US 2008 Presidential Campaign/Debate Discussion Thread - Part III

[MrsSpringsteen]

ABC News

POLL: Clinton Fends Off Obama in N.H. With More Committed Support
Clinton Holding Off Obama in New Hampshire
ANALYSIS by GARY LANGER

Dec. 5, 2007 —

Hillary Clinton is holding off Barack Obama in New Hampshire with a single-digit but seemingly solid lead, scoring more committed and enthusiastic support, higher trust to handle pressing issues and broad margins on leadership, experience and electability.

Obama is challenging Clinton in Iowa, and this ABC News/Washington Post poll puts him potentially within striking distance in New Hampshire as well. But some of the underlying currents boosting Obama in Iowa are less powerful here, with Clinton's support more settled.


Among likely voters in the Democratic primary, Clinton has 35 percent support, Obama 29 percent, John Edwards 17 percent and Bill Richardson 10 percent, with others in the low single digits. That compares to a 30-26 percent Obama-Clinton race in Iowa in an ABC/Post poll there two weeks ago.

Clinton's lead in New Hampshire inches up in lower-turnout scenarios, suggesting her support is more reliable. Moreover, among those who've definitely decided on their candidate, she leads Obama by a wide 43-28 percent; and among the most enthusiastic likely voters she leads him by 45-24 percent. There's no such difference in Iowa.

Looking at the flipside, changeability, among the one in four likely voters who say there's a good chance they may change their minds, 23 percent currently support Clinton, 36 percent Obama. That suggests he's more vulnerable to reconsideration.

At the same time Obama is taking full advantage of Clinton's weaknesses. A perceived lack of forthrightness continues to dog her; 41 percent in New Hampshire say Clinton's not willing enough to say what she really thinks, twice as many as say that about her chief competitors. And among those people, hardly any -- just 7 percent -- support her, while 41 percent support Obama.

Additionally, a majority of likely voters in the state seek "a new direction and new ideas" -- a page from Obama's playbook -- rather than strength and experience. And "new direction" voters favor Obama over Clinton by 44 percent to 19 percent. Those who place more value on strength and experience, by contrast, are with Clinton by nearly 6-1.

Obama's lead among "new direction" voters is similar to what it is in the same group in Iowa (and that group is about the same size). But Clinton's advantage among "strength and experience" voters is much bigger in New Hampshire; that theme's stronger resonance in the Granite State is key to her lead.

For all this, a total of 51 percent of Democratic likely voters in New Hampshire say they still might change their minds -- fewer than the 61 percent who say so in the Republican race, but still indicating substantial room to move.

Additionally, 27 percent say they may take the results of the Iowa caucuses, five days before the New Hampshire primary, into account, although fewer than half of them say they'll give it much weight.

GROUPS -- Obama's running competitively with Clinton among men, younger likely voters and political independents; she owes her advantage to women (particularly single women), older voters (particularly senior citizens) and mainline Democrats.

Clinton's better standing among Democrats (41 percent support, and a 15-point lead over Obama) as opposed to independents (27 percent, to Obama's 31) is notable. Again, there's no such difference in Iowa, a much lower-turnout event. In New Hampshire, Obama's helped by the fact that an unusually large number of independents participate (46 percent in this poll are registered independents, about their share in the 2004 primary). But in other states, where primary voting is limited to party registrants, Clinton could gain.

To address weaknesses among population groups, Clinton may look at married men, among whom she has just 24 percent support; the most highly educated voters, 23 percent; and, as noted, younger adults. She's supported by 27 percent of likely voters under age 40, compared with 44 percent of those 65 and older. The patterns are similar in national ABC/Post polling.

Clinton's advantage among women also shows up in the 19 percent of likely voters who say the fact that she'd be the first woman president makes them more likely to support her. Women are twice as likely as men to say so, 24 percent vs. 12 percent, rising to 32 percent of single women (which includes divorced and widowed women as well as those never married). It's also higher among Democrats vs. independents, among older people and among liberals vs. moderates.

ATTRIBUTES -- In terms of attributes, Obama easily trumps Clinton as the candidate who's the "most inspiring," leads her on honesty and trustworthiness (a Clinton weakness nationally and in Iowa as well) and challenges her on empathy. The two run evenly on the question of who would do most to bring needed change to Washington.

But, as noted, Clinton comes back very strongly on her other attributes -- electability, experience (on which Obama is quite weak) and strong leadership. And she leads Obama by 17 points as the candidate who's campaigned hardest in New Hampshire, a plus in a state where candidates are expected early and often.

ISSUES -- Building on her ratings for experience and leadership, Clinton leads in New Hampshire on six of seven issues tested in this poll, with an especially large advantage on one of the top concerns to likely Democratic voters, health care.

Obama, notably, leads on none of these.

Unlike Republican voters, there is a clear emphasis among Democrats on top issues: About half cite both health care and the war in Iraq as the two most important issues in their vote, with the economy and education following -- quite similar to views in Iowa. Among Democrats nationally the same items come up, with some different emphasis.

These are in sharp contrast to likely Republican voters in New Hampshire, who, as in Iowa and nationally, disperse among a wider range of issues.

CONTACT and TURNOUT -- Likely Democratic voters are more engaged than their Republican counterparts -- 12 points more likely to be very enthusiastic about their choice of a candidate, twice as likely to have attended a campaign event (35 percent vs. 17 percent) and 20 points more apt to have received a phone call from a campaign (74 percent vs. 54 percent).

Given the differences among groups in this poll, turnout of course is essential. This survey anticipates turnout in the Democratic primary by 31 percent of the state's adult population, and by 27 percent in the Republican contest. Tighter turnout scenarios make no difference in the Republican contest (in which Mitt Romney has a broad lead), but indicate a slightly larger Clinton lead (albeit within sampling error) on the Democratic side.

Likely voter estimates can be one source of differences in polls, as can sample sizes; another potential factor is the level of so-called "undecided" voters, in reality a function of polling technique rather than true indecision.

ABC/Post polls have fewer undecideds than most others, given the context of the question -- asking whom likely voters would support if the election were today. This survey finds 3 percent undecided, compared with an average of 12 percent in nine other publicly released polls in New Hampshire in the past month.

METHODOLOGY -- This ABC News/Washington Post poll was conducted by telephone Nov. 29-Dec. 3, 2007, among a random sample of 592 New Hampshire adults likely to vote in the 2008 Democratic primary. The results have a four-point error margin. Sampling, data collection and tabulation by TNS of Horsham, Pa.

 

[Infinity]

Bringing up Democrats who voted for the war is a perfectly legitimate thing. Hillary voted for it, Edwards voted for it, Kerry voted for it. Obama didn't, he opposed the war from the beginning. Of all the front-runners he's the only innocent one.

Yes he is. I would love to see Ron Paul vs. Obama in the general elections. I really hope Hillary doesn't win the Democratic nomination.

 

[verte76]

Yes he is. I would love to see Ron Paul vs. Obama in the general elections. I really hope Hillary doesn't win the Democratic nomination.

I do too.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Mitt Romney seeped in sewage

Personal side: Candidates' worst jobs

By CALVIN WOODWARD, Associated Press WriterWed Dec 5, 6:37 PM ET

All these years later, Mike Huckabee still avoids touching the glass when he opens a door. He remembers a thankless task at Penney's as a teenager, scrubbing away fingerprints only to have customers smudge the glass all over again.

Mitt Romney worked in a sewage pipe on an Idaho ranch when the effluent was still flowing. In Alaska as a post-grad, Hillary Rodham Clinton spooned the guts out of fish.

Let it not be said of the presidential candidates that they've never done an honest day's work.

Today they are officeholders past or present, governors, members of Congress, a mayor, and for the most part they are rich to very rich.

Once they were a haberdasher, a landscaper, a bouncer at a drag strip, a gofer at a textile mill. Whether children of privilege, the burbs or tiny towns, they've worked hard at crummy jobs, in a distant past remembered as if it were yesterday.

The Associated Press asked them to talk about their worst jobs in a series of interviews exploring their personal side. They also named foods they hate, cracked favorite jokes on cue, spoke of keepsakes, reflected on what they do on a rare lazy day, and more.

They answered with relish — sometimes spoiled relish long past its best-before date — when asked about lousy jobs.

"Backbreaking work," Democrat Bill Richardson said of his summer of laying sod on Cape Cod. A banker's son and Tufts University sophomore, he worked for a meager wage to cover room and board while pitching in the Cape Cod Baseball League in 1967. "The pay was terrible," said Richardson, now New Mexico governor. "And I think the minimum wage at the time was under two dollars." (It was $1.40 or less, depending on the work.)

Republican Fred Thompson, son of a used-car salesman, remembers his years before law offices, Hollywood and the Senate. "Well, let's see," he said. "I've worked in a factory, I was a bouncer at my uncle's drag strip, I worked at the post office, I sold children's shoes, I sold ladies', I sold men's clothing, I was a night clerk at a motel.

"I can't think of a job that I had that I wasn't thankful for at the time."

Romney never went begging for dollars — his dad was head of American Motors and governor of Michigan. But the Republican presidential candidate got up close and personal with sewage while spending time at his uncle's spread, doing chores at age 15. He said he spent a week on his assigned task of cutting the sewage pipe.

Middle class in her youth, Hillary Rodham was already on a promising track when she spent the summer of 1969 working her way across Alaska. The year before, her commencement speech at Wellesley College in defense of war protesters was such a hit she was featured in Life magazine.

In Alaska, she washed dishes in Mount McKinley National Park, the better of two brief menial jobs that financed her travels. "My worst job was sliming fish in a fish cannery in Valdez," she said without hesitation.

The Democratic New York senator elaborated on this in her memoirs: standing in bloody water in knee-high boots on a pier removing salmon guts with a spoon; supervisors yelling when she didn't slime fast enough; switching to the packing line where she reported spoiled fish to the boss, who soon fired her.

In her husband Bill's hometown of Hope, Ark., another presidential aspirant worked two jobs at age 14. Huckabee remembers his gig at a radio station with fondness; his department store stint, not so much.

"When I worked for JCPenney it was a great job and it was a great company but they worked me hard," Huckabee told AP's Online Video Network while campaigning at a college tailgate party in Columbia, S.C. "Just as I'd get all the fingerprints wiped off the door, somebody would come and they'd put their hands all over the glass.

"To this day, I'm still very sensitive about never touching the glass, but touching the handles, because I had to wipe those windows so many times."

Democrat John Edwards, who made his own wealth as a trial attorney, had awful cleaning duties earlier at the textile mill where he worked summers and part time during school.

"I cleaned out overhead in the weave room, which is where all the crap goes," he said, his eyes raised skyward and arms clawing the air. "And I'd be up there climbing around, knocking the stuff down. And it would go down on the looms. The weavers would be, uh, not happy with me for that.

"And the other part of that job was mopping out from under the looms — the grease."

Republican John McCain, son of an admiral, had post-grad employment unlike most — war. The Navy pilot landed in a vicious Hanoi prison and has no complaints about other circumstances of his youth: "I've never really had a bad job."

Democrat Barack Obama cleared a construction site for a summer on Manhattan's Upper West Side while attending Columbia University. But he says his worst job was scooping ice cream at a Baskin-Robbins because he ate too much of it. Republican Rudy Giuliani weighed the priesthood and medicine before pursuing law.

Democrat Chris Dodd did construction work for the Peace Corps in the Dominican Republic. He counts his job selling clothes in a haberdashery as his worst job.

"It was boring," he said. And the boss? "We used to call him the good thief."

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Borowitz Report

In Speech on Religion, Obama Explains His Faith in Oprah
Calls Belief in Talk Show Hostess a “Personal Matter’

Under pressure to explain his religious faith to the American people, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama delivered a forty-five minute speech today discussing his belief in Oprah Winfrey.

In an election year that has been dominated by discussions of candidates’ religious faith, perhaps no candidate’s religion has been more controversial than Sen. Obama’s Oprahism.

Speaking to supporters at the University of Iowa, the Illinois senator devoted his entire speech to his religious faith but mentioned Ms. Winfrey only once by name.

“My religion is a personal matter to me,” Sen. Obama told his followers. “Having said that, let me make this clear: I have accepted Oprah as my host.”

Later in the day, Ms. Winfrey toured the state with Mr. Obama and, in a stunning demonstration of her influence, briefly caused a solar eclipse.

“Sun and moon, do my bidding!” she roared, raising her hands above her head and delighting the crowd with the celestial display.

“Oprah is without question the most powerful force in the election right now,” said Carol Foyler, 45, an Obama supporter from Cedar Rapids. “I’d like to see Bill Clinton do that.”

Davis Logsdon, who studies the interrelation between politicians, religion and talk-show hosts at the University of Minnesota, said that Sen. Obama’s worship of Oprah Winfrey puts him in the mainstream of American theological belief.

“Over thirty percent of Americans currently define themselves as Oprahists,” Mr. Logsdon said. “And that number is higher during sweeps.”

 

[BVS]

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

December 10, 2007, 1:53 pm
New NYTimes/CBS Poll: Explain, Don’t Attack

By Dalia Sussman

The latest New York Times/CBS News poll finds voters give the presidential candidates positive marks on at least one score at this stage in their campaigns: They credit them with spending more time explaining what they would do as president rather than attacking their opponents.

Still, while no candidate tested in the poll was perceived as attacking more than explaining, some candidates were given more credit than others.

Hillary Clinton was viewed as running the most positive campaign of the leading Democratic candidates. About seven in 10 Democratic primary voters said she has spent more time explaining, four times the number who said she has spent more time attacking.

Six in 10 Democrats said Barack Obama has been explaining, compared with 25 percent who said he has been attacking. Fewer, 45 percent, said John Edwards has spent more time explaining his positions, while 29 percent said he has spent more time being negative.

On the Republican side, Mike Huckabee had the best positive-negative ratio in the poll, with 53 percent of Republican primary voters saying he has been mainly explaining himself, and just 9 percent saying he has been mainly attacking his rivals. The rest had no opinion.

More than half of Republicans also said Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney have spent more time in their campaigns explaining what they would do if elected, while 4 in 10 said the same about John McCain and Fred Thompson (many expressed no opinion).

But as the primary season begins and the campaign rhetoric heats up, perceptions can certainly change.

The telephone poll was conducted nationwide from Dec. 5-9 with 1,133 adults, including 417 Democratic primary voters and 266 Republican primary voters. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 5 percentage points for Democratic voters and 6 percentage points for Republican voters. Complete poll results and story will be available this evening at nytimes.com.



November 29, 2007, 4:12 pm
Clinton Polls Best Among Gays, Lesbians NY Times

By Kirk Johnson

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York is the clear favorite among gay and lesbian voters, who see her as a champion of gay rights, according to new nationwide poll released today by Hunter College in New York. Almost 63 percent of respondents said they supported Senator Clinton, with Senator Barack Obama of Illinois a distant second with just over 22 percent.

The survey of 768 respondents, all of whom identified themselves as gay or lesbian to an interviewer, suggests a voting bloc that is overwhelmingly Democratic in its leanings – more than six-to-one over Republicans among the 579 who said they were likely primary voters. Of the Republican minority, 50 percent favored former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani of New York, with Senator John McCain of Arizona second at 23 percent.

The poll, which had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points, also went where most voter surveys never tread – into matters of sex and identity and how those issues are connected or disconnected with political views.

About one-third of the respondents, who were interviewed through an internet system link by Knowledge Networks Inc. between Nov. 15 and Nov. 26, said they became more liberal and more interested in politics after coming out about their sexuality. Overall, about 33 percent of the respondents described themselves as very interested in politics and public affairs, compared to about 22 percent of the general population asked the same questioned by Knowledge Networks.

 

[BVS]

Clinton Polls Best Among Gays, Lesbians NY Times

I totally read this wrong. I thought it said, 'Clinton Polls Best Among Gays. Lesbian NY TIMES'

And I thought, wow, lesbians have their own NY TIMES, that's crazy.

I never figured it out why they use gay and lesbian. Don't all homosexuals fall under the category of gay? Or am I wrong?

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York is the clear favorite among gay and lesbian voters, who see her as a champion of gay rights, according to new nationwide poll released today by Hunter College in New York.

Like in this sentence they use "gay and lesbian" at the beginning of the sentence, but then use the collective "gay" at the end.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

AMES, Iowa (AP) - Campaigning for his wife, former President Clinton says that when they were starting out he was so struck by her intellect and ability he once suggested she should just dump him and jump into her own political career.

That didn't happen, of course, and on Monday he gave an Iowa crowd his version of why it didn't.

"I thought it would be wrong for me to rob her of the chance to be what I thought she should be," said Clinton. "She laughed and said, 'First I love you and, second, I'm not going to run for anything, I'm too hardheaded.'"

Hillary Rodham Clinton is running now, and husband Bill was stumping for her in the 2008 campaign's leadoff caucus state—two days after rival Democrat Barack Obama got a full weekend's worth of attention by bringing in talk show queen Oprah Winfrey to campaign for him.

The former president opened a two-day swing through Iowa on behalf of his wife, packing nearly 500 people into a theater on the campus of Iowa State University.

"She has spent a lifetime as a change agent when she had the option to do other things," he said.

"I thought she was the most gifted person of our generation," said Clinton, who said he told her, "You know, you really should dump me and go back home to Chicago or go to New York and take one of those offers you've got and run for office."

Now that she's a New York senator and in a tight Democratic contest—with Illinois Sen. Obama and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards—the former president said he wanted to persuade voters that she has "the best combination of mind and heart."

He offered a self-deprecating view of the couple's early life in Arkansas.

"When she came down there and we got married, I was a defeated candidate for Congress with a $26,000 salary and a $42,00 campaign debt," said Clinton. "If she were half as calculating as someone said, that's a really great way to run for president."

In his latest Iowa swing, Clinton is bringing heavy attention to his wife, who is competing in the precinct caucuses that will launch the presidential nominating season on Jan. 3.

"It's one thing to have good intentions; it is another thing entirely to change people's lives," Clinton said. "She's the best non-incumbent I have ever had a chance to vote for. In my whole life I've never met anyone like her."

 

[verte76]

I never understood why they use "gay and lesbian" either. They're all homosexuals. When they use the term "gay marriage" they're talking about both, so why can't they use that all the time?

 

[2861U2]

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2007/12/10/begala-bush-less-popular-venereal-disease

Paul Begala says President Bush is less popular than venereal disease. Is the really supposed to be funny? How on earth does saying something like that make America better? If you want to build up your candidate, fine. If you want to attack your opponents on issues, be my guest. But to say something vulgar and stupid like this makes not only you but your entire party look terrible. And, as the site above says, just think of the backlash if a Republican said that. But because it's Begala and CNN, I've seen nothing.

 

[Irvine511]

crocodile tears.

 

[BVS]

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2007/12/10/begala-bush-less-popular-venereal-disease

Paul Begala says President Bush is less popular than venereal disease. Is the really supposed to be funny? How on earth does saying something like that make America better? If you want to build up your candidate, fine. If you want to attack your opponents on issues, be my guest. But to say something vulgar and stupid like this makes not only you but your entire party look terrible. And, as the site above says, just think of the backlash if a Republican said that. But because it's Begala and CNN, I've seen nothing.

How does this make a whole party look terrible? And please tell me what CNN has to do with it.

It's a silly analogy. Bush isn't popular, why does this analogy bug you so much, because of the nature of the disease?

I've seen people make strong analogies and say, "____ is less popular than cancer." And no one gets riled up about it.

Why is it you get upset about this, but give Huck a ride for something that is TRULY offensive? Bias?

 

[2861U2]

How does this make a whole party look terrible? And please tell me what CNN has to do with it.

CNN? The Challenge Nothing Network? And I certainly hope it makes the entire party look bad. Stupid statements like these are gonna blow the election for them.

It's a silly analogy. Bush isn't popular, why does this analogy bug you so much, because of the nature of the disease? I've seen people make strong analogies and say, "____ is less popular than cancer." And no one gets riled up about it.

It's not a just a silly analogy. First of all, it's flat out wrong. No matter how unpopular someone is, I'm pretty sure something like cancer would never poll higher. I sure hope Begala was just joking, but you never know. As for those cancer analogies, I despise those as well. Making light of something serious and/or vulgar for political gain is despicable.

Why is it you get upset about this, but give Huck a ride for something that is TRULY offensive? Bias?

I didn't get Huckabee a free pass. I said that I wouldnt have made that statement. But let's not change the subject.

 

[BVS]

CNN? The Challenge Nothing Network? And I certainly hope it makes the entire party look bad. Stupid statements like these are gonna blow the election for them.

Blow the election, why because you and a few blog readers got upset? I don't think so.

This man does not represent the party.

And once again, what does CNN have to do with it? Catchy little phrase, but honestly what would you have wanted CNN to do? Censor the interview? This was an interview, not one of their staff.

It's not a just a silly analogy. First of all, it's flat out wrong. No matter how unpopular someone is, I'm pretty sure something like cancer would never poll higher. I sure hope Begala was just joking, but you never know. As for those cancer analogies, I despise those as well. Making light of something serious and/or vulgar for political gain is despicable.

Well of course it's wrong. It's called hyperbole. It's very popular in political speech on all sides.

I didn't get Huckabee a free pass. I said that I wouldnt have made that statement. But let's not change the subject.

I'm not changing the subject. You said you give him the benefit of the doubt, even after we showed you that he stood behind his statement even today. His statement was truly vulgar, offensive, and not only that dangerous to the future of our country if someone with that kind of thinking gets elected. Yet he gets the benefit of the doubt, but a dumb analogy has you judging a whole party?

Talk about bias.

Seriously think about this.

 

[2861U2]

His statement was truly vulgar, offensive, and not only that dangerous to the future of our country if someone with that kind of thinking gets elected.

You still think that he currently believes we should isolate AIDS patients?

a dumb analogy has you judging a whole party?

I'm not judging the whole party. I'm saying a statement like that could make his party look bad, kind of like how I wish Ann Coulter wouldnt say half the stuff she says. I know if I were a Democrat, I would have shuttered a little but when I heard him say that.

 

[BVS]

You still think that he currently believes we should isolate AIDS patients?

Did you read the Huckabee thread?

I'm not judging the whole party. I'm saying a statement like that could make his party look bad, kind of like how I wish Ann Coulter wouldnt say half the stuff she says. I know if I were a Democrat, I would have shuttered a little but when I heard him say that.

He made a bad analogy. That's it. It's true that Bush isn't popular. Could he have said it differently? Sure.

But essentially all he was saying is that Bush isn't popular, it really isn't even comparable to calling someone a 'faggot' or saying 'Jews need to be perfected'.

 

[martha]

You still think that he currently believes we should isolate AIDS patients?

You're the one giving him the benefit of the doubt.

 

[anitram]

CNN? The Challenge Nothing Network? And I certainly hope it makes the entire party look bad. Stupid statements like these are gonna blow the election for them.

What a reactionary statement.

First of all, what, 99% of people out there have never even heard of Paul Begala much less do they even know what party he's a talking head for? And you think that would be a factor in costing them the election? Honestly, that's just so incredibly reaching and short-sighted that I can't believe you actually believe it (however much you may hope it).

If Ann Coulter's vile statements (which are constant and considerably worse than this and I don't recall you showing the same level of outrage about) have never cost somebody an election, then I really think this is much ado about nothing.

 

[phillyfan26]

You still think that he currently believes we should isolate AIDS patients?

Uh, dude. He said he wasn't backing off the statement. So, yes, not only does he believe it, he has told people about his belief, this year.

 

[U2DMfan]

The new ABC/Washington Post National Poll has Hillary Clinton with a 30 point lead over Obama.

I wonder if Chris Matthews openly wept when he read that.
He and his cohorts are going to have to try even harder to make a race out of this.

 

[Anu]

Clinton or Obama are going to have a real tough time against Huckabee. It will be culture war all over again.

We still live in such a racist and sexist society in so many ways.

But I must admit that the recent Obama has me charged up. It feels like a real movement for change (can't say that about the centrist Clintocracy).

Kucinich is still my first love, but depending on how TN is polling right before the primary and how Barack does in the early states, I may have to jump to Obama.

 

[phillyfan26]

Clinton or Obama are going to have a real tough time against Huckabee. It will be culture war all over again.

Really? I think Huckabee will make the Dems win easily. I mean, as Irvine said, he's making his evangelical views the reason to vote for him.

 

[yolland]

^ That would likely be softpedaled for a general election campaign, though. The way candidates pitch themselves to 'the base' during the primaries is often quite different from their general election pitch.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Clinton or Obama are going to have a real tough time against Huckabee. It will be culture war all over again.

We still live in such a racist and sexist society in so many ways.

While I definitely agree that there are still those out there who have reservations about a woman president or a black president, at the same time, I like to think more people are open to the idea than we imagine. And phillyfan's right, no matter who the Democratic nominee winds up being, I think they have a very good chance.

But I must admit that the recent Obama has me charged up. It feels like a real movement for change (can't say that about the centrist Clintocracy).

Kucinich is still my first love, but depending on how TN is polling right before the primary and how Barack does in the early states, I may have to jump to Obama.

. Kucinich and Obama remain my two favorite candidates. I'd be fine with either of them winning the Democratic nomination. If neither of them wins it, I'm going independent, but if one of them wins it, I'm voting for them next November, no question. People talk about how Obama should be more aggressive, and while I agree in some respects, at the same time, I really like how level-headed and calm he seems to be, and I like how sincere he sounds. I like his optimism, and I believe he will do his best to try and implement all the things he wants to do.

Angela

 

[Anu]

I'm watching clips from the most recent Republican debate on YouTube, and most of these guys sound like Democrats.

The tide has shifted just a bit back to sanity thanks to GWB insanity.

 

[Anu]

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/12/12/politics/horserace/entry3609678.shtml

Kucinich excluded. Yuck.

 

[BVS]

Clinton or Obama are going to have a real tough time against Huckabee. It will be culture war all over again.

We still live in such a racist and sexist society in so many ways.

I used to think this was going to be an issue, but their overall polling numbers have been suprising, not just with Dems either.

I think if it comes down to Huck and one of these Dems that a lot of the middle ground will stay. The hardcore racist and sexist will come out and vote, but those that are and probably don't consider themselves to be will probably just stay home and watch TV that day. I just don't think Huck will appeal to the middle much at all, and Clinton and Obama will appeal to much of the middle.

Huck will get crushed in the debates. The only way I see Huck winning is if the fundies and bigots come out in full force.


Can you imagine the laughing stock that we will be to the rest of the world?

And here's president HUCKabee...

 

[Anu]

While ultra-liberal, I live in bum-funk Tennessee, so I am aware of the sexism and racism issue as well as the evangelical issue.

Don't underestimate the 'gut' voter who will only turn out in November based on very superficial issues (which is why so many of my friends support Edwards==he is southern and white and male).

Kucinich is so far and away my first choice, but Obama has me interested. Very interested.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

The area I live in is pretty liberal, but I'm not sure who the most popular candidate is here. I can only imagine what people would have to say about candidates like Clinton or Obama in some of the other towns I've lived in, though....

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/12/12/politics/horserace/entry3609678.shtml

Kucinich excluded. Yuck.

That really sucks. Everybody who is running should be allowed the chance to be part of a debate. Kinda hard for us to decide who we're voting for next year if we don't actually hear from them.

BVS, eh, Huckabee can't be any worse a name than, oh, say, Putin .

Angela