The first step in Election 2008

[heliodorus04]

As for me, number one, I’m pulling for Obama. I’m primarily focused on the Democrat side, because, well, it seems to me we really need an anti-Bush to undo many of the executive orders he proclaimed on the country. I’m not a fan of Edwards because to me his goal looks like too much class warfare – I mean that seems to be his message (from what I’ve paid attention).

Do I think HRC would be a bad president? Probably not worse than Bush II. Almost certainly not as good as Clinton I. She’s divisive, and despite my immature name-calling earlier in the year (which I regret and will now apologize for again: sorry!), the country needs someone who represents more than 51 percent. I think that’s the best she could do, and I think she has parallel issues to Bush II in terms of hiding things from the people.

So I’m for Obama, because he reminds me enough of Reagan in his ability to get most of us believing we can bring the best of our nation back from the brink, even if I don’t necessarily agree with several key aspects of his platform. I’ll suck it up in the name of the collective good and hope he does as little harm as possible.

On the Republican side, I’m an avid fan of Ron Paul, the only true Federalist conservative on that side of the aisle. But Paul doesn’t have what it takes to make it through a national election cycle, probably against any of the aforementioned dems. Love his consistency and his socially lib, economically conservative positions. But he’s easily portrayed as a kook like Ross Perot was portrayed.

McCain would be my runner-up. I think he does well in a national election, particularly against HRC, should she win the nomination (and bear in mind she’s the only Dem candidate I would have a seriously difficult time voting for).

Huckabee is a Focus-on-the-Family type, and I can do without those ever again. And Romney is nothing but whatever he thinks you want to hear to be elected. Giuliani, IMO, would be worse than Bush II in terms of turning the Presidency into a monarchy. To me, the worst possible candidates for next president are Giuliani and HRC.

I’m eager to see what Iowans deliver, especially on the Democrat side. It’s nice to see that the long-awaited change is finally on the horizon.
Go Obama! I believe in the audacity of hope! Ask my ex-girlfriend!

[El Flaco]

Good post. I'm almost in total agreement with you. I totally agree that HRC and Guiliani would be the worst choices for either side, although I would say that if you put aside the obvious partisan gridlock that would ensue (and the main reason I hope she's not nominated), I think she's far more competent for the job than W. But I really would rather see anyone on the Dem side get the nomination- too much baggage; and deep down, I don't trust her & I think we really need to break the Bush / Clinton legacy. Time to move forward.

I used to really like John McCain, and he's still the only one on the Republican side that I would consider an acceptable alternative to almost any of the Dem candidates. He's probably the only one that might grudgingly pull the fractious subsets of Republicans together (social conservatives, small government conservatives, and the Christian Right) enought to beat anyone but Hillary. I lost a lot of respect for McCain after the 2000 race when he let Rove smear him, with the apparent promise that the next time would be his turn. With the exception of Ron Paul, who's the most honest of all of them (although I don't always agree with his positions), the rest of the field is as weak a group of opportunistic unqualified crapweasels that I've seen. Not a Goldwater conservative among them, and they seem to say whatever it takes to get elected (despite records to the contrary). I would have liked to have seen Chuck Hagel throw his name in the hat.

Obama's got my vote, but unfortunately other states get to decide long before Colorado gets a say...

[heliodorus04]

Without doubt, last night was an historic moment in American history. I certainly could feel it. It was one of those moments that I'll remember where I was and what I was doing when I saw Obama get 38 percent of a state that is utterly and completely white. It's the kind of thing that makes me proud of our country and our people. Gives me goosebumps.

Nothing is written in stone yet. HRC has tons of money and tons of organizational power in subsequent states. Somewhere in late January is "Super Tuesday" and we'll have to really see what the numbers are on that day before we know if Obama's hope message and his personality can beat out HRC's "steady on target" message with her lack of personality. She's shrewd. I'll expect her to triangulate a way to try to speak his "change" message as if it were her own, along with some solid policy announcements.

To me, there's one guy waiting in the wings who can sweep wind into Obama's sails like nothing else out there, and that's Al Gore. Rumor has it he's waiting to endorse Obama, but waiting for what? For when? He's a folk hero on the left, for sure, and a man even I think has great integrity. If he picks the right time to stand in Obama's camp, it could sink HRC and Edwards.

There's an interesting strategy at play in Edwards camp. They beat HRC last night in Iowa. That's actually big, though it's not getting much press, because the story of Obama seems so epic a moment (and rightly so, it is). Edwards' strategy is to beat out Clinton long enough that she's a clear third. If he can relegate her to third, then the theory is that he can beat out Obama in places where Obama support is a little more tentative than it was last night.

Can't wait for New Hampshire.

As for the Republican side:
Romney outspent Huckabee 15 to 1. And lost by 8 or 9 points. I actually wouldn't have anything against Romney if he was running as a liberal Republican like his record shows in Massachussets as governor. But he pandered to the Religious Right that now owns the Republican party, and his record clearly shows he's pandering and changing tunes. The religious right does control the Republican primary (if not the party as a whole), and they didn't buy Romney at all.

Instead, they bought Huckabee. Huckabee gives me the heebeejeebies because of his 'what would Jesus do' governing imperative. He just truly frightens me with his talk about homosexuality, evolution, and so forth. But Karl Rove built the Republican base by making promises to the religious right, by making churches his organizational vote-getting instrument. It seems clear to me, at least, that in this moment in history, America is NOT going to vote for a Huckabee to replace Bush. But the religious right is all about acting politically according to their religious beliefs. And in that, the Republicans are getting what they asked for, and as an ex-Republican (though I'm still registered as one), it couldn't happen to nicer people.

The game changes dramatically for the Republicans in New Hampshire. Religious nuttery isn't such a force there as it is in Iowa's political culture. McCain has placed himself there strongly, and aims to come in first or second (ahead of Romney in either case). If Romney cannot win New Hampshire, the state neighboring the one he governed, pundits will say his goose is cooked, I think. Though that's not necessarily so- candidates survive the early round based on money, and in that category HRC and Romney have the money to survive losses in several early states.

Fascinating night last night. I'm drinking it all in.

[sj]

Hope over Division. Seems most people are tired of the same ole divisive rhetoric. Nice post gentelmen. sj

[gh]

Did you see huckabee backing up his quote "that a woman should gracefully submit to her husband". Is it even possible that someone could elected in America that would say that crap? Where is Helen Reddy when you need her?

[heliodorus04]

Outside of the Republican base, Huckabee is near invisible. No one has as yet paid him much attention, but that all changes with last night.

His whacked out "Bible as legislation" impetus is going to become highly visible now, particularly if he does well (say, 2nd) in New Hampshire.

My personal instinct is that Huckabee is what Susan Estrich said: A dream candidate for the Democrat party. He represents Christian fundamentalism, and I think it's clear that a vast majority of Americans don't want the guy in the white house making the bible into law.

I think Republicans are going to wage an anti-Huckabee campaign in coming days strictly for this reason. He appeals to an extreme in the base, but that same appeal will repulse most Americans. I think Republicans are smart enough to see that. The question to me now is how numerous are the non-Evangelical Republicans... No one really knows anymore... Are they the majority, or are they the minority?

[Roy]

Good post, Helo! I'm also pleased with Obama's win in Iowa and while I'd have preferred a Ron Paul win, I can't complain about their picking Huck...

The GOP is now "reaping the whirlwind" they have sown in the Religious Right with Mike Huckabee--they're convenient footsoldiers in the culture wars, but nobody's going to hand them the keys to the castle--the oncoming civil war within that party should be entertaining...

[heliodorus04]

Originally Posted by gh

Did you see huckabee backing up his quote "that a woman should gracefully submit to her husband". Is it even possible that someone could elected in America that would say that crap? Where is Helen Reddy when you need her?

I'm assuming your only objection is the term 'gracefully'. You'd prefer 'naughtily' or 'sluttily'? Right?

[gh]

I knew someone would take it in that direction and hey I am all for that. I think Huckabee was going for the more general meaning of the term, basically erasing the concept of equality. It frustrates me that this seems to be excepted or tolerated. Maybe I am getting old and out of touch but when I was growing up, if a political candidate said that he would be on his way out. I am wondering if this is accepted by todays women. Other than those involved in the evangelical christian movement I would think this would really piss women off cause it pisses me off and I am not a woman.

[heliodorus04]

This is why primaries are kinda screwy, particularly caucuses:
They create the illusion of electibility.

I don’t understand why a win among Iowans translates to such a national edge. I mean, sure, it IS historic that an African-American, with only about half a term in the senate, is now the leading Presidential candidate in the Democrat party. But that doesn’t mean he’s the best man to the job.

What I’m left wondering is whether the country as a whole follows this stuff as closely as I do. I’m certain that Iowans and New Hampshireites do. It seems to me that, of that portion that is politically active, they do take their role serious as weather vanes for the political process. But that’s still, or so I think, a small portion of the states in question.

I do not understand why Hillary is losing momentum so fast. Nothing about her has changed. Competent, hard-working, not-too-likeable (probably her real Achilles heel), perhaps paranoid to the point of combativeness, but perhaps not paranoid at all. I watched enough of the debate on Saturday to be impressed by her competence and to say to myself, “Hell, she’d help more than just about any Republican to fix the country.”

Obama has that charisma that America seems to crave at the moment. The Bobby Kennedy “I see things that aren’t and say, ‘why not’?” and Reagan’s “It’s morning in America again.” Optimism doesn’t always sell a president, but it seems this time around, it’s probably going to count for more than party affiliation.

Huckabee is optimistic, too. That seems to be his appeal – and it surprises and disturbs me. If he can flash charisma and soothing tones, he might be able to get enough of America to vote for him. I don’t think so, but I fear so.

Why is Hillary losing such steam? Well, likeability seems the key factor. And that’s a bit of a shame, because when she rose through the ranks in the late 60s and 70s, you did have to be tough like a man to be taken seriously. Maybe if Obama wasn’t in the race, she’d be leading – I don’t know. I don’t have enough of a pulse on the Democrat party to say why they’re leaning the way they are.

I also think that smart political Democrats recognize that the best chance ANY Republican has of winning the election is if Hillary is the nominee. She’s too polarizing to the right as a whole, and to enough independents that she can make the country take a reflexive step away from the left, if not toward the right.

I don’t know why I feel saddened that she’s getting beaten up so badly right now. I think people are overlooking the fact that in addition to a competent African-American, there’s also a competent woman for the first time running for President (no disrespect meant to Ferraro – she was like a Bill Richardson of 1984 – qualified but not suited).

Your thoughts my paddling friends?