The Speeches: Hillary,. Obama and Huckabee

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 10:57:53 PM EST
Tags: Iowa 08, Barack Obama (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

CNN pundits tonight skewered Hillary and sainted Obama. The pundits were so awful I had to use the mute button. Especially on Carl Bernstein. He couldn't even talk about Hillary...only about his very subjective perception that Bill Clinton seemed devastated. I saw the same speech -- live at the hotel -- and I thought Bill seemed proud.

Obama is the hero of the night. The media loved his speech, in which he played (overplayed, in my view) the Martin Luther King, Jr. card. His other topic, repeated throughout, was his appeal to New Hanpshire voters. He does have one major asset in my view.... his wife Michelle.

Hillary was gracious and like she always does, touted her experience and specifics about her aqenda if she's elected. But, her speech tonight was different -- in recognition of Obama's win of the youth vote, she stressed global warming and bringing the troops home. No mention of social security, caregivers, voting for a female, etc, which she was stressing just yesterday when I heard her in Cedar Rapids.

Bottom line: As I wrote last night, I think the Democratic nomination will turn on the youth vote. and it's too late for Hillary to pick it up -- Obama owns them. Rock the Vote may not have brought it home for Gore or Kerry, but it seems like it can do the trick for Obama. [More....]

As for Huckabee...the stats are quite telling. CNN says Iowa Republicans are overwhelmingly born-again and evangelical. Among non-evangelical Iowa voters and those to whom religion is not a big factor, Huckabee only got 15% of the vote. Huckabee has a lot of work to do to expand his base.

The really good news tonight: Rudy Giuliani came in 5th among Republicans, behind Ron Paul and ahead only of Duncan Hunter. If he thinks Florida will still bring it home for him, he's delusional. As far as I can tell, you can stick a fork in Rudy, he's done. Or so I hope.

In other good news: John Edwards made a good showing in Iowa. CNN has offically declared him second, beating Hillary Clinton 30% to 29%. He's has spent some serious time in New Hampshire. If he pulls off another second place showing there, he's still in the race...except, of course, he doesn't have the resources of Hillary or Obama.

With all the attention on Iowa and New Hampshire, I believe it will all be about Super Duper Tuesday on Feb. 5 when New York, New Jersey, California and many other states have their primaries.

So... congrats to Obama and Huckabee, they had big wins tonight. I'm just no closer to believing either one will be the eventual nominee.

Update: One last thing about Obama's speech which the pundits are raving about. He didn't write it, his speechwriter did. Credit Obama for the delivery -- he did present it very well -- but unless he spent the day writing it, let's keep it in perspective.

< Live-Blogging an Iowa Caucus | Another Wrongful Conviction in Texas >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

The Speeches: Hillary,. Obama and Huckabee | 64 comments (64 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Good work, J. (none / 0) (#1)
by oculus on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 11:01:39 PM EST

Youth Vote (none / 0) (#2)
by BDB on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 11:05:38 PM EST

If Obama can keep bringing young people out and get them to vote for Democrats, then it is probably worth putting up with his kumbaya crap. The new generation is far more progressive than mine (Gen X) and I'll happily have them out-vote mine. Now, I wish he were pulling them in with a progressive message as well as progressive policies, but I know that you rarely get everything you want in politics. But I do hope Obama at least is going to try to build a Democratic movement and not one based solely on him because we're going to need these voters not just in this election, but in the next one.

I still intend to back Clinton through the primaries, but if he can continue to pull in the youth vote, that will be one very big positive to come from his campaign.

Perhaps it is best young people select (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by oculus on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 11:08:01 PM EST

the next President. After all, they are saddled with providing the U.S. military with warm bodies and they will pay the debts we are accruing. Trying to be philosophical here.


Not to rain on the parade but (none / 0) (#3)
by Molly Bloom on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 11:07:30 PM EST

Didn't McGovern bring in the youth vote? Let hope they do make a difference this time.


: Pretty rainy. I was soooo certain everyone (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by oculus on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 11:09:05 PM EST

would see the light and vote for McGovern. But, no.

: I remember being the only kid in first grade... (5.00 / 1) (#54)
by Dadler on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 07:27:47 AM EST

...whose parents voted for McGovern. We all had to ask our folks who they were voting for, then we came into class and had our own voice vote based on it. All you heard was "Billy, who are your parents voting for?"
"Nixon."
"Tommy?"
"Nixon."
"Jenny?"
"Nixon."
"Michelle?"
"Nixon."
Nixon, Nixon, Nixon, Nixon, until...
"Dadler, who are your parents voting for?"
And you never heard such a laugh from children when I answered timidly, "McGovern."
I'm still trying to undue the psychological damage.
Ahem.

Edwards is done (none / 0) (#6)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 11:15:04 PM EST

He has no chance at all.

Sad, But True (none / 0) (#9)
by BDB on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 11:25:05 PM EST

He took Clinton down for Obama and took himself out of it in the process, IMO. I thought he might've escaped because Obama had overlooked him, but the damage turned out to be done.

Hey, at least we know one CW about Iowa is accurate - they really do like nice.


He is presently opining Clinton is done. (none / 0) (#10)
by oculus on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 11:25:52 PM EST

Of Course He Is (none / 0) (#11)
by BDB on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 11:28:31 PM EST

And he might be right.

But that doesn't mean he isn't done, too. At least Clinton is sitting on a national lead and has raised $100 million. What does Edwards have to carry him through? He lost in his best state. I appreciate his effort, but he doesn't have the money or organization to compete with Obama. It's a two-way race now and Obama is out in front.


: If all Edwards did was return FDR (none / 0) (#19)
by Molly Bloom on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 11:42:43 PM EST

economic populism back in vogue, he will have served a grand purpose in my opinion.

Heh (none / 0) (#17)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 11:37:56 PM EST

And that is why he is done.

He NEVER ran against Obama the dope.


: He says he and Obama are both (none / 0) (#22)
by oculus on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 11:49:19 PM EST

running on the hope platform and Hillary Clinton isn't.
P.S. If the youth movement decides the election, HIllary Clinton hasn't a prayer; will remind the youth of their mothers; then you see an adult daughter of the candidate and M. Albright.

: Yep (none / 0) (#23)
by BDB on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:10:48 AM EST

He might've been able to knock Obama off in Iowa (although I'm not sure anyone could do much against his turnout tonight). Clinton, with her large national lead, was never going to just go away after Iowa. She might fade fast or slowly bleed support or even rally to win it, but that is between her and Obama now.
Given Clinton's large national lead, Iowa was about whether she'd put it away there or which Dem would become her challenger. That decision has been made. The fight will be between Obama and Clinton and last through February 5th. Neither is going anywhere before then, although Obama may be able to turn his Iowa victory into a winning streak and more or less run the table. We shall see.

He said just the opposite (none / 0) (#31)
by Jeralyn on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:27:34 AM EST

on Larry King Live tonight.


niceley put (none / 0) (#7)
by Jgarza on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 11:15:09 PM EST

well for the most part.

not enough people point this out:

He does have one major asset in my view.... his wife Michelle.

She is awesome. ON top of that She even dresses great!

As for the part I don't agree with, well lets skip that for now.

I do however agree that the media gets all ridiculous with this Hillary campaign is a complete failure crap. Thats how they work though everything has to be dumbed down to simple stark terms.

Before I sign off for the night... (none / 0) (#8)
by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 11:18:51 PM EST

...I'd like to thank Jeralyn and BTD for their hard work and insights.

And, to the fine people of Iowa--you made this ex-pat very, very proud.

Obama Jinxed? (none / 0) (#12)
by JHFarr on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 11:28:33 PM EST

This may not be true, but some one in an FDL comment thread claimed that no Democrat running opposed and winning the Iowa caucuses has ever gone on to win the nomination.

Ever heard of John Kerry? Al Gore? (none / 0) (#14)
by BDB on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 11:31:54 PM EST

Both had competition in Iowa and both won and then won the nomination. There were probably others.


It is FDL after all (none / 0) (#15)
by Jgarza on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 11:35:54 PM EST

JH had the good grace to compare Obama to Lieberman, and claims that because of Obama strong ind support, (which she claims is also substantial republican, its not) that he won't be able to win in other primaries that are all dem.

Two points, he beat her among just Dems (though by a smaller margin)and Iowa isn't an open primary, so if he brings them out there, there is no reason to believe he cant get it out in other states.

At this point FDL is going to try and spin this in every direction, because they aren't happy about it.


re "Iowa is not an open primary":: (none / 0) (#18)
by oculus on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 11:39:41 PM EST

True, but caucus goers are not confined to the party they previously registered in. Can register as a Dem on the way into the Dem caucus.


: CA (none / 0) (#44)
by Jgarza on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 01:29:40 AM EST

allows indies to vote in the dem primary. Infact i think most states allow for that.

Well Done Obama (none / 0) (#13)
by Molly Bloom on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 11:30:06 PM EST

Here for your celebration - Allison Moorer

A tongue-in-cheek pictorial of the Iowa primary (none / 0) (#16)
by Daniel DiRito on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 11:37:07 PM EST

To see a tongue-in-cheek review of the Iowa primary in pictures...link here:

www.thoughttheater.com

agree agree agree (none / 0) (#20)
by Judith on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 11:43:04 PM EST

So many great comments. I loved Obama's speech and I too wasnt sure of the MLK reference...but then I saw all those lovely people who cheered when he said it - Black and White - and it was really nice. They should be proud. I also gree his wife is splendid - I like her more than I like him...she is terrific.

I thought Edward's comments post were pretty harsh and unbecoming. Hillary was a class act the whole way. You learn a lot about people when they get a disappointment. I believe her when she say she has no intention of giving up. Sometimes a kick in the *ss really hurts but ends up giving one a boost.

Maybe Michelle Obama will be the first (none / 0) (#21)
by oculus on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 11:46:50 PM EST

female U.S. President.

Was Oprah on stage tonight?


I'm Pretty Sure (none / 0) (#24)
by BDB on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:13:05 AM EST

her husband has said she's not qualified. Personally, I like her better than him, but what do I know?


Snarking, I presume? (none / 0) (#26)
by oculus on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:15:30 AM EST

[Or are you furthering the ill-founded rumor Obama was raised Muslim, hence his wife is bascially his property?]

He is speaking on TV now; must learn not to point finger repeatedly at crowd--quite reminiscent of my 3rd grade teacher.


Snark, but True (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by BDB on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:17:11 AM EST

Obama compared Hillary Clinton's experience to his wife's and indicated he found it lacking. I'll try to find the quote. The main thing I remembered thinking was, forget Hillary, I hope Michelle kills him.


Is he paying her back for saying he (none / 0) (#29)
by oculus on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:19:28 AM EST

stinks?


Heh (none / 0) (#30)
by BDB on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:25:27 AM EST

I actually feel sorry for them. If Obama does manage to get the nomination, they can both expect the full MoDo treatment. She's already started in, it's only her complete pathological hatred of the Clintons that's kept her from focusing more on the Obamas. They seem like a good match - smart, equals, and with a lot in common. No way Maureen Dowd is ever going to understand that.

Michelle will benefit from the press liking her husband more than it does Bill Clinton - at least until he shows himself to be a progressive - but I'm not at all sure the press has matured in its view of strong women and marriages of equals from the Clinton years. Oh, wait, yes I am sure - the press has not.

I hope the Obamas don't really think the divisiveness is because of who the Clintons, Gores and Kerrys are. Because if they do, they are in for a very rude and painful awakening. This election is going to be very ugly, it's all the Republicans have got left.


Watching Bill Clinton as his wife spoke (none / 0) (#32)
by oculus on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:28:02 AM EST

tonight, I couldn't help but wonder if the result tonight would have been different if Bill and Monica had never met.


: Yes (none / 0) (#34)
by BDB on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:34:10 AM EST

I think you could make the argument that if Bill and Monica had never met, Hillary Clinton would be president of a university or working in a think tank. That's what she reportedly said she planned to do before the impeachment and I believe it. I think in a weird way the impeachment made her want to stay in politics.
But that's just my opinion. I've never met her, so what do I know?

Obama's speech (none / 0) (#25)
by along on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:13:25 AM EST

I think Obama's speech (video; text) was the second best he's given, after his keynote.

But they're not his pinnacle; he'll deliver better speeches in the future.

I think with this speech tonight he grounded himself more than he ever has in the center of the Democratic party.

And I think this part was where he began to "elevate" his rhetoric, to borrow the word that Ezra Klein used tonight.

This was the moment when we tore down barriers that have divided us for far too long - when we rallied people of all parties and ages to a common cause; when we finally gave Americans who'd never participated in politics a reason to stand up and do so.

Then he continued with what is now his standard message of "hope." But he refined it towards the end, and In my estimation elevated his message even higher:

Hope is what led me here today - with a father from Kenya; a mother from Kansas; and a story that could only happen in the United States of America. It is the bedrock of this nation; the belief that our destiny will not be written for us, but by us; by all those men and women who are not content to settle for the world as it is; who have the courage to remake the world as it should be.

That's good, and noble, and salutary for this country.

His closing was familiar, but benefited from what came before. It was moving:

That is what we started here in Iowa, and that is the message we now carry to New Hampshire and beyond; the same message we had when we were up and when we were down; the one that can change this country brick by brick, block by block, calloused hand by calloused hand - that together, ordinary people can do extraordinary things; because we are not a collection of Red States and Blue States, we are the United States of America; and at this moment, in this election, we are ready to believe again.

Yes, he memorably emphasized the "United" States of America in his keynote. But his emphasis tonight on that word was piercing, it carried new meaning. It was the signal that a movement has arrived.

Speech still has that bit in it about (none / 0) (#27)
by oculus on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:16:45 AM EST

"them" (read lobbyists) and "us."


And that's his problem (none / 0) (#35)
by Jeralyn on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:38:08 AM EST

you say:

Many of us are sick of centrists. Why not just vote Republican?

If we have to have a centrist, and it appears we must, why not go for the devil you know rather than the one you don't?

Obama is not a progressive. The progressive vote this time around is Edwards. The centrist candidate ready to lead on day one is Hillary. Obama is still an unknown with a bare track record and the more his speeches focus on vague platitudes like hope, optimism and change, the more I wince. As much as I might wish otherwise at times, I'm not 22 any more, and I know better. For the sake of getting a Democrat elected, I'll hope for the best if he's the nominee, but let's not fool ourselves. He's about compromise, not reform.


I Really Want to Like Obama (none / 0) (#37)
by BDB on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:48:43 AM EST

I swear I do. But I don't like how easily he runs against Democrats. And I remain leery of anyone who makes David Broder, Chris Matthews, and David Brooks happy. These guys may be buffoons, but they know which candidate is in their best interest in terms of keeping influence and power. These people should not have influence and power. Nothing would make me happier than for Obama to throw them overboard after a landslide victory, but the more I hear him speak, the less I think that's where he's headed.

And I, too, am tired of listening to platitudes about hope and change. Hope for what? Change to what? From what? But I'm clearly in the minority if the Iowa polls are representative of the nation at large. People wanted change. What the hell that means, I have no idea since change can mean a million different things. But maybe now that he's the frontrunner people will ask. I'm not betting on it given the inanity of the commentary the MSM offered up tonight, but it's always possible.

There is at least one good thing I can say about Obama - Maureen Dowd seems to hate him.


The big Bloggers (none / 0) (#49)
by Jgarza on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 02:59:23 AM EST

have mainly divided themselves up with Edwards and and to a Hillary.

If your main source of news on him is blogs, you have received and extremely biased view.

But I don't like how easily he runs against Democrats.

comments like that lead me to believe you do read blogs for news, because it is an unproven untrue talking point bloggers love to use.


Why would the blogger lie? (none / 0) (#51)
by pioneer111 on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 04:11:33 AM EST

That is what they observe and write about. It is what I observe. It makes me very uncomfortable. They took a long time giving Obama a chance to be the progressive his followers say he is, but he isn't. Just because you say it is untrue doesn't mean you are right. You may be biased.


: go look at the evidence (none / 0) (#56)
by Jgarza on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 01:22:25 PM EST

saying crisis and admitting that gore and Kerry lost their elections isn't running against democrats no matter what bloggers say.

just saw this - (none / 0) (#61)
by Judith on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 03:23:17 PM EST

it made me think that the drips like Brooks who back Obama know that a Democrat is coming and want the one least likely to take them out to the wood shed.

As for MoDo - do any adults really give a crap what she thinks?


You have to admit her "electable suit" (none / 0) (#62)
by oculus on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 03:26:16 PM EST

crack was pretty funny. But, for a newspaper that won't print Gary Trudeau or political cartoons, why is she on the editorial page?


: sorry (none / 0) (#63)
by Judith on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 03:29:09 PM EST

I dont read her so I cant comment -

the center of the party, not between the parties (none / 0) (#39)
by along on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 01:04:26 AM EST

I mean that I think he is beginning to establish himself as the center of gravity within the party, with Edwards to his left and Clinton to his right.

In that sense, I think this speech was tactical as much as it was pure rhetoric. I agree, even though he has claimed and probably will still claim to be a progressive, he really does not share the ideology. But I believe he will fight as much as Clinton would to enact his policies, without wholesale compromise. Especially if he can win a solid majority in a general election, and with a stronger Dem Congress, I don't believe he will be a weak conciliator.


Obama is not a progressive? (none / 0) (#47)
by Jgarza on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 01:45:54 AM EST

Obama is not a progressive. The progressive vote this time around is Edwards.

His record and his platform are pretty progressive. It's just the blogosphere thinks it is terrible that his rhetoric is centrist.

As much as I might wish otherwise at times, I'm not 22 any more, and I know better. For the sake of getting a Democrat elected, I'll hope for the best if he's the nominee, but let's not fool ourselves. He's about compromise, not reform.

Well i would think not being 22 you would realize that the way our political system works, and i mean congress, you have to build broad support for legislation, which requires some amount of compromise. If you frame your position as starting as the compromised one, you have less to give up. The blogosphere acts like he has all these centrist positions, but he doesn't he just frames them as being so.

Compare that to Edwards whos positions are slightly further to the left of most dems and he frames them as borderline socialist.

And Hillary who takes centrist positions and frames them as the left, so in the end she compromises really far to the right, as president she would shift the entire dialogue to the right.

This Obama is conservative thing you bloggers have made up is laughable. One of the funniest things is when bloggers claim they are so policy oriented but in the end make an argument for framing something as far to the left as possible, and not actually having a liberal position.


Blogbull (none / 0) (#48)
by Jgarza on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 02:09:34 AM EST

This is a myth bloggers have completely made up, in ever more feeble attempts to attack Obama.

Per CNN:
Vote by Ideology:
Clinton Edwards Obama
Very Liberal 25 16 40
Somewhat Liberal 25 25 36
Moderate 31 22 33
Conservative 22 42 21

SO actually blog darling Edwards is the conservative candidate.


Obama skips key votes (none / 0) (#52)
by pioneer111 on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 04:14:14 AM EST

and is very strategic about his voting record. I don't think the numbers prove anything. And the last four years count in what Edwards has been doing. The assessment of Obama is on his plans and his rhetoric. I think it is accurate.


nice talking points (none / 0) (#57)
by Jgarza on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 01:28:41 PM EST

The assessment of Obama is on his plans and his rhetoric.

well even jeralyn admitted his policy was no dif then clinton edwards.

If its about retoric, the complaint is he doesn't frame things partisan enough. What is wrong with framming democratic ideas as the center?

Obama skips key votes and is very strategic about his voting record.

He missed K/L because he didn't know about it, he said it was a mistake and came out against it, immediately.

The strategic present votes were on things planned parenthood and other activist groups advised him vote present on. Seems like good strategy to listen to the groups whose entire existence is to fight for issues liek choice.

Hey but keep repeated debnked talking points.


: Not buying the missed K-L vote (none / 0) (#59)
by oculus on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 01:32:37 PM EST

because he didn't know about it. Its his job as a senator to find out and show up. Quite convenient.

The voice of leadership, you heard it. (none / 0) (#33)
by Aaron on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:33:36 AM EST

Obama's Victory Speech

True leadership is a rarity indeed in America today. Leadership requires two things, belief in oneself, and the courage to trust those you propose to lead with the truth. And Obama has these qualities in spades. Give the American people a taste genuine leadership, and they'll never settle for anything less.

As I listened to the speeches of the other contenders, Clinton, Edwards, Huckabee, McCain and Romney, their voices seem to grow small and insignificant, fading into the political obscurity that their futures surely have in store for them. And I have little doubt that the American people could hear this as well.

Obama 08, nothing can stop us now.

Obama, the under 30 vote and the women's vote (none / 0) (#36)
by Aaron on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:43:42 AM EST

Obama got an amazing 57% of the under 30 vote.

And 35% of the women's vote, to Hillary Clinton's 30%

I hope you will come around Jeralyn, because the writing is on the wall. Barack Obama will be the next president of United States.

14 or fight? (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by Jeralyn on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 01:16:10 AM EST

last night I put up the video to "Shape of Things to Come" from the 1968 movie (which at the time I loved), Wild in the Streets, about a politician running on the platform, never trust anyone over 30.

A companion song from the movie is "14 or fight" from a scene in which the stoned newly elected Rep from California tells the old geysers in Congress they are changing the age requirement for election to the House, the Senate and the Presidency to 14. It's a hoot. But, on the serious side, I'm not voting for someone who promises change without reading the fine print first. I picked up a copy of Obama's multi-paged, single-spaced plan for change, yesterday at his speaking event in Coralville, Iowa and read it cover to cover. It was filled with legalese, but then, I'm a lawyer so I got through it. It said nothing different than that promised by Hillary or Edwards.

Youth is great. But I no longer have my rose-colored glasses. None of these candidates are liberal. They mostly advocate the same policies. The operative question becomes who is best able to implement the slight improvements they want to make?

I respect that you think it's Obama. I think he's no different than the others. Because he's a Democrat and better than a Republican and he'll have my support if he gets nominated. But let's hold off on granting him sainthood. He's just another politician promising change that I fear he can't or won't deliver.


: I agree with you (none / 0) (#50)
by Jgarza on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 03:04:13 AM EST

A companion song from the movie is "14 or fight" from a scene in which the stoned newly elected Rep from California tells the old geysers in Congress they are changing the age requirement for election to the House, the Senate and the Presidency to 14. It's a hoot. But, on the serious side, I'm not voting for someone who promises change without reading the fine print first. I picked up a copy of Obama's multi-paged, single-spaced plan for change, yesterday at his speaking event in Coralville, Iowa and read it cover to cover. It was filled with legalese, but then, I'm a lawyer so I got through it. It said nothing different than that promised by Hillary or Edwards.
I think this is completely true, policy wise all of them are just about the same. So if Obama has the exact same policy of Hillary and Edwards only he gets away with deeming it the compromise position? That seems like the "platitudes" you deride so much are an effective political tool.

If he's the nominee, I hope you're right. (none / 0) (#38)
by BDB on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:58:55 AM EST

I believe you are right unless the GOP nominates McCain. Then I'm less sure Obama wins. I think he still might, but it's a lot more difficult for him. That's true of Clinton and Edwards, too, but I think they have more options on how to combat McCain than Obama does. There's no question McCain has a lot more experience - both in D.C. and in life - than Obama and he's often portrayed as a maverick and outsider, making Obama's system attacks less useful. He's one of the authors of the biggest reform legislation regarding money and politics, McCain/Feingold. And he's a media darling, perhaps an even bigger one than Obama. So he takes away a lot of Obama's strengths. However, Obama does have one potential advantage (other than being a democrat in a year expected to be kind to democrats) - the youth vote. If Obama can keep the youth vote motivated that should help a lot.

And McCain himself helped all Democrats tonight by offering that American troops could stay in Iraq for 100 years as far as he's concerned.


: John McCain? (none / 0) (#45)
by Aaron on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 01:30:06 AM EST

I find that laughable, because I know John McCain and he's a joke, an empty suit, and another proven loser.
At this point I think you'd have to start pulling Republican historical figures to run against Obama to have any chance of winning. Ronald Reagan, he loses to Obama, Teddy Roosevelt maybe, but still my money would be on Obama. Abraham Lincoln, I don't know, he was pretty ugly, I don't think he could get the women's vote today. :-)
As I've said before, I don't think the Republicans can win a national election with even a good candidate, and certainly not with this troop of bumbling idiots they're pushing now. The fact is the Republican Party has just burned too many bridges with the people of this country. Independents, and the conservative Democrats who voted for them in the past, and their own people just won't vote for them. Christ I think Dennis Kucinich could win the White House, but I wouldn't be willing to put any money on that.

In the Spirit of Obama's Unity Movement (none / 0) (#40)
by BDB on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 01:06:31 AM EST

Even if we don't agree on the democratic nominee, I think we can all agree that the civil war beginning to start among the Republican party over Huckabee's win could be great fun to watch, no?

And it may make any concerns about electability of our nominee moot because if they proceed to rip each other to shreds, then there won't be much left of a party to put up a fight next November. Couldn't happen to a nicer group of people.

Huckabee would be great fun (none / 0) (#43)
by Jeralyn on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 01:22:56 AM EST

as a nominee. I'd be in blog heaven. There'd always be something bizarre to write about. At least he has compassion and believes in granting pardons -- including to those afflicted by unfair sentences resulting from the war on drugs.

Plus, he'll never win. No evangelical crusader can win the presidency. There would be another civil war first.


: Compassion (none / 0) (#46)
by BDB on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 01:31:23 AM EST

I don't think Huckabee is truly compassionate, but he does a good job of faking it, which I grant you is more than most of his competitors bother to do.
Huckabee is wrong about most things, but he isn't wrong that the Republican establishment has been using the evangelicals for the last three decades without any intention of giving them any real power. He's karma coming back to bite the Republican establishment in the butt. They made the evangelicals powerful, now let's see them try to control the creature they've created. Yeah, this is going to be fun.

: Ha (none / 0) (#58)
by Jgarza on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 01:30:13 PM EST

if he wins i cant wait to read your blogging!

Clinton is so done (none / 0) (#41)
by katiekat489 on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 01:09:40 AM EST

there is no way that she can even hope to capture the vitality and inspiration of Obama. Sorry am a unabashed middle aged woman who thinks he is just the right person at the right time to make massive and fundamental changes in our country. And have been reading all the blogs for months --and still find that no one can rejoice a victory for the good guys. Clinton was the one candidate that I could not understand any progressive supporting with the voting record on the war and her poor judgement with so many things and still she had so much support from the women bloggers who all claim to be progressive and who derided all the men for the same votes and senate record not to mention her six thousand different campaign slogans-and tonight it is another new one- Go figure---and yeah I know that now you will jump on me for being so uninformed and lacking in political insight. .In the meantime will rejoice at the picture of Barack and Michelle and their lovely family and be very happy and proud for them.By the way he is not a centrist -he is a progressive that is able to form a coaliton to get things done regardless what Jeralyn and the repugnant Taylor say-this is so grounded in the past and what has occured for the last 15 years --we are going to turn the page and already this line of thinking is going by the wayside if we have any hope of taking back the country that we love.

Jeralyn, what do you mean ... (none / 0) (#53)
by robrecht on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 07:10:37 AM EST

... when you say Obama overplayed the Martin Luther King, Jr. card???

Jeralyn, I'm so glad (none / 0) (#55)
by Coral on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 07:36:32 AM EST

you're out here blogging. Because I agree with your assessment so very much and it's refreshing to see these views expressed.

Obama's vague rhetoric about hope and change leave me cold. I've seen too many politicians mouth those platitudes and then, after winning, find themselves either unable to enact any meaningful policy or enact policies I strongly disagree with.

I'm for Clinton for the same reason that you are -- I believe she'd be able to implement the policy changes both here and abroad that would improve both the economy and the international situation.

But a Democrat is better than a Republican. That's the bottom line. I'll take Obama if he's the nominee.

One thing that disturbs me is the press and the media. The more I see of their behavior -- from the trashing of Gore and HRC, to the fawning over Bush in the face of his destruction of the Constitution and the economy -- the more I worry. Their influence over the political process seems more powerful and destructive every day.

Why ? (none / 0) (#60)
by Deconstructionist on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 01:57:43 PM EST

As Ms Clinton finished third in a contest that is primarily about organization and management, why should we accept the argument she is the one most capable from day one? She's been running for years now and I would assume knew she needed to get more of her people out in a specific state on a date certain and she had tremendous financial resources with which to accomplish the task.

Spin away but please tell me how this result does not severely undermine the argument one of her strengths is the ability to manage and guide complex oranizations.

If not Obama... (none / 0) (#64)
by gldmeier on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 06:21:18 AM EST

Great write-up. I agree that Huckabee is going nowhere.

My question is that you say Obama rallied the youth vote, and that is clearly true. How can Hillary or John Edwards overcome that? If Obama can get the people out, especially the youth where he holds a distinct advantage, in ways the others cannot, why do you say you do not believe he will win the nomination? Who can overcome him with that going for him?

And I hope Rudy gets decimated.