Huckabee & Obama won

[djredeye]

i think Clinton MIGHT have done it twice...once on the Arsenio Hall show for sure...but for some reason i was thinking it happened again, maybe on the tonight show...might have been the same one. Me olde brain doesnt werk like it used to y'know for remembering

[juandingo]

a black president would be nice. plus hillary is divisive and oh yeah i can't stand the cunt.

[bfp]

Originally Posted by TragicallyUnhip

My parents LOVE Huckabee. They even have his bumper sticker on their car. He's got the far right wingers in the bag. Basically, the same people who still support Bush will vote for Huckabee. Not so sure how well he's going to do with the moderates.

I'm an Obama girl all the way. Have been since before he ever decided to run for president.

Huckabee has alot of support in Iowa, but I do not think that will be the trend as it starts to unfold nationwide. He certainly does not have the support of alot of the top conservative political activists that's for sure. After the Iowa caucus he only raised $300,000. The money just is not coming in for him.

And a question: Why are you an Obama girl? I understand he is a person with good values, but the policies he supports have been failures since the 1960s.

[Dionysos]

Oh good, he's back.

[Adam D]

Originally Posted by bfp

Huckabee has alot of support in Iowa, but I do not think that will be the trend as it starts to unfold nationwide. He certainly does not have the support of alot of the top conservative political activists that's for sure. After the Iowa caucus he only raised $300,000. The money just is not coming in for him.

It really comes down to how important evangelical voters really are. Personally, I agree (that must be a first for the two of us), he doesn't have the power to win. Especially not as much as the media seems to love Romney.

What I dislike most about Huckabee is the same as Obama. He's full of empty political rhetoric. That "vertical, not horizontal" nonsense sounds very similar to the speech the aliens gave in the episode of the simpsons when they were running as Dole and Clinton. "Forward, not backward, upward, not downward, and always twirling, twirling..."

And a question: Why are you an Obama girl? I understand he is a person with good values, but the policies he supports have been failures since the 1960s.

I'm no Obama fan, but I find it odd you would disagree with his policy positions. Despite all his demagoguery, and that's 99% of everything he says, his positions are considerably more conservative in his positions than any other Democrat candidate. There's nothing new or change-oriented in his positions. It's just more of the same that Dems ran in 2004. He's Kerry, in better political packaging, instead trying to verbally embrace calling himself a progressive (while Kerry ran from being called a liberal) but being nothing of the sort.

[bfp]

Originally Posted by Adam D

It really comes down to how important evangelical voters really are. Personally, I agree (that must be a first for the two of us), he doesn't have the power to win. Especially not as much as the media seems to love Romney.

What I dislike most about Huckabee is the same as Obama. He's full of empty political rhetoric. That "vertical, not horizontal" nonsense sounds very similar to the speech the aliens gave in the episode of the simpsons when they were running as Dole and Clinton. "Forward, not backward, upward, not downward, and always twirling, twirling..."

I believe that once his real record comes out it will haunt him, such as his history of raising taxes by 400 million dollars in Arkansas, his record of flip-flopping on the surge, his view of the role of government intervening in the Terry Shiavo case and abortion. He flip-flopped on all of those issues, but no one is calling him on it.

I think the media is propping him up to be the nominee because in the long run his evangelical role could end up hurting him.

I could be wrong though.

I'm no Obama fan, but I find it odd you would disagree with his policy positions. Despite all his demagoguery, and that's 99% of everything he says, his positions are considerably more conservative in his positions than any other Democrat candidate. There's nothing new or change-oriented in his positions. It's just more of the same that Dems ran in 2004. He's Kerry, in better political packaging, instead trying to verbally embrace calling himself a progressive (while Kerry ran from being called a liberal) but being nothing of the sort.

I disagree. One would get that impression from watching him on the campaign trail, but when you look at his policy positions in the past it's a different story. That includes supporting policies favorable to labor unions, higher teacher pay, 'affordable' college tuition, alternative fuels, voting against tax cuts, opposing the repealing of the death tax, voting against CAFTA, voting for minimum wage laws by increasing the rate to 7.25, voting against drilling in ANWAR, opposing privatizing social security and opposing any bans on partial birth abortion.

Republicans could cross the isle in favor of a couple of these policies, but when you see a trend such as this you have to walk away believing that his voting record could possibly be further to the left than Hillary Clinton's.

[vinylspotter]

Originally Posted by Edwin Watson

guiliani is ignoring the states with smaller amounts of delegates like Iowa and New Hampshire and going for places with huge populations and thus more delegates like FL, CA, NY, etc....

Its a new strategy called "Big State" and we shall see how that one works out for him...

Smart thats what Republican do usally,


Used to be the Caucus, was simply to find the best competitive canidate to win over the opposing party, dont think it matters so much now.
D. have the Advantage. A Obama and Clinton vp would be a guarente for a W. in2008.