This week’s Birds Eye View Contest is not likely to be unsolved for very long.
Dominic Holden has an article in The Stranger this week that deserves as wide an audience as possible.
Also, Jim Miller is not clear on why no Democrats have responded to his request. I think my colleague Carl already covered this when he explained, “Maybe it’s Because You’re An Idiot?.”
Huckabee has taken the GOP caucus in IOWA.
Take that greedheads and cigar-sucking gasbag (Limpbone)!!!
The resumes of the leading Dems are thin. Thing is, so are those of four out of the five Republicans (McCain being the exception). (Romney did run a large state, but since he’s disavowed everything he did during that time, it can’t be counted.)
There’s a reason for this. For the last seven years the upper tier of the Bush administration has been largely peopled by, as we were told in 2001, “adults” who knew how to run things and had lots of relevant experience. Is it any wonder most Democrats and Republicans now want a clean slate in D.C.?
Obama is currently on top for the Dems.
CNN and MSNBC has called it for Huckabee on the GOP side
Heavy anti-establishment mood out there in IA.
Poor Rudy. I think he’s at 4 percent.
Go Huck!
Hehehe….
It will take everything Edwards has got and then some to overcome Obama and Hillary from here on out.
If Edwards is to fizzle out, my next choice would be Obama but I see nothing but heavy support for Hillary in poll after poll.
This is still but the beginnings of a renewed progressive movement. I say support the nominee of the Democratic Party for the Presidency but work like hell on the Congress. We can elect strong progressives to the Congress.
We can retire vichy blue dogs. Let them go work for the corporations they represent as sales reps, pr flacks or something.
We might not be able to put a true progressive into the White House but we can still be a force to reckon with.
@1 Republican religious bigotry is predictably trumping common sense in the heartland — as, I predict, it will elsewhere. These guys are good at self-immolation. The GOP herd’s rush for the cliff is as reliable as rain in Seattle in the winter.
@6 “sales reps, pr flacks or something”
The “something” = lobbyists. These folks are all headed for six- and seven-figure jobs on K street.
@6 The latest results from Iowa are Obama 37%, Edwards 30%, and Hillary 30%. This hurts Edwards more than Hillary because he led Iowa a few months ago and needed a strong showing there worse than she did. Edwards now desperately needs a win in the next round. I doubt Iowa catapults Obama into a commanding lead because of Clinton’s strength elsewhere. Obama needs to keep winning, whereas Clinton can recover from a couple of early setbacks. She’s still the front-runner, and the candidate to beat.
I”m disappointed that people would choose “hope” over experience and results. I guess the middle class hasn’t seen enough oppression yet. They still want to be nice. Well, this may be one they regret.
I like Obama and started out supporting him. But, upon reflection, Edwards would do the better job.
Oh well. Let’s all cheer “hope” and hope it means some positive changes for the middle class in this country. But I’m not betting any money on it.
Looks like a clear victory for Obama in Iowa — 37% versus 30% each for Clinton and Edwards. No landslide of course. Clinton may very well end up in third place — too close to call. Second place for Edwards perhaps — impressive, but he seems to have put all his eggs in this one basket.
Goldy did make a very impassioned plea for Edwards. I read Edwards’ platform, and it seemed to make the most sense of any of the candidates, and was certainly the most detailed and thought out. On the other hand, Edwards made $500,000 working for a major subprime lender (technically, a hedge fund that owned major shares in several subprime lenders).
However, Clinton has shown massive leads in practically all of the national polls — and less massive leads in the remainder of them (and over 40% in all the polls). Will Obama build enough momentum to overcome this?
Huckabee gets a clear victory on the Republican side — 34% versus 25% for Romney. Both Huckabee and Obama win by a few more percentage than the polls predicted. Does this give Huckabee a big boost, with the national polls being too close to call between the top four or five candidates (and no one hardly over 20% in any poll)? Or is Huckabee too divisive of a figure to even win the nomination?
OBAMA SLAYED THE HILDEBEAST!!!!
ditch that biatch
12 – Here comes the first racist wingnut!
The other interesting thing is that according to NPR the turnout in the Democratic caucuses was huge and the Republican turnout was “disappointing.”
That tells me something about who is energized and who is feeling…unenthusiastic about the coming election.
The other interesting thing is that according to NPR the turnout in the Democratic caucuses was huge and the Republican turnout was “disappointing.”
That tells me something about who is energized and who is feeling…unenthusiastic about the coming election.
Really!!! I guess that is why the democrat debate out rated the republican deb…. wait the republican debates had way more viewers. Nevermind. heheheheehe
Upon watching Huckabee’s speech tonight, I’ve got to say that even though I despise his politics, he sure is likeable.
@15: Ratings for debates? Really? That’s the measure you’re going to use? Oy.
Of course the dems could have had more viewers if they debated on Fox. The only problem is that democrats are pussies so that will never happen.
I never watched a debate. Candy for the masses. What did you learn from those 30 second sound bites?
Try reading for a change. Go to hear them speak. Watch CSpan. Anything but those insipid debates.
Well, for a dog, I guess those debates were probably enough.
@15, 17: It’s a measure of the difference between those who can or cannot be bothered to get off their asses and away from the TeeVee to get involved.
Don’t get me wrong, you miserable cur. You and your friends are more than welcome to sit at home and lick your balls…well, if you had any balls left.
skagit says:
I never watched a debate. Candy for the masses. What did you learn from those 30 second sound bites?
That republicans can answer stupid questions from liberals by educating the audience of what is important. You dont really learn much from scripted campaign speeches.
Too bad your only experience with campaign speeches is with those of the “have to pledge support”-“questions in advance, please” Bush variety. We liberals are not prescreened nor do we have to pass a litmus test to ask questions.
You might visit the left one day and find out what free speech is really all about.
It’s amazing how many of you have bought into HC’s “experience” mantra. Now you just dumbly believe, because she told you it’s true, that she has the most experience. Do your own homework, people. Compare her experience with that of the other candidates. It doesn’t match up. “Well she was in the White House for eight years, so she knows how things work!” you mindlessly say. Yeah, and so was Nancy Reagan. Do you think she’s now qualified to be President? Now go do that research I told you to do.
@23
Work that strawman!!
@ 24
Gotta love those hay fever arguments…
By the way, thanks for the link to the Holden article. My two older kids are reading it now.
For the record, the “experience” I was targeting wasn’t Clinton’s but Edward’s. I think he’d be a little like LBJ and know how to get things through Congress. Especially one that may not be so generous towards liberals.
I like Obama very much but don’t think he’ll get it done. He certainly hopes he can and so do I. He’ll need a good Democratic Congress IMO.
Jim Miller is a bale of horse stall bedding erecting straw boys … why would any liberal want to advertise his preference among Democratic candidates on a wingnut blog?
@2 Thing is, experience doesn’t really matter that much. Abe Lincoln had no experience at fighting civil wars, uniting fractured nations, or freeing slaves when he ran for president. What he did have was a keen sense of right and wrong, and unerring judgment … I have always maintained that character and chemistry matter far more than “experience” or policy positions when choosing a president. Among the current crop of GOP candidates, all except Romney and McCain fail the character test, and Romney fails the chemistry test. The only guy they’ve got who might pose a real threat to Democrats in November is McCain.
All presidents come into office inexperienced. All have to learn the job. All make mistakes early in their terms. The good ones grow into the job; the bad ones run in place … Bush jr. is a good example of a failed president who had no capacity to mature or grow.
If Obama wins, he will be a very different man 3 years from now; and by the time he leaves office in Jan. 2017, he will be an old man with plenty of gray hairs.
In the DL “caucus” last night I initially voted for Edwards because I like his progressive message, but in the finally tally flipped to Obama because of the “chemistry” factor. I think he’s got it and Hillary doesn’t. On the Republican side, Huckabee’s got it while their best candidate, McCain, doesn’t — but Huckabee is a nut, and Republicans who care about their party and country should vote for McCain.
@6 The worst Democrat is light years better than the best Republican.
@11 I don’t think there’s any question that trailing Obama by 7% is a defeat for Edwards.
@11 Romney was wounded tonight, but survived for the next round. However, he can’t take many more of these.
@13 Won’t be the last.
@15 Somebody go get the turnout numbers and shove them up that stupid dog’s ass! Clinton, the losing Democratic candidate, got 1 1/2 more times votes than Huckabee, the winning Republican candidate. That should tell you how Iowa — and the nation — will vote in November, dog! A jackass could beat your candidate. (And maybe a jackass WILL beat your candidate.)
Republican Dream Ticket
Mike Huckabee / Low Tax Looper
Democratic Dream Ticket
Obama / Edwards
I think a good case can be made for Hillary staying in the Senate for, say, another 22 years.
@16 Huckabee would make a great used car salesman. He’s the kind of guy who can charm you into buying a car with a rolled odometer and sawdust in the brakes.
Consumer Warning: Do not trust this man with your money or your vote.
I’m gonna vote for Huckabee in Washington’s Republican primary! He’s the best Republican a Democrat could choose.
Roger Rabbit’s Prediction: Obama 72%, Huckabee 28%
@18 We don’t patronize whorehouses.
@21 You’re lecturing us about “what’s important?” Really? Let’s review the catalog of things that are NOT important to Republicans:
Whether average Americans have jobs
Whether average Americans have health care
Whether average Americans collect their pensions
Whether average Americans have Social Security and Medicare to fall back on
Protecting average Americans from predatory lenders
Protecting the purchasing value of the dollar
Free speech
Freedom of religion
Rule of law; due process; habeas corpus; freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures
Honest elections
Majority rule
Energy prices; energy security; energy technology
K-12 students; college students; working Americans; senior citizens
Fair trade; fair taxes
Honor, honesty, integrity
@26 Edwards was in the Senate for 6 years, but has not held any office since 2004.
Clinton has been in the Senate the last 7 years.
Obama has been in the Senate for 3 years.
In an earlier thread, our wingnut trolls hackled about Edwards being a phony and a huckster. Not that I particularly care whether Edwards is a phony or a huckster, but I do think it’s important to define the terms of the debate.
To define the terms of the debate, let’s consider our current President. Bush’s wealth came from the sale of his interest in a partnership that owned the Texas Rangers. He purchased that interest with an initial investment of $600,000. He was later given an additional 10% interest in the partnership for his work as the managing partner.
Now, the Texas Rangers, as a business asset, appreciated in value substantially under his management. This was due in large part to a new ballpark where the majority of the financing (~75%) came from a .5% increase in sales taxes in Austin, TX. None of the additional revenue, of course, has been given back to the tax payers as compensation for that financing.
So, Bush’s wealth comes from the backs of the upstanding, tax-paying citizens of Austin, Texas, not from an investment he actually made. Moreover, when Bush sold his interest in the partnership, he declared all of the proceeds from that sale as long term capital gains–including the 10% that was given to him as compensation for his work as a managing partner.
Now, any resident tax attorney’s can point out whether or not I’m wrong on this, but the 10% interest Bush received as compensation is exactly like a non-qualified stock option. Even though the income is derived from the sale of a capital asset, the income is still regular income, because the capital asset itself was compensation for work. For the 10% interest that Bush was given for his work, none of his own money was at risk, which is the legal basis for whether or not capital gains taxes even apply.
So, Bush is a phony, because he proclaims policies that favor free markets while his wealth came from directly suckling at the government tit, and he’s a huckster in that he paid long-term capital gains tax on income that really should have been reported as regular income.
So, now that we have a clear definition of the terms of the debate, let the debate continue.