In fact, I more than dislike him. He's the only candidate I really have strong feelings about because he's such a jerk. He's too Christian for my tastes, he rejects scientific thought, etc. The man wanted to isolate people with AIDs...in the NINETIES. Not in the seventies when it was new and no one knew how it was spread. In the nineties. And my coach says he's always going on about Armageddon and how the Christians will be saved, blah blah blah. Not the kind of guy to whom you'd give control of a country and its armies and weapons.

Politicians in general, though, are all the same...I don't think there's one candidate who really stands out as a good leader.

I didn't think I could want anyone as the president less than Romney until Huckabee comes along. Go figure. It didn't take long - the first thing I found out about him was the evolution thing. (My father: if you're too stupid to believe in evolution, you're too stupid to run the country.) It just keeps getting worse and worse...

I also disagree that all politicians are the same. I find some to be significantly scummier than others (and yet I never think of anyone as being less scummy than anyone else. Huh).

*ahem* "Too stupid to believe in evolution" is a bit insulting. Let's keep it more neutral, shall we?

Brad, I looked up Duncan Hunter. Still have more research to do on him, but so far he seems like a solid choice. Perhaps the fact that he's not well-known nationally is a good thing -- personally, I find all the media attention to be an annoying show that distracts from the real issues and brings out the worst in people. They're all fighting for the position, and they'll use whatever dirty tactics they can to win.

Perhaps those not in the limelight can focus on the real issues without stepping on everyone else.

I really quite like Obama--he might not be as experienced as the other candidates, but a win for him would mean a change in mindset in the American people. I'm sick of hearing about Dirty Mexicans and how Islam is Scary and all of these other things. America, supposedly a multicultural nation, needs a touch of...culture. Obama, being not old and stodgy and white, would bring ideas to the table about how to unify us politically--the war in Iraq has caused a huge division between the average voter and politicians, mainly because voters don't feel they're being heard. A guy who has some new ideas would get the people and Washington back on the same page.

Huckabee...frankly, Huckabee is the only Republican at this point I can stand. If it's between him and Romney, I'd certainly pick him--noting the AIDS standpoint, at least he has the guts to tell people what his standpoint is. Back in the early nineties, Romney was pro-choice and "accepted" gay marriage. Apparently now both are awful sins and we're all going to Hell. Yay.

*hugs politics*

I'm sick of hearing about Dirty Mexicans and how Islam is Scary and all of these other things.

^ exactly! I mean, has anyone heard Giuliani talk recently? His only policy is foreign policy and between that, talking about how he was mayor of New York, and promoting his book, the sooner he's out of the running for president, the better.

I agree with Amelia and Sam. And as many of you know Clinton and Edwards both voted for the war in Iraq and now they're pushing the blame on Bush? Not that it's isn't his fault but hello, you were for the war too. Quite hypocritical if you ask me. A clean slate, a fresh start, a new face: Obama.

Flemzo wrote:I'm a hardcore supporter of Obama

Isn't there anyone else Republican (or otherwise supportive of) on here that will back me up?

Crysi wrote:Perhaps those not in the limelight can focus on the real issues without stepping on everyone else.

Yes!! If that was a good, solid possibility, it would be a great opportunity for both Thompson and Hunter to grab the Republican party by the horns and shake some sense into them/us. *coughcough* >.>

Unfortunately, that won't get the votes. Rush Limbaugh (American talk show host and one of my three biggest political heroes) said that voters are beginning to vote not on the issues, but on the emotional appeal of the candidates. Which isn't at all bad--we do need someone who can speak well and speak right to the people, like Reagan did in the '80s--but when we vote for the 'popularist' we loose sight of the real problems: closing the borders; helping the Iraqi people win back Iraq; kicking the terrorists' butts in Afganistan, Iraq, Iran, and across the globe so they know not to mess with us again; keeping the market and healthcare in the hands of the people and private buisnesses; and cutting taxes. Hunter, Thompson, and Huckabee (yes, even him) have good ideas--Huckabee with the fair tax bill, Hunter and Thompson with the War and problems at home.

Personally, any Democrate in the White House in this day and age is a bad choice--but I'd still prefer that Obama got the Dem. nomination over Edwards or Hilary, if just to see Hilary get a slap-in-the-face for what was supposed to be a 'coronation.' Unfortunately, that woman is the most devious, sly, cunning, ruthless candidate I've ever known...we can only hope she'll flub everything...

Rickage wrote:but as long as Bush is gone, then YAY!!!

To these types of people--You can't blame Bush for doing the best he could in the war (I agree, he could have done more) and for making tax cuts (which are good)!! Saying 'Yes, vote anyone, just get Bush out of there!' immediately tells me you are either a) a far-left liberal and/or b) a non-partriot of the United States of America (if indeed you live t/here).
To those ouside America, I apologize. I simply cannot stand by and watch as our noble President--the symbol of American freedom--is sneered at, thrown dirty remarks, and slandered by our own citizens. I will stand by our President, despite the mistakes he may make with the best of intentions. Just so you know (if you couldn't tell before), I am personally offended by remarks of 'Bush is leaving, yay!'

Sureal wrote:let's face it - after Bush, America needs a charismatic leader, if only to help America mend its public image

I know that you're English, Sureal, but--who cares when there are things much more important at stake?!?! Image is not everything, contrary to the 'popularist's' beliefs! As I said before, we have to have a president with the guts to kick butt in Iraq, keep the economy goverment-free, and close the borders without worrying about public image!

Sam wrote:I'm sick of hearing about Dirty Mexicans and how Islam is Scary and all of these other things.

Umm, I know you're speaking about Giuliani, and frankly I don't care about him, but I'm pretty sure that that's not every Republican American's views on Mexicans and Islam. I know that, in my mind, 1) it's mostly Mexicans and Hispanics crossing illegally over our borders, and there are over 12 million of them here, costing us and our government untold amounts of money in educating and paying them for jobs that could be held by Americans; and 2) it's not Islam that's scary--it's the radicals of Islam that are quote-on-quote "scary." And just because one Republican canditate says/believes in these things doesn't mean the others do, too. Don't judge the team by one player--don't immediately go Democratic because of one Republican. Unless you were Democrate to start with...?

I'm dreadfully sorry if I offended anyone, I just had to explode sometime. I get really riled by some aspects of politics.

I know that you're English, Sureal, but--who cares when there are things much more important at stake?!?! Image is not everything, contrary to the 'popularist's' beliefs! As I said before, we have to have a president with the guts to kick butt in Iraq, keep the economy goverment-free, and close the borders without worrying about public image!

You’re not bothered that your closest ally thinks you’re a nation of idiots? And that other European countries have an even lower opinion of you? The US has an incredibly poor image at the moment. Someone like Obama could really help to fix that problem.

You consider ‘kick[ing] butt in Iraq’ an important issue? This is exactly the sort of short-sighted, gung-ho attitude that is ruining your country’s image. Surely achieving stability in Iraq is important, not kicking butt? And what exactly has your kicking butt achieved? It’s fuelled terrorism and made it an even greater threat than before; it’s cost more than one trillion dollars, and is costing more every day; it’s killed men and women from many countries who would yet still be alive; it’s fuelled hatred and fear of Muslims in the Western world; it’s fuelled hatred and fear of the West in the Eastern world; and (again) it’s damaged the US’s standing amongst its allies. This shouldn’t be about winning, nor kicking butt, it should be about saving lives and improving the quality of lives for those in Iraq.

...we have to have a president with the guts to kick butt in Iraq, keep the economy government-free, and close the borders without worrying about public image!

But if the president is not at all concerned about public image, you end up with another Bush who makes everyone do a *face/palm* Image isn't everything, but it's not anything to sneeze at either.