Who do you think should be elected in 2008?

[brownjenkins]

It's still anyone's game among the three or four top players on each side. Iowa (and New Hampshire) and both very small and somewhat unrepresentative samples of the bigger populace.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

It's still anyone's game among the three or four top players on each side. Iowa (and New Hampshire) and both very small and somewhat unrepresentative samples of the bigger populace.

Yup. My email is full of "mo' money!" requests. *sigh*

[Curubethion]

Has anyone around here heard of this dude named Ron Paul?

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by Curubethion

Has anyone around here heard of this dude named Ron Paul?

Hahahaaa!!!!

Why yes actually, the Tar Palantir of our time. If he doesn't win...it's over.

[hectorberlioz]

Watched the GOP New Hampshire Debates. Most of the candidates did themselves good, except McCain and Huckabee, IMO.

Thompson got into "I know this stuff too" mode, and it was refreshing.

Ron Paul got his message out better than usual, and on some points I really agreed with him.

Giuliani could have done better, and some of his answers seemed incomplete, but on the whole he did alright in reminding people that he still exists as a serious candidate.

Romney was really the best guy, on the whole, from a debating standpoint. He got blasted by everyone (except Paul), deflected the barbs and explained his positions while sticking to his message. A few fumbles---perhaps he could have left out one complaint about "the barbs", which would have made McCain look even worse--as well as the schmoozy "America is a great nation" schtick.

Huckabee did alright, he spoke well, but lacked his own specificity on some issues, and he seemed to borrow from McCain a lot, in addition to looking like McCain's pup.

McCain was snide, bitter, and mind-numbingly self-righteous. I do not want to vote for McCain. Lord help us.

[hectorberlioz]

Watching the Democratic New Hampshire Debate...

Two observations:

1) I'm very surprised (and a little relieved) by the very Bush-Doctrinesque postions on Foreign Policy that Obama and Clinton, Edwards and Richardson are now taking, with a few exceptions.

2) Bill Richardson said he would ask the Soviet Union to---well, I might as well not continue tell you, because the main point is that he called Russian the Soviet Union! Even Democrats are freaked out by Russia...this Freudian slip is forgivable for any politician because Russia is very much exuding the aura of the SU.


Performances so far:

Obama is doing very good with being more specific, but he is stumbling a little under Hillary's Iron Gaze.

Hillary is doing very well, projecting far better than usual. Good in highlighting differences with Obama.

Edwards is doing OK. He was doing the "I can protect America too" stuff, but then he sorta reversed his eloquence with the "but let's not be George Bush while doing the same thing he did" nonsense.

Richardson is...clearly not taking the pragmatic position with regard to his "diplomacy". It seems like even the other three Democrats answered the question of Pakistan while putting the "of course diplomacy first" behind them. Richardson seems to be pandering to the "Disaster at any cost/Diplomacy only" crowd. Or he just didn't formulate a comprehensible position to go from.

Second Part of Performances

A funky question about Hillary's "like-ability" leads to a weird flirty Hillary mood, and then springs her inner Feminist by saying that a "woman is a big change".

Obama gets better at being specific.

Richardson makes a good case with his FP experience/executive experience.

You know, one thing about Edwards, he's way more radical than Kerry, and he's better with his message.

UPDATE: WOW! Edwards go right-from-the-heart style...

[Curubethion]

A weird flirty Hillary mood? Now that's scary.

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Watched the GOP New Hampshire Debates. Most of the candidates did themselves good, except McCain and Huckabee, IMO.

Thompson got into "I know this stuff too" mode, and it was refreshing.

Ron Paul got his message out better than usual, and on some points I really agreed with him.

Giuliani could have done better, and some of his answers seemed incomplete, but on the whole he did alright in reminding people that he still exists as a serious candidate.

Romney was really the best guy, on the whole, from a debating standpoint. He got blasted by everyone (except Paul), deflected the barbs and explained his positions while sticking to his message. A few fumbles---perhaps he could have left out one complaint about "the barbs", which would have made McCain look even worse--as well as the schmoozy "America is a great nation" schtick.

Huckabee did alright, he spoke well, but lacked his own specificity on some issues, and he seemed to borrow from McCain a lot, in addition to looking like McCain's pup.

McCain was snide, bitter, and mind-numbingly self-righteous. I do not want to vote for McCain. Lord help us.

Totally unbiased, opinion, hmmm?
I didn't see them , except for bits on YouTube, but the general consensus (which is often wrong, of course) is that Romney got smacked.

OTOH, it didn't seem to hit his poll numbers, and the same general opinion was that he did really well on the (Ron Paulless) Fox debate on Sunday.

In 2000 Independents came out for McCain and gave him the win over Bush; if Obama draws them this time, it's bad news for Saint John.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

Totally unbiased, opinion, hmmm?
.

Now wait a minute, I never claimed to be unbiased.

Romney got smacked by the other candidates (namely the Huckabee/McCain smooch fest), but it's also generally agreed (start with DIck Morris who hates Mitt) that Romney prevailed in the overall scheme. He's now back up in the polling and nearly tied with 'Saint John.

The exclusion of Ron Paul was sad because I always like what he has to say. But maybe they didn't have enough room at that tiny desk? Seriously, if you watch the debate, all the candidates are crammed together at a tiny desk, and SOMEONE put Romney between Huckabee and McCain.

And Curu,

It is frightening. Very.

[Curubethion]

Ron Paul has no desk; Ron Paul needs no desk!

[hectorberlioz]

*swoons* Alaska is VERY important

[hectorberlioz]

This is great

[hectorberlioz]

Hmm. So far things aren't looking good for my candidate. If he is ruined in NH, I think I'm going to have to support Fred Thompson.

[Curubethion]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

*swoons* Alaska is VERY important

Hey, now, I know somebody from Alaska...

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

This is great

ROFL! Brilliant, Sir Hector.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Hmm. So far things aren't looking good for my candidate. If he is ruined in NH, I think I'm going to have to support Fred Thompson.

Wow. That's desperate.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Curubethion

Hey, now, I know somebody from Alaska...

Let me rephrase, Alaska is VERY VERY important to me

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Curubethion

Wow. That's desperate.

I can't and won't vote for McCain. I'd support Ron Paul if I had to.

[Nurvingiel]

Hector I'm very impressed on your rundown on all the candidates.

One thing I don't get is pretty basic - what are the primaries? It looks like each candidate campains in all the states and the Democrats and Republicans will each choose that candidate to run for presidency who's the most popular in the primaries? Is that right? What does the Green party do?

I like Obama because he comes accross as intelligent and level-headed except... sending troops to Pakistan? Does he stipulate that he would only do this if Pakistan asked for some military assistance, or would he simply invade Pakistan? The latter is, of course, the worst idea ever and political suicide. I'm sincerely doubting he's entertaining such a patently ridiculous and overly-simplistic approach.

Even if Pakistan did ask for military aid, do Americans really want to become embroiled in the political difficulties they are currently having? Do you want to be seen as supporting Pervez Musharraf's rather questionable government?

The only reason I would agree with anything even remotely resembling this plan would be to send troops into Pakistan, with the government's permission, to attack specific Taliban targets.

[hectorberlioz]

Hey thanks Nurv. A few comments about Obama/Pakistan in a minute...

Nurv, I like how you spell camPAINing. it is quite painful.

First, here's my new rundown.

Huckabee---I'm thinking Huck goes one of two ways: either as a VP pick for McCain, or a serious competitor who could possibly choose Rudy as VP in order to ratchet up his Fiscal/Defense credentials.

Rudy---Scenario Uno: Rudy wins the big states as predicted and gets himself back into the picture. Scenario Dos: Rudy doesn't stay alive due to little media attention, loss of momentum, and his record problems still very much with a large segment on conservatives.

McCain---NH win helps, but does not guarantee his chances with the nomination. NH is very libertarian/independent and McCain as everyone agrees, is a Maverick. He wins there because of that. Beyond it certainly won't be smooth sailing, with the exception of Michigan.

Thompson---First of all, Fred needs a little buzz and a boost to restart his campaign in South Carolina. I predict a Rush Limbaugh endorsement (I'm NOT a fan of Rush myself...) that could possibly do this. Hard fight with Huckabee, who needs SC to legitimize his Iowa win. Back to Fred...he needs for conservatives to be split over Huckabee/McCain/Rudy if Romney loses his momentum. With this, he'll obviously be the "full spectrum" conservative to unite the party.

Ron Paul---He'll do OK in NH. Maybe I'm a little too upset with McCain right now, but really I'd enjoy supporting Ron Paul. I would not enjoy supporting McCain. We'll see. I'd almost take Obama over McCain. Same domestic policies, and if Barack can back up his FP talk, it means he's just as good as McCain on Defense. And he isn't a jerk like McCain. McCain is 72 years old and he acts seven decades younger.



Romney---He needs to win today in New Hampshire, and maybe, just maybe he can stick it out til Michigan for a first place win. He may win second place in both states, ramping up his delegate count, but that's not the problem. He needs the momentum of a first place win to legitimize himself. He IS a serious contender right now, and he could go long and give McHuckabee a hard time...but I'm not counting on it. I'll be supporting Fred at that point.

Obama---HUGE momentum. The period of "he has to prove beyond Iowa" is over...for now. Everyone is flocking to Obama. This has got to be the biggest shift in serious poll numbers I've ever seen. Last week Hillary was the Dem frontrunner, now there's talk of her dropping out! How did Obama do this? He's gotten better at specifics, and people have started to realize that the ONLY "experience" advantage Hillary has over him is her dismal experience of having to be married to Bill Clinton.

Hillary---that being said...I'm not sure Hill is done with. As Dick Morris pointed out, Hillary has the establishment support in the Democratic party, which count as delegates when everything is said and done. But she needs to come up with SOMETHING more than the "experience" schtick. She certainly can't afford anymore too many losses. People notice, and establishment is a mid-year thing.

Edwards---Hmm. He was only one point ahead of Hil in Iowa, and he's a real believer in prayer this week---praying for Hillary to be squashed. On the other hand, if the anti-Hillary thing is massive, many Edwards voters are going to Obama. Third place and he is gone from the scene, unless Obama fancies him as a VP pick.

Richardson---Such blatant "I wanna be someone's VP" at the debate. A few converts, sure, but beyond that.....

Duncan Hunter---Congratulations to Hunter for ssticking it out a little longer. I don't think I can say any longer that he'd endorse Romney if there is a defeat today. If Mitt is gone, he may even decide to stay in longer, or just endorse Fred. Maybe Rudy.

Kucinich---Abducted by a UFO.


Now about Obama and Pakistan.

When he talked about his bombing of Pakistan in the summer, I thought it was an incredibly bad move. However, I don't necessarily disagree with it. One thing for sure, it's a very Bush Doctrinesque idea, and he'd be starting a whole new Iraq situation. Which brings me to this, if the surge is working, the Dems will need to realize this once in office, and not do the stupid thing and pull out. I can't understand this nonsense from the Democrats that they think the surge isn't working because it was "supposed to bring political reconciliation". Uh huh. And therefore we should pull out?

One thing I've come to realize about Dems and Reps on foreign policy: Clinton was very interventionist even if he was ineffective in his missions. Bush was an isolationist until 9/11 which changed his mind.

The ensuing differences between the two parties was partly political (Dems wanted anti-war votes and make Bush look evil).

In other words, whatever the Dems might say about Iraq; they can't pull the troops out, and the mission will continue.

[Mari]

There is a lot of media attention for the elections in the Netherlands as well. Personally I favor Obama, but actually I think a combination of the keypoints together would work best for me. This is why I never get into politics.

Thank you for the summary/recap/whatever Hector! It's interesting to compare them to the recaps in the Dutch news, where they focus mainly on what would be best for us.
Hilary and Obama are the favorites here.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Mari

There is a lot of media attention for the elections in the Netherlands as well. Personally I favor Obama, but actually I think a combination of the keypoints together would work best for me. This is why I never get into politics.

Thank you for the summary/recap/whatever Hector! It's interesting to compare them to the recaps in the Dutch news, where they focus mainly on what would be best for us.
Hilary and Obama are the favorites here.

Thanks Mari. I read all the "main guys" on politics, and pull together what I think is sensible from them, with just a tad of intuition.