And the results are in from Iowa...
I am pleased and intrigued.
On the Democratic side, Obama won with 38% of the vote, Edwards was second with 30%, and--here is why I am happy--Hillary finished third with 29%.
The breakdown of the numbers gives me even greater pleasure, but I don't have the energy to detail such analysis now. Suffice it to say that I agree with NBC's Andrea Mitchell, who said that Hillary now has to drastically change her campaign because all of her arguments as to why people should vote for her and why she would win got shot down in Iowa.
I really hope Hillary comes in third in New Hampshire as well. That would just about put an end to her campaign. Why? Apparently people have started to figure her out and realize who and what she is. And that means they are realizing that she is not electable in a general election. A third place finish like this is a momentum killer, and it will cause even more people to more closely examine her, and that is not a good thing for her. A third place finish in New Hampshire in an actual vote rather than a caucus will really cause people to doubt her. And then people just might start demanding real answers from her on things like her record on Iraq and Iran and why she has supported the Bush agenda in so many ways. That really will not be good for her because her choices are 1) keeping refusing to answer those questions--which hasn't produced great results so far, or 2) answer the questions and reveal what a disingenuous, power-hungry politician she is, and that is going to piss off even more Democrats.
On the Republican side, Huckabee simply kicked ass. More to the point, he kicked Romney's ass by 9 percentage points. Romney spent a lot of time and a lot of money in Iowa--way, way more than Huckabee or any other candidate--and he got his butt kicked. I watched Huckabee's speech once it was clear he had won, and I have to say he absolutely hit it out of the park. He was outstanding in what he said and how he said it. Then I watched him in an interview with Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann, and he was even better then. Listen up, folks: Huckabee is for real, and he is in the race.
I am intrigued by the Republican race now. If Romney does not win New Hampshire, he might be done. He is in trouble because McCain is surging in New Hampshire, and Huckabee should do really well in South Carolina. Meanwhile, I'm hoping Ron Paul (who finished fifth with 10%) can score some success in New Hampshire and South Carolina. Paul's libertarian views could go over well in a state whose motto is "Live Free or Die."
I really hope Hillary comes in third in New Hampshire as well. That would just about put an end to her campaign. Why? Apparently people have started to figure her out and realize who and what she is. And that means they are realizing that she is not electable in a general election. A third place finish like this is a momentum killer, and it will cause even more people to more closely examine her, and that is not a good thing for her. A third place finish in New Hampshire in an actual vote rather than a caucus will really cause people to doubt her. And then people just might start demanding real answers from her on things like her record on Iraq and Iran and why she has supported the Bush agenda in so many ways. That really will not be good for her because her choices are 1) keeping refusing to answer those questions--which hasn't produced great results so far, or 2) answer the questions and reveal what a disingenuous, power-hungry politician she is, and that is going to piss off even more Democrats.
On the Republican side, Huckabee simply kicked ass. More to the point, he kicked Romney's ass by 9 percentage points. Romney spent a lot of time and a lot of money in Iowa--way, way more than Huckabee or any other candidate--and he got his butt kicked. I watched Huckabee's speech once it was clear he had won, and I have to say he absolutely hit it out of the park. He was outstanding in what he said and how he said it. Then I watched him in an interview with Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann, and he was even better then. Listen up, folks: Huckabee is for real, and he is in the race.
I am intrigued by the Republican race now. If Romney does not win New Hampshire, he might be done. He is in trouble because McCain is surging in New Hampshire, and Huckabee should do really well in South Carolina. Meanwhile, I'm hoping Ron Paul (who finished fifth with 10%) can score some success in New Hampshire and South Carolina. Paul's libertarian views could go over well in a state whose motto is "Live Free or Die."
posted by WCharles @ 1/03/2008 11:39:00 PM
4 Comments:
In many ways I would think Huck would appeal to you, Dubya2. Theologically, Huck is very liberal minded, he actually fought the conservative takeover of the SBC a decade ago trying to push the convention further to the left. He was a long time Democrat and still has left of center leanings. He's your man.
In my experience, "theologically liberal" and "Southern Baptist" don't go together. LOL However, some of his responses in the Matthews/Olbermann interview indicated to me that he is somewhere close to my view of "If you follow Jesus's commandments to love God and your neighbor as yourself, I don't care what you believe." I hope you see the irony in that. ;-)
I will look to see if I can find a link to that interview. You should really check it out.
After what I saw and heard from him last night, I am going to pay more attention to him from now on. On the Republican side, Ron Paul is still closer to me politically in many ways, but now I am going to look more at Huckabee.
Jimmy Carter is Southern Baptist, but is also very liberal and remained a Democrat. The SBC became liberal back at least from the 60s to the mid 90s, at the leadership level and their associated colleges if not the rank and file. Huck was part of that liberal SBC tradition. In fact there is an offshoot which Carter was part of called the Affirming Baptists. They pretty much think you can believe whatever you want as long as you have love. They accept anyone of any race, creed, or even sexual orientation, not too dissimilar to contemporary Unitarian Universalists or possibly a certain TX Methodist. I'm not sure if Huck fully in their camp, but ostensibly he is at least in sympathy with their agenda from what I've read online.
That said, I do appreciate some of Huck's political positions, but also find much with Paul that is interesting. And if I were to use religion as a litmus test, I suppose Huck would come out on top of Romney even though Romney does share similar values. It is all very confusing.
But, here is a little test. With all the focus on this upcoming election and microscopic examination of each candidate that is occurring, do you remember the name of the current president and does he have any relevancy at this point? Even a shred of relevancy?
I was working on my latest anti-Hillary screed, so I did not see your comment until now.
By the way, my father's mother was Unitarian. :-)
Post a Comment
<< Home