Today's News | Christian Views
| Home | Community | WorldMagBlog | Commentary | Previous Posts | Podcasts | Contact Us | Subscribe |
Family man
Michael Oher went from the streets to the NFL because of an adoptive family
FULL STORY
Humility regarding what man does. Faith in what God does. That means skepticism about politicians' plans to run health care.
Executives who run companies should be self-effacing. Add “I” to run and the result is ruin.
Are you surprised by who won and by their margins of victory? And who do you think were the biggest losers tonight?
Keep track of the latest primary and caucus results and schedules here.
All original content Copyright © 2009 WORLDmag.com and may not be reproduced without permission
Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Special Student Discount for WORLD!
Click to Print
Include Comments
back to top74 Comments to “Huckabee and Obama take Iowa”
Biggest loser? Ron Paul. not even on the radar
Biggest winner? Edwards. 2nd ain’t bad against Obama and Hillary.
Prediction – Huckabee needs at least a solid third in New Hampshire to look good going into South Carolina. He needs a solid 1st or 2nd South Carolina or it will go downhill from there.
Romney needs a first in New Hampshire and at least a 2nd in South Carolina, and he becomes the front runner otherwise it’s downhill for him.
Hillary needs 1st or 2nd in New Hampshire, otherwise it’s curtains
Obama needs a solid second or better in New Hampshire. He gets that and he’s the nominee.
Edwards needs a strong 2nd in NH and he’s got a chance for life in SC. Anything less that 2nd in NH and he’s toast.
Good night
Report comment to moderator
The biggest loser tonight was Bush.
Report comment to moderator
Unbelievable. Someone is stuck. Big Time.
Report comment to moderator
Bush IS the biggest loser. He created Democratic majorities in both houses when Clinton couldn’t do it in 8 years. His disasters have caused independents to push Democratic vote totals to nearly two to one over Republicans. His policies have so affected the outcome of this one primary and of the entire political confrontation to come. Even the Republicans are saying, “A new day is needed”. When have candidates of the same party distanced themselves from the current president? Ever? Not like this in my lifetime and that’s a pretty long time.
Report comment to moderator
woop de do
Report comment to moderator
Biggest winner – Huckabee
Biggest loser – Hillary
It all worked out GREAT!
Report comment to moderator
Woop de double do. Or for the Republicans, do do.
Report comment to moderator
No matter the key, rdean manages to play his one note.
Metanoia is about right. The scariest scenario is Hillary fading, leaving Edwards and Obama to duke it out, a contest Edwards would win. IMHO, he has by far the best chance of winning in November.
Of course, if the Republicans wind up with Huckabee, the Democrats could run Foster Brooks and win.
Report comment to moderator
It’s 2008 not 2004. Focus.
Report comment to moderator
RDean:
I seem to recall Clinton’s own vice president “distancing himself” as much as he possibly could from the president. I didn’t know you were that young!
Report comment to moderator
Can we have the election already? I’m so tired of the complaining and the political hype already, and the year has only just begun.
Report comment to moderator
Obama and Huckabee represent the same thing: a turn to the future. In this fashion, in their looking forward to a new way of politics, they each represent a break from the recent past; in that RDean is right, they each are a judgment about the Bush-Clinton cage match.
Both candidates also articulate more Main Street values and styles — for all his coastal elite creds, Obama articulates Midwestern common values about as well as anybody (well, at least from the this Dem’s side). And let’s not forget that Huckabee’s naturalness is strikingly different from and so a rejection of the Bush-Rove all-spin-all-the-time style.
Report comment to moderator
Biggest Winner – Democrats (over 200,000 voted)
Biggest Loser – Republicans (McCain, Romney, or Giuliani had a chance against the Democrats, Huckabee….not so much…)
Biggest losers – Fiscal conservatives
Biggest winner – Jesus
Biggest losers – Thompson, Dodd (both are rumored to drop out soon)
Biggest Winner – Jesus
Report comment to moderator
Jesus is ALWAYS the winner, Theo.
Overwhelming turnout at our precinct tonight. Tons of Ron Paul supporters, though they couldn’t manage to actually claim anything.
The irritating thing about our caucuses in Iowa was that anyone (including Democrats) could switch parties tonight to vote for whomever they wished. A whole lot of the people surrounding me during our caucus meeting (I sat among the Paul people, to keep them in line with my camera and press pass) had people coming up to them and saying “I though you were a Democrat?”
Busted!
Report comment to moderator
My predictions: Actual results:
Democrats:
1. Edwards 1. Obama (38%)
2. Obama 2. Edwards (30%)
3. Clinton 3. Clinton (29%)
Republicans:
1. Huckabee 1. Huckabee (34%)
2. Romney 2. Romney (25%)
3. McCain 3. Thompson (13%)
I’m happy with the top place finishers.
Obama gave a great speech tonight after the vote. This guy may have a chance for real.
Biggest disappointment for Dems: Hillary coming in 3rd.
Biggest disappointment for Repubs: Ron Paul with only 10% (10,164 votes).
Biggest surprise: Thompson finishing 4th.
Romney has got to be kicking himself for spending more than all of his challengers put together, and yet coming in second place to a guy with little money or organization. Also, early word is that Romney’s negative ads went against him. Iowans dislike negative ads. Romney thought he could buy the election and he spent over $9 million on it. The people had other ideas.
Report comment to moderator
Biden and Dodd already announced they are withdrawing from the race. I guess they are two of the immediate losers.
Pity. Both of them could have made great presidents.
Report comment to moderator
Since when did no fundraising ability and no organization become a bragging point?
Edwards was also bragging that he had been outspent but managed a 2nd place finish.
Huckabee has made it his message that he has no money and no organization. I guess he is trying to feed the five thousand with some loaves of bread and a few fishes.
Being poor has become hip all of a sudden. Nobody likes the rich guy. Everyone wants to be from the ghetto. Just listen to Huckabee talking about living in a trailer down by the river.
Report comment to moderator
Theo
Being what’s “REAL” has become very important. Whatever ‘hip’ meant, its not relevant anymore to the generation that is coming into fruition/maturity –
It’s important to be real, in the ‘real’ sense of the word, whether one is wealthy, poor, or something in the middle.
Huckabee loves the LORD, ….. your snide comment ……. “Huckabee has made it his message that he has no money and no organization. I guess he is trying to feed the five thousand with some loaves of bread and a few fishes.” we will see, it doesn’t take money when the LORD is behind it.
Report comment to moderator
One of the biggest losers was Senator Biden. He’s out of the race and back off to Delaware with his tail between his legs. Good!
Report comment to moderator
TOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Bad for Senator Biden!
Report comment to moderator
The biggest winnier was the State of Iowa. They put together this mostly meaningless political circus to upstage legitimate primaries and bring in money and publicity for the state. By all accounts, it looks like it is working well for them.
Report comment to moderator
#11 Make It Man.
Totally agree, and I don’t even live in your country.
It appears, from the outside, that the American political system is built around trying to gain control of the country, not on actually running it.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
So what happens if Huckabee loses in N.H.? What if Giuliani wins the nomination? What if McCain takes off with a win in N.H.? What if Romney makes a comeback?
What then? Will you still think that Huckabee’s victory was ordained of God? Or will you think that God will punish America for turning its back on Jesus?
Report comment to moderator
What if? What if? What if? What if? What if?
I enjoy tonight’s victory, we awake tomorrow to start another journey to the White House.
Not all of American has turned their back on the LORD Jesus Christ. I’m responsible for my own actions, not the actions of others.
Punishment will be meeted out to those who didn’t follow Christ, I am only ONE person, I alone am responsible for my sins.
Report comment to moderator
So when I vote for Obama, am I turning my back on Christ?
Report comment to moderator
Well I suspected excitement and we got it. However, I am an evangelical and I do not want Mike Huckabee to be president. His win in Iowa tells more about us than him. He has no foreign policy strong enough to take on those that want to kill us, no economic polciy that will sustain growth, an immigration policy that will not help the situation we have…but he claims a kinship with evangelicals. Oh stop it. The guy is slick. Not faithful to Christ. And in the one arena he claims knowledge and support for evangelicals, he will not be able to make a difference on the cultural seen. Evangelicals, grow up.
Report comment to moderator
#26 — Exactly right. Huckabee is soft on crime, soft on illegal immigration, big on big government, and is very unlikely to win the general election unless the D’s nominate Hillary. He’s pro-life — That’s necessary but not sufficient for an enthusiastic endorsement from this evangelical.
Report comment to moderator
Republican biggest winners: Huckabee and Ron Paul.
Among those who are NOT Ron Paul supporters, who would have guessed he’d get double digit votes? Giuliani only got 4%. Ron Paul got 10%. Not bad for a libertarian posing as a republican.
Of course, Michael Martin is right, too. Iowa is the big winner as well. Caucuses?? Sort of a fruitcake set up and with only 3,000,000 voters of which a small fraction actually participate, they sure get a lot of attention.
Report comment to moderator
Well, I just can deal with RDean today, so StuBob’s comment in No. 8 gets a concurrence.
I’m do believe that the Iowans, whatever their party, want to see something different happen in America. I think they have spoken for all of us. This is not just about the presidential race. People see the Congress as just fighting for power for their parties. They don’t see Congress fighting for the good of the nation. I suspect more people are willing to go to the “center” of things, to work together on the things we CAN agree on, and actuallyget something done. I think they’re tired of the Pelosi/Reid games. I personally think that the rejection of Mrs. Clinton is a commentary on “business as usual,” that many people feel nothing will change and we’ll just get more of the hijinks and trouble her husband gave us. Why go there when there are alternatives?
It’s too soon to know what’s going on, but the Iowans have inspired people to vote. I’m not so sure that the fact that so many Dems came out means the country wants to elect a Dem — just that the Dems in Iowa didn’t want Hillary because she doesn’t really represent enough change. They aren’t looking for just a change from Repub in the White House to Dem in the White House. They want more.
Don’t count Mr. Huckabee out. He has his liberal tendencies, but also has the right attitude on the social issues. His win tells me that Mr. Giuliani is in the same kind of trouble as Hillary Clinton. There are hardliners on immigration in the Republican party, but I think most Americans would agree with Huckabee that you don’t take that out on a 6 year old illegal kid who is sick. Americans are not heartless people.
New Hampshire is a completely different state. I want to wait until we have a few more of these primaries under our collective belt from different areas, find out what people are really thinking, before I commit to anyone. I think it’s too soon to judge the mood of the country.
I do have to admit, though, that I think it’s really ticking off the MSM that Evangelicals had a lot to do with the vote for Huckabee. They were hoping the Christians would get trounced. I’m enjoying that hit in the eye with a big grin.
Report comment to moderator
Hillary is the biggest loser here. However, there are 49 more states to go.
Report comment to moderator
We need to keep this is perspective less people voted in this election than live in Whichita KS. So to say this is a real sampling of America is crazy.
Report comment to moderator
#10: I seem to recall Clinton’s own vice president “distancing himself” as much as he possibly could from the president.
You couldn’t blame him there. Clinton getting “knees” in the White House. How embarrassing and shameful, not to mention disrespectful to the office of president as well as the American people. Gore distanced himself from Clintons actions not his policies.
The only thing Bush did was let the greatest mass murderer in US history go and invade the wrong country, choices we will be paying for for generations. Knees is infinately less bad than incompetance.
#14: Jesus is ALWAYS the winner
I didn’t know he was running. Must be an independent.
I watched Huckabee’s speech last night. He said that we all want a president we can relate to. Someone just like the guy who sits next to us at work. Well, I’ve got a suprise for him. I would never want to the president to be like the guy sitting next to me. I would want someone smart, an elite. Maybe someone who could teach “constitutional law”. Or someone who was the president of the Harvard Law Review. A brilliant scholar. Know anyone like that? Obama maybe?
Please, no more cheerleaders. Bush was enough.
Report comment to moderator
232,000 voted Democrat. With Obama getting 38% and a little over 100,000 voted Republican with Huckabee getting 34%.
Only 120,000 Democrats and 85,000 Republicans were expected to vote so both turned out way past expectations. Good. That’s what it’s about.
Report comment to moderator
I’m delighted with the Democratic results, but I’ve been with Obama for a while. I’m not surprised by Clinton’s third place finish. The polls were strongly trending that way the last few days.
I agree with NJ Lawyer that both parties, in their way, are signaling a desire for something different. It’s patently clear in the Democratic Party, where Obama embodies change in a way that Edwards and Clinton cannot.
It’s less clear in the GOP, because Huckabee can be seen in some ways as a continuation of the Bush presidency, yet he brings a fresh, non-establishment tone and a much more likable package.
I actually have thought for a while that Huckabee could win the nomination. He’s the candidate who worries me the most.
But the big news is Democratic turnout, and the sheer enthusiasm for Obama. I was at an Obama party last night in Virginia. Close to 500 people packed this place, all young people, all enthusiastic in a way I’ve not seen before.
Report comment to moderator
The media keeps pushing that wrinkled up leftist hick, as a conservative. Apparently Americans are stupid enough to believe them. When a person has a verifiable record that leaves no doubt that the candidate stands against conservative principles, (across the board) that used to be enough to cull him.
Now, it seems that no one is interested in what Gomer DID as gov. No, they believe what he says he WILL DO.
I’ve got news for you. He is a liar. Whatever you think he’s going to do when he gets in office…he won’t. He will sign every piece of legislation that the democrats set on his desk.
He will suck up to the media, who will love him because he’s one of them in a Republican suit.
He will castigate his conservative opponents in the legislature, who will be fighting his socialist agenda…just like he did as gov.
The media will, of course, use the many opportunities Shuckster will give them to demonize true conservatives.
A president Huckabee will be the death of conservatism.
The primary system has to be changed.
Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina:
Your importance in this process greatly over-rated.
I think it is time for scrap the primary system as it is.
There is no reason that a bunch of mid-western corn-eaters should get to decide who the candidate is, that the media is going to push through the rest of the primaries.
Now, we will see a barrage of free Huckabee coverage in the MSM news coverage.
Some of you people are playing right in to their hands.
They push Huck…You buy it… You vote for Huck…Huck gets nominated…Huck gets beat by 25% in the general election.
If he doesn’t get beat, you’ll have the same type administration as if the dem. won.
Oh well, America had a good run.
I wonder how much property costs in Costa Rica?
Report comment to moderator
#12: Harris, I’m confused by this comment: “Obama articulates Midwestern common values about as well as anybody”
In the things I’ve seen coming from Obama (the Dem YouTube debate, for instance), everything he says seems to be outright “hyper-liberal”. In other words, the things he says (or, rather, I’ve heard him say) sound like he is is playing to the left-wing of the party so much that Clinton sounds like a conservative in comparison (I’m exaggerating, of course, but she does sound far more centrist than he).
Now, if you mean (as you seem to do with Huckabee) that he is far more plainspoken and charismatic and overall personally appealing, I’ll grant you that. Clinton comes across as a shrew, whether that image is deserved or not. But policies do matter, which is why I’m not supporting Huckabee any longer, as personally likable as he is. Anyone with questionable foreign policy and a penchant for bigger government is going to be a political turnoff (and Obama and Huckabee both seem to fit the bill here).
Report comment to moderator
I seem to recall Clinton’s own vice president “distancing himself” as much as he possibly could from the president. I didn’t know you were that young!
That’s just plain wrong, Cheryl. The day Clinton was impeached, Congressional Democrats held a pep rally in his defense on the steps of Capitol Hill. Gore spoke at that rally, and he declared Clinton to be not simply a great president, not simply one of the greatest presidents, but the greatest president in American history.
And you call this distancing himself from Clinton as much as he possibly could?
Report comment to moderator
Biggest loser? Ron Paul. not even on the radar.
Right. He got 10%, and he’s “not even on the radar”.
Meanwhile, Rudy got 4%, and yet somehow Ron Paul is the biggest loser.
More of that ineffable WoW logic.
Report comment to moderator
Right as always, NT. The context of the reference to Gore distancing himself from Clinton was Gore’s presidential run, when Gore didn’t even campaign along side Clinton for long stretches of the lead up to the election.
Keeping the party line when it’s not your reputation or electability on the line is easy; when it’s your name on the ballot, you do everything you can to please the voters.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer #29: “Don’t count Mr. Huckabee out. He has his liberal tendencies, but also has the right attitude on the social issues. His win tells me that Mr. Giuliani is in the same kind of trouble as Hillary Clinton. There are hardliners on immigration in the Republican party, but I think most Americans would agree with Huckabee that you don’t take that out on a 6 year old illegal kid who is sick. Americans are not heartless people.”
You could not have said it better. The one thing evangelicals get criticized the most for is their supposed heartlessness. While I don’t believe it is a label that can stick if the evidence is investigated, nonetheless the bum rap comes every time the illegal immigration issue comes up.
Huckabee is pragmatic about the issue. There are two sides to the fence. Although we need to stop the influx from coming in, we can’t penalize the innocents (children) for the sins of their parents.
Americans are willing to settle for a just compromise on most issues. If the border would have been more carefully monitored before this problem got out of hand, and both parties can take an equal amount of blame for that, the idea of providing health care or educational assistance to poor illegals, wouldn’t even be on the radar.
At this point it does look like Huckabee/Obama but it is a long race. Romney and Clinton have got a boatload of cash and will start calling in favors and strongarming everyone they have ever done business with.
Huckabee and Obama seem to offer the best real opportunity for change . . . at least until one of them actually ends up on the beltway gridlock. Then it will business as usual, they will each be blamed for lying to get the job because of unfulfilled campaign promises and the political system (with congress having a lower approval rating than even Bush) taking another punch to the gut and the American public getting that much more fed up with politicians.
Report comment to moderator
NT: I didn’t even mention Guiliani as he didn’t even campaign in Iowa, so 4% makes him a “winner.” Although he will soon be a loser, loser.
Ron Paul got 10% and he is running. 10% loses in my book.
Report comment to moderator
#35: Oh well, America had a good run.
You can’t be talking about the last seven years. One disaster piled up on another.
Regardless of what anyone says of Clinton’s “greatness”, his getting knees was a slap in the face to Americans. They could have gotten a room. Using the Oval Office that way? You can’t defend it. It’s shameful. It’s spitting on this country. That was the reason Bush was elected. Clinton not able to control his lusts gave us the disaster that is Bush.
Report comment to moderator
Regardless of what anyone says of Clinton’s “greatness”, his getting knees was a slap in the face to Americans. They could have gotten a room. Using the Oval Office that way? You can’t defend it. It’s shameful. It’s spitting on this country.
Well, at least RDean and I agree on something.
Report comment to moderator
Rob Hays, you’re a political genius!
Report comment to moderator
Huckabee-the social “conservative”
WARNING:
Huckabee-bashing copy-and-paste ahead
“Asked on CNN’s “Larry King Live” Monday night about his beliefs on evolution, Huckabee rushed to assure King that he has no interest in altering textbooks that foist this fraud on innocent schoolchildren.
I don’t understand that. Does Huckabee believe Darwinism is a hoax or not? If he knows it’s a fraud, then why does he want it taught to schoolchildren? What other discredited mystery religions – as mathematician David Berlinski calls Darwinism – does Huckabee want to teach children? Sorcery? Phrenology? Alchemy?
Admittedly, the truth about Darwinism would be jarring in textbooks that promote other frauds and hoaxes, such as “man-made global warming.” Why confuse the little tykes with fact-based textbooks?
Huckabee immediately dropped his alleged skepticism of Darwinism and turned to his main goal as president of the United States: teaching children more art and music. This, he said, was his “passion” because “I think our education system is failing kids because we’re not touching the right side of the brain – the creative side. We are focusing on the left side.”
I think I know someone who has just read an article in Reader’s Digest about left brain/right brain differences!
When not evolving his position on Darwinism, Huckabee insults gays by pointlessly citing the Bible’s rather pointed remarks about sodomy – fitting the MSM’s image of evangelicals sitting around all day denouncing gays. (Which is just so unfair. I’m usually done denouncing gays by 10:30 a.m., 11 tops.) And yet, Huckabee has said he agrees with the Supreme Court’s lunatic opinion that sodomy is a constitutional right.
In the 2003 decision Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court overruled Bowers v. Hardwick, a case only 17 years old (and with a name chosen by God) – despite the allegedly hallowed principle of “stare decisis.” As explained in “Godless,” stare decisis means: “What’s mine is mine and what’s yours is negotiable.”
Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion in Lawrence was so insane that the lower courts completely ignored it. Since then, courts have disregarded Lawrence in order to uphold state laws banning the sale of vibrators, restricting gays’ rights to adopt, prohibiting people from having sex with their adult ex-stepchildren, and various other basic human rights specifically mentioned in our Constitution.
Lawrence was promptly denounced not only by Republican governors and Christian groups across the nation, but also by anyone with sufficient reading comprehension skills to see that the Constitution says nothing about a right to sodomy. But when Huckabee was asked about this jaw-dropping ruling from the high court, he said the majority opinion “probably was appropriate.”
He made these remarks on his monthly radio show, “Ask the Governor,” as was widely reported at the time, including a July 3, 2003, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette article titled, “Huckabee Says Sex Lives of Adults Not State Affair.” I stress that “Ask the Governor” was not a wacky, comedy-based, morning zoo-type radio program. It was supposed to be serious.
Employing the ACLU’s “any law I don’t like is unconstitutional” test, Huckabee said he supported the court’s decision because a law “that prohibited private behavior among adults” would be difficult to enforce. Next he’ll be telling us which of the Ten Commandments he considers “nonstarters.”
How about adults who privately operate meth labs? How about a private contract between an employer and employee for a salary less than the minimum wage?
Hey! How about adults privately smoking cigarettes in their homes? Nope, Huckabee wants a federal law banning smoking but thinks state laws banning sodomy are “probably” unconstitutional.
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a spirited dissent in Lawrence, joined by Justices William Rehnquist and Clarence Thomas, raising the somewhat embarrassing point that homosexual sodomy is not technically mentioned in the Constitution. Otherwise, our Founding Fathers would have been our “Founding Life Partners.”
Scalia said that inasmuch as the Texas law furthered “the same interest furthered by criminal laws against fornication, bigamy, adultery, adult incest, bestiality and obscenity,” the court’s ruling placed all these laws in jeopardy.
Most important, Scalia said: “Today’s opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions.” At least no court has tried to legalize gay marriage since that 2003 ruling, so we can be grateful for – Hey, wait a minute!
Huckabee claims he opposes gay marriage and says Scalia is his favorite justice, but he supports a Supreme Court decision denounced by Scalia for paving the way to a “constitutional right” to gay marriage. I guess Huckabee is one of those pro-sodomy, pro-gay marriage, pro-evolution evangelical Christians.”
Report comment to moderator
metanoia (41): Ron Paul got 10% and he is running. 10% loses in my book.
Frank: But it’s Iowa!
Some pertinent observations, via Lew Rockwell:
And in the Fox News late-nite caucus wrap-up, Shepherd Smith asked the musical question: Given Rep. Ron Paul’s 10% support from caucus-goers — “More than double” what Rudy Giuliani got — “Should Fox News reconsider” and allow Paul in the GOP forum set for Sunday night?
Report comment to moderator
Outkast writes:
“#14: Jesus is ALWAYS the winner”
RDean responds:
“I didn’t know he was running. Must be an independent.”
Lot’s of things you don’t know apparently…
Like the fact that George Bush isn’t running in this election.
Report comment to moderator
#47: Like the fact that George Bush isn’t running in this election.
I knew that. However, Boy George is the BIGGEST LOSER. Boy George has publically stated that “History” will see him vindicated. No, it won’t. His absense screams his failure. Sorry guys, you’ve been “Bushwhacked”. The biggest favor Bush can do for the Republicans is to lay low and stay away from another fiasco before the next election. I bet he won’t be able too. To him, every new fiasco is a fiesta.
Report comment to moderator
The biggest winner of the night was the Democratic party in general (with the corresponding biggest loser being easily inferable). About a 150% larger turn out in Democratic circles than Republican. It shows that Iowa (red in 2004) is a great general blue pick up opportunity in the general no matter who is running. And that should spell disaster for the GOP in Ohio and NH, maybe even in Florida.
I am giddy that Huckabee is doing so well. I told you all him winning the R nomination was a fond fantasy and I’m encourage that it might happen. IT proves that the R primary can get ugly and it highlights how week the R field is.
I’m less excited about Obama winning last night. I just never got over his Pakistan comments, but hopefully those will be forgotten by him if Hillary’s jabs about lacking foreign policy experience really prove to have no sticking power. Freed up from the pressure to sound “tough” and “experienced” he might start sounding more reasonable. I am concerned about foreign policy and have found Hillary to just be more nuanced and clear in explaining herself, but I’m generally willing to test the theory that our foreign policy woes will seem less daunting when we have leadership that doesn’t actively try to alienate the rest of the world.
Still hoping that Edwards can come out of this though. I still think of the 3 front runners he is running out of the most genuine desire to help people. If he gets second in NH and winds SC it could still happen for him on the 5th. I don’t think any of the 4 top Dems will drop out before that day.
Biden and Dodd were smart to get out now. They would both be good VP picks for Obama but not for Hillary. Biden in particular would help his career by publicly endorsing Obama now. The select would also play well in the media because of the race issue and Biden’s lovable stumbles.
Richardson on the other hand must know that he won’t win the nomination. He has said that he has no interest in the VP position, and I’m starting to believe him. If he was really running for VP he would get out know and throw his support to Hillary. She would take NH easily if she got the bulk of his 9%. He has got to also know that Obama can’t pick him.
Ok I’m done.
Report comment to moderator
Don Quixote, I mean Ron Paul continues his march. Yes it is only “Iowa” but it’s still “Ron Paul.”
I will conceded that the Paulites are a zealous group, but his ideas just won’t fly in middle of the road America.
I happen to agree with some of Paul’s platform, but I am also a pragmatist. Ron Paul’s chances are slim and none. Heck, even Guiliani has a better chance than Paul.
My pragmatism is tempered by conviction. While I may agree with Ron Paul on some issues, they are not enough as I believe there are a couple of other better candidates with whom I agree more.
Report comment to moderator
#45: I guess Huckabee is one of those pro-sodomy, pro-gay marriage, pro-evolution evangelical Christians.”
No, he’s not. First off, you can discribe the sex life of any married, hetro couple that hasn’t tried “sodomy” in one form or another by just one word, “Boring”. It’s just unfair to try to keep others from having fun too. I’m pretty sure, just by looking at him, his sex life is borning.
Second, the judge in the Dover evolution case was nominated by Rick Santorum and appointed by George Bush. After the trial, he asked the scientists why all this information about evolution isn’t taught in public schools? They told him it’s mostly taught in colleges and not high school because of the harrassment from the Christians. Evolution in High School has almost no detail. This is because it upsets the Christians way too much. For many, the occult and supernatural are way more interesting than the mundane. A mighty hand waved and a voice boomed out, “Let there be stuff” and “things” shimmered into view. All kinds of animals and, well, “stuff”.
Report comment to moderator
The Democrats always have more people turn out to their events in Iowa than turn out to GOP events because the Democrats outnumber Republicans, Luke.
Iowa may sometimes vote “red” but by far the Democrats here in the Hawkeye outnumber the Republicans. The fact voters in an overwhelmingly Democrat state occasionally vote a Republican into office speaks to the quality of candidate, not the quantity of voters.
Report comment to moderator
First off, you can discribe the sex life of any married, hetro couple that hasn’t tried “sodomy” in one form or another by just one word, “Boring”.
Perhaps it’s your personality that makes it boring, RDEAN. After all, you sound like a broken record on this blog. Plus, it’s not a very good record to begin with.
Report comment to moderator
Wow, one victory in a caucus by a less than down-the-line evangelical and Mr. Meaner is scouting land values in Costa Rica! I guess the Republic will survive without him.
I am surprised that Huckabee did so well and have to conclude that Romney (still, barely, my best bet for the eventual nomination) ran a terrible campaign.
With their faith in Romney dimmed, the money branch of the R’s has a real dilemma. Neither McCain (too eratic) nor Giulani (too socially liberal even for them, and VERY likely to wind up in some kind of scandal) is going to generate a lot of enthusiasm. They’ll probably hang on with Romney for a while; maybe do what they can to work for a brokered convention.
As for the Dems, I wish I could agree with whoever above said Edwards had a good night. I think he really needed a victory to make his positions respectable and reportable by the MSM. According to commentators, he is also short of money.
David Brooks in the Times had a very good summary of what happened in Iowa.
Here’s the URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/04/opinion/04brooks.html
Oh yeah, the betting site I check shows that those willing to put their money where their mouth is, have made one person, out of the whole Republican party only a 2-1 shot for the vice presidential nomination. He’s a preacher from Hope.
I think that a money man up front and Huck as veep would indeed constitute the R’s best possible ticket.
Report comment to moderator
Excellent analysis Luke. As for Outkast’s comment, he’s obviously never covered a Democratic caucus meeting in north west Iowa.
I didn’t know much about Biden prior to the primary/caucus run but I did like what I saw and his experienced hand might work well as VP.
As for the Republicans, the evangelicals finally discovered Huckabee but are in dilemma which is more important neo-con economics or evangelical values. Tellingly, many here are still not sure which has the most priority. No matter how you spin it the very fact that Thompson beat out Rudy demonstrates which one of the non-participants is the loser.
Report comment to moderator
On one hand, the 10% for Ron Paul might look somewhat decent. But when one considers the publicity, the net campaign he conducted, and all the people who supposedly supported him, it’s a disappointing performance. 10% will not get you into the top tier of candidates.
As I predicted, the group that most supports Ron Paul (young people) is the group that is notorious for not showing up when it really counts. The problem with young people is that they aren’t consistent yet when it comes to voting. If MTV had a show on last night that they wanted to see or Chili’s had 2 for 1 beers, they probably did that instead of going to the caucus.
One must also remember that Giuliani decided to forgo campaigning in Iowa. Ron Paul finished only 1% higher than him. That’s not a good sign.
Report comment to moderator
If Obama does end up getting the nomination, picking Biden would be a very smart move. There is no one on the Democratic side who knows foreign policy better than he does. He’s smart as a whip, though a little quick with the temper. But he’d be a durn sight better than the current V.P., that’s for sure!
Report comment to moderator
Anlir #56,
You stated “Ron Paul finished only 1% higher than him [Giuliani].”
That’s just plain wrong. Ron Paul had 10%. Giuliani ended with 3%. That’s a 7% difference. I think you’ll find young people more willing to vote for someone who doesn’t make them feel jaded about politics.
Report comment to moderator
#53: Perhaps it’s your personality that makes it boring,
No, it’s definiately the lack. I didn’t used to know any other married couples that never tried “sodomy”.
The number one defition of sodomy right out of the dictionary:
sod·om·y [sod-uh-mee]
–noun 1. anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex.
Is is only dirty when it’s the gays? If you haven’t tried it, then don’t knock it.
#57: But he’d be a durn sight better than the current V.P., that’s for sure!
Harriet Meyers would be better than the current VP.
Report comment to moderator
Wiglaf,
You’re correct. When I saw the totals last night it was closer than it ended up.
My points about Ron Paul still stand. It was a disappointing result for so much effort and hype.
My prediction for Paul: He won’t do well in the Republican primaries. He’ll run as a third-party candidate.
I got nothing against Paul (he’s smart with a tinge of craziness). But the Republican hierarchy does. And they will make sure he isn’t the nominee.
Report comment to moderator
I wonder how many IA Republicans registered as D in order to cast an anti-HRC vote.
Report comment to moderator
#51
Donato
If you feel that straight, traditional sex is “boring”, I feel sorry for you…and your wife.
Maybe you should just try to be better at it.
Man…that just makes me sad for you.
Report comment to moderator
Anytime you do the same thing a thousand times exactly the same way, it get’s boring. Perhaps you might want a heart to heart with your wife? Just a suggestion. Many times a partner is afraid to talk because they don’t want to be judged by the person they love. Some people have so brainwashed that natural behaviour beteen is man and a woman is considered dirty and immoral. It’s ok to be adventurous with your spouse. If you can’t be free with them, it’s likely that one or the other will cheat.
Report comment to moderator
As much as I’d like to pursue this line of discussion, I’m afraid that considering the nature of this forum, understandably, this isn’t the place to be too detailed in these type of discussions.
Having said that:
I have one of those “old school” dictionaries. The definition of “sodomy”, according to ol’ funky wagnall in 1979, is the following:
“Unnatural sexual relations, esp. between male persons, or between a human being and an animal.
Now, that’s not me saying that. That is Funk and Wagnall circa.1979.
Direct all chastisement to Funk & Wagnall.
I, for one, believe that anything that happens between two consenting adults, in private, is between them and their maker.
I’d also add that “the maker” has made his thoughts known on this.
The only thing that Christians have to worry about is staying within the realm of Biblical law.
The Law doesn’t stipulate the types of sex practices allowed by couples.
The point of all of this is that Huckabee is again pretending to be the representative of the people who he can trick in to believing he shares their values.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir says young voters tend not to show up, thus Ron Paul only getting 10%. Tell that to Obama, as a lot of his supporters were young. Also, since Ron Paul’s support is coming through on-line donations, they could be coming from all over the country, not just Iowa.
BTW- I am not now, nor have I been a Ron Paul supporter. That could change in the next five weeks, however.
Report comment to moderator
Peter L.,
It’s interesting you should mention that. Last night they were showing pictures of the crowds at Clinton’s, Obama’s, and Paul’s rallies over the last few months. Most of the people at Clinton’s were older (50+), most of the people at Obama’s were middle-age (25-50), and most of the people at Paul’s were younger (under 25). Like Howard Dean, Paul imported an enthusiastic army of young people to Iowa to work for his candidacy. It was a serious effort. But it didn’t quite work out.
Don’t get me wrong – I wish Ron Paul well. Anyone that can shake the foundation of the Republican Party deserves a “thumbs up”.
But who I really want to hear from on this is Frank in Phoenix. I want to hear his thoughts on Ron Paul’s vote count. Perhaps I’m missing something.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
My thoughts:
The primary season has never been been a game of start-to-finish domination by the man who eventually becomes his party’s nominee. Iowa is neither unimportant, nor is it a bona-fide kingmaker.
I was not expecting Ron Paul to kick butt & take names in corn country. (He opposes, after al, federal farm subsidies, unlike the agri-socialist who won Thursday.) Given the upcoming primary contests — especially Tuesday in NH — suffice to say that I’m pleased with RP’s Iowa showing.
Note that NH’s GOP chairman is in ongoing negotions with Fox news to get Ron Paul included in Fox’s “itty-bitty-trailer forum.” (What, in the 21st Century, they can’t include him via video-screen from a remote location?!) He (the NH GOP chairman) has threatened to pull state GOP sponsorship of Fox’s forum if Paul is not included. This should give you some idea of the difference between NH’s “Live Free or Die” Republicans vs. the “sorta Conservative – but don’t you dare touch my subsidies!” IA Republicans.
In addition, Paul supporters from all over the country have been swarming NH like winter locusts for the last two months to get the word out. The effort in NH makes the Iowa effort look like a morning walk. (Just spend a half-hour at YouTube to see documentation of this. I don’t think RP volunteers spent near as much time in Iowa.)
And finally, it is my understanding that in NH, you can change your party registration/affiliation on the day of the primary. There have been reports from pockets around the country (though I don’t know if it qualifies as a honest-to-goodness “national trend”) of large numbers of voters changing their registration to Republican. Given Ron Paul’s appeal to a broad, cross-party range of voters, I suspect that this is primarily being done by Democrats and independents — not to mention Libertarians — who want to vote for Ron Paul.
So, back to the beginning: While I wasn’t holding my breath in Iowa, I confess I’ll be chewing my nails over New Hampshire. But all in all, the primary season is going to have to unfold a piece at a time. Ron Paul is arguably the most unique candidate in either party, because of his principled constitutionalism. And his supporters have been doing successful end-runs around the MSM’s “kingmaker machine” since January. (I would also remind you that the Paul campaign has been greatly decentralized — grass-roots, bottom up, not centralized top-down control. Sorta like Paul’s position on state’s rights and true federalism.)
All of these factors, I think, are going to make this primary season unlike anything we have seen in our lifetimes, and could very well make Ron Paul the GOP nominee.
Report comment to moderator
I think many of you (especially the Canadian) are very hung up on your definitions of political ideas/movements, i.e., you use these words libertarian and neo-con to describe what’s happening here putting things in boxes that no longer have four sides.
I think it’s much simpler. I agree with Frank in Phoenix that this is a primary season unlike anything we’ve seen, because I think “the people” want to take control, they want things to get done, they want to cut through all the horsepucky. They gave the Repubs a change, then the Dems, and for both groups it was about THEM. They did nothing for the people. This isn’t just about who will be president. This is the “people” redefining the way we do political business here.
(I hope we’re successful.)
Report comment to moderator
Anyone that can shake the foundation of the Republican Party deserves a “thumbs up”.
It seems to me that both Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee are doing the shaking up. David Brooks’ words from Arcadia’s link are very interesting:
Second, Huckabee understands much better than Mitt Romney that we have a crisis of authority in this country. People have lost faith in their leaders’ ability to respond to problems. While Romney embodies the leadership class, Huckabee went after it. He criticized Wall Street and K Street. Most importantly, he sensed that conservatives do not believe their own movement is well led. He took on Rush Limbaugh, the Club for Growth and even President Bush. The old guard threw everything they had at him, and their diminished power is now exposed.
Third, Huckabee understands how middle-class anxiety is really lived. Democrats talk about wages. But real middle-class families have more to fear economically from divorce than from a free trade pact. A person’s lifetime prospects will be threatened more by single parenting than by outsourcing. Huckabee understands that economic well-being is fused with social and moral well-being, and he talks about the inter-relationship in a way no other candidate has.
In that sense, Huckabee’s victory is not a step into the past. It opens up the way for a new coalition.
A conservatism that recognizes stable families as the foundation of economic growth is not hard to imagine. A conservatism that loves capitalism but distrusts capitalists is not hard to imagine either. Adam Smith felt this way. A conservatism that pays attention to people making less than $50,000 a year is the only conservatism worth defending.
Will Huckabee move on and lead this new conservatism? Highly doubtful. The past few weeks have exposed his serious flaws as a presidential candidate. His foreign policy knowledge is minimal. His lapses into amateurishness simply won’t fly in a national campaign.
So the race will move on to New Hampshire. Mitt Romney is now grievously wounded. Romney represents what’s left of Republicanism 1.0. Huckabee and McCain represent half-formed iterations of Republicanism 2.0. My guess is Republicans will now swing behind McCain in order to stop Mike.
Huckabee probably won’t be the nominee, but starting last night in Iowa, an evangelical began the Republican Reformation.
Report comment to moderator
And if Huckabee “began the Republican Reformation,” WHY would Republicans favor McCain? Why would Republicans want the person who didn’t start the reformation? Perhaps we’re back to “misunderestimating” people — again.
Isn’t it always possible that the people, the voters, understand that even a candidate can misspeak one word for another? I think Huckabee would actually stand a chance against Hillary. If you’re shrill, how do you attack such a nice, humble guy? Would Obama change his character and attack him? Maybe we’d have a more civil debate.
Maybe the “evangelical” began a reform of politics in general.
Report comment to moderator
#64: I’d also add that “the maker” has made his thoughts known on this.
1979??
You’re right, it’s not the right forum. However, if you ever get a chance to meet this mysterious “maker”, come back from where ever you are and tell us about him. I suspect it will be a long wait. Sad to judge people on an imaginary friend, so imaginary in fact, no one has ever met him. Pity.
Report comment to moderator
NJL: I’m with you – I think that Huckabee would stand a chance against anyone in the race, especially given people’s mood these days of wanting someone who they can relate to, and who will seek to relate to them.
Report comment to moderator
I personally don’t want someone I can relate to. I don’t want someone who I could be friends with. I want someone who can perform the duties of US president.
Huckabee’s stance on taxes is ludicrous. He needs to stop talking about getting rid of the IRS. His health care plan is basically a weight loss and smoking cessation plan. I guess since he lost 120 pounds he figures that the rest of America can as well. I expect a little more from the US president.
I will be voting for Obama unless some other candidate can provide a stronger path for America. I am not sold on Obama and I honestly would like to vote Republican but I couldn’t handle another 4 years of non-sense like we have seen the last 8 years. McCain or Romney could potentially sway me but it would be difficult since they are basically supporting Bush’s reign of terror. If Thompson was the candidate that everyone had hoped for, he may have stood a chance. The man hardly even wants to be president however.
Report comment to moderator
Theo, you may be the odd one then. I may have a law degree, but I don’t “relate” to Hillary Clinton. I haven’t had the advantages she has had in life, and I haven’t forgotten where I came from either. I understand a man like McCain a lot better. His years as a POW have real meaning for me. He understands suffering. I relate to that. I relate to Huckabee’s Christian faith. We speak the same language. I even understand Thompson — he has the perspective on the power that I hope I would have.
Evidently, you need a self-centered, they can’t do it without me Type A personality. A person who doesn’t relate won’t do a blessed thing — kinda like a lot of the clowns in Congress.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!