Primaries

Remove all ads!

I'm not attacking Clinton for supporting the war, and I agree that President Clinton would never have gone into Iraq in the first place. This isn't what I have a problem with.

Bill Clinton is trying to re-write history not once, but twice. First, he supported the war and now claims to have opposed it from the start. Second, he claims that Barack Obama , who opposed the war from the beginning, did not oppose the war at all. Look, I don't blame Clinton for supporting the war. I blame him for claiming he "opposed it from the start" when -at least publicly- he obviously didn't. I blame him for taking statements in which Obama clearly stated his opposition to the war in Iraq out of context and mangling them into "evidence" that Obama never opposed the war. I blame him for calling Barack Obama's opposition to the Iraq war a "fairy tale". I blame him for making similar disingenuous attacks on Obama's statements about Reagan and other republicans that, likewise, required severe mangling of Obama's original statements. Bill Clinton is better than this, or at least he should be.

My problem isn't with the fact Bill Clinton is out there advocating for his wife or even that he is attacking Barack Obama. If his digs on Obama were actually true, I'd have no problem with them.

 

OK, how about a re-cap of what's happened so far? I don't know much specifics wise, so I'm asking some more focussed people to fill in my blanks.

On the Dem side, Hillary and Barack are duking it out, with Edwards coming up the middle. Has Edwards won any of the primaries? In any event, no clear leader in this race yet that I can see.

On the Rep side, Huckabee and McCain are duking it out with Romney having won at least one primary and therefore in the race. Rudy Guiliani (No idea how to spell it) isn't even entering these early primaries, which strikes me as a really bad strategy, but whatever. Other runners including the actor from Law and Order and the recently outed (as a bigot) Ron Paul are not serious contenders here.

Today is Jan. 24. Where is the next primary? Who will win it? what are the next few states on the list? Please give me facts AND opinions. I need both as my access to media is limited and I'd rather spend what little computer time I have listening to my friends here than sifting through the media pundits .

 

LKD,

In response to your questions in no particular order:

Hillary and Barack have each won primaries and are the front runners. In terms of delegates, they have earned nearly equal amounts at this point. Edwards has not won a primary yet, although he has received enough votes in some states to earn some delegates. In theory, while it is virtually impossible for Edwards to win sufficient votes to win the nomination, he could theoretically get enough votes to prevent either Hillary or Barack from obtaining a majority of the delegates needed for nomination, which would effectively make him the king-maker.

On the Republican side, Huckabee won Iowa, and finished second in South Carolina. McCain won both New Hampshire and South Carolina, while Romney took Wyoming, Nevada and Michigan (of which only Michigan has a lot of delegates). Giuliani has only earned one delegate up to this point, and is banking on winning the next big Republican primary - Florida - next week. No one else on the Republican side has any chance - Paul has no shot and Thompson dropped out.

For all contenders though, the date to circle on the calendar is Tuesday, February 4th. That's when a huge number of states (I think 22 total but I may be off a bit) have their primary, and obviously there will be a huge number of delegates up for grabs that day. Anyone who wins the lion's share of those states will go a long way in securing the nomination.

 

Edwards had a very disappointing finish in Nevada. The next primary for the Dems is this Saturday in his home state of South Carolina. If Edwards doesn't win in SC, I can't help but think that it will spell the end for his campaign.

Thompson, who finished third in SC last Saturday, has dropped out of the race. The Republicans currently have no clear front runner. Florida is coming up next on the 29th, and according to a Mason-Dixon survey taken Jan. 22-23 of 400 likely Republican voters, Romney is at 30 percent compared to McCain’s 26 percent. Giuliani is at 18 percent and Mike Huckabee stands at 15 percent. The poll’s margin of error was 5 percent. In my opinion, failure to win Florida will kill Giuliani's campaign and failure to do well in Florida will deal the finishing blow to Mike Huckabee (although he may not realize it right away). I think we'll have a close race between McCain and Romney in Florida.

 

I'm starting to think that Bill is too involved in all this back-and-forth between Obama and Hillary. And Bill and Hillary are beginning to look too much like a 2-for-1 deal. While I am for Edwards and not Hillary, it almost seems as if Bill is taking over the debate, as if he's the one running for election. I really think he needs to step back a bit. But I guess he just can't resist the pull of politics. It seems to be in his blood.

 

Indeed. Plus, when you're good at the game - or at least think so - then the temptation to come in and fix things might be a bit too much. However, I think Bill Clinton's position on Iraq is a little, shall we say, misinterpreted. To the best of my knowledge, he said something along the lines that he would go in Iraq after the inspectors reported any WMDs, which would probably also involve a UNSC mandate. There's a big difference between that and how events actually unfolded, and I rather doubt the inspectors would have given the kind of evidence he meant... Heck, if there was serious possibility of WMDs and there was a mandate, probably even I would have supported the thing - at first, at least. It might not have made Iraq any better, but it wouldn't showed the USA in blatant disregard for nearly every principle diplomacy, and the idea of international law, is based on. We all have things we simply believe to be wrong, after all, and for me the way the Iraq war was begun is wrong.

Anyhow, it appears the South Carolina democratic primary is over, and Obama won by a considerable lead. That looks good on him, but I would not presume I know how it will work out at February 5th. John Edwards is third, so it seems he doesn't have a big chance to be the nominee but may tip the scales if they are close enough. I think he might make a very good VP, but he seems to have charisma and ideas that could work better in a more active position - and afaik vice-presidents were not so influential in US history, generally speaking. It would also be good if the leading candidates two stepped down the accusations, as I doubt they would benefit much if the winner, whoever he or she is, is hated by half the party and too slimed to have any credibility with everyone else.

 

Let's be fair. Clinton has made a mountain of factually inaccurate and dishonest attacks on Barack Obama (Obama lists these mischaracterizations on his web site, but this can be independently confirmed quite easily with a visit to factcheck.org). South Carolina was a disaster for Clinton in large part, I think, because nearly three quarters of the South Carolina voters (regardless of race) felt that Clinton's attacks on Obama were unfair. Given these disastrous results, I think Clinton is going to tone down her attacks. If she does, Obama will follow suit (although it's worth pointing out that Obama's attacks were made in self defense). At any rate, it's pretty obvious that Hillary Clinton just lost her chance of being Obama's VP.

 

Or he lost the chance of becoming hers.

 

No. She lost her chance of having him as her VP. Hillary Clinton is the aggressor, here, and she got what she deserved. As the aggressor, though, I doubt she has any hard feelings about Barack Obama's attempts to defend himself from attacks that she, herself, would have known to be dishonest and unfair. She likely still would have liked to have Obama as her VP, but Obama is still young. If he needs to, he can afford to wait 16 years before running for president again. Hillary Clinton can not. In employing negative, dishonest, attack dog style politics against Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton gambled. And she lost.

I hate to say it, but if Clinton somehow manages to win the nomination, even I'm going to vote for McCain.

 

No great loss there. Edwards would be a far superior choice, IMO. I like McCain also, but it would be another four more years of Iraq nonsense.

 

Aside from the fact that not even John McCain is going to choose a democrat as his running mate, I've got 2 words for you. Mitt. Romney. Dems aren't the only folks going negative and playing fast and loose with the facts. Romney is throwing around more attacks than a drunken frat boy.

 

I have a quick question for the Democrat voters here. How do you feel about Hillary trying to change the rules and allow the delegates from Michigan to vote in the convention (after she found out she won) and now wanting to allow the delegates from Florida to vote (after Obama and Edwards had their names taken off the ballot)?

Linky

 

I think it's a crock of sh*t, and so do most Democrats. She agreed to waive them, just like every other candidate. She should honor the original deal, even if it's politically expedient for her not to. We'll find out over the course of the week if this'll hurt her very much.

 

I think Hillary is a slimeball, plain and simple. I'm liking Barack more and more. I also saw Mitt on CNN the other day -- he did quite well in his interview. I have yet to see one of his attack ads (remember, I'm in Canada). When I hear that Mitt's running a lot of them, it makes me sad, because IMHO those ads are evidence of a decline of decency in society, a decline that has been going on for over 175 years.

I mention that because I also saw a bit on CNN about how attack ads have been in US Presidential elections since around 1800! There was one flyer that a fellow made against Jefferson that said "if you elect Jefferson, murder, rape, incest and robbery will become the norm in American society" or something like that -- the "murder and incest" part was what really grabbed my attention. I mean, Holy Smear, Batman!

 

Is it at all likely that Obama would chose Edwards as a VP? I would imagin that Edwards would be a very unlikely choice. He is certainly more left-wing than the other major candidates, so his voting base would be much more likely to vote for Obama than they would for a Republican, even without Edwards. Wouldn't it be more benefial to chose someone closer to the centre, to capture those swinging votes?

 

There are many different reasons Presidents have had for selecting a VP. Going slightly more left or right typically isn't one of them. That's because most of the time a VP's only authority is to break ties in the Senate. If Obama wins the nomination, then that is who people will be voting for/against. If you are willing to vote for Obama, then chances are you are still going to vote for him if he selects a VP further to the left than he is. Conversely, if you weren't willing to vote for Obama, just because he picks a more moderate VP isn't likely going to make you want to vote for Obama.

I do not think that picking Edwards will do much of anything to hurt his vote totals. Sometimes a VP is selected simply because his home state is one that is hotly contested and important in electoral vote totals. If there were a mainstream canidate that was from Florida, Ohio, or Pennsylvania, they likely would be picked just because of that. However, the only canidate I'm aware of from one of those states is Kucinch - and he's way too far out there to be asked to be a VP. Edwards was born in South Carolina and lives in North Carolina - both those states have voted Republican in the past few elections. If Edwards can help the Democrats carry one or both of those states, his inclusion on the ticket would be well worth it.

 

A lot of folks (myself included) think that Edwards is sticking in the race, especially in light of his crushing disappointment in SC, on the slim chance the Democrats end up with a brokered convention. Usually the VP is selected to shore up some area in which the candidate is perceived to be weak (geographically or demographically) but in this case Edwards may be hoping he can swap his delegates for the vice-presidency. Personally, I think someone like Richardson would be much better for Obama; Clinton just needs someone who's more likable than her which, uh, shouldn't be too difficult. I've also heard Edwards may want Attorney General--but I read that on the Internet, so take it for what it's worth.

I didn't think the Clinton campaign could get much worse than sending Bill out as the attack dog... and then I heard about Florida and Michigan.

 

If you were a voter in Michigan, would you want your vote to count?

But then I'm an independent, so I'm not captured by either party. Thusly, I may think that it is not a "crock." I think Hill is playing politics (gasp!), but I also believe that it's a "crock" that the "Democrats" are not looking very "democratic" in this instance. Sometimes you have to look past the person for whom you are hoping will win, and what's in the best interest of the voters, rather than the person trying to get elected. Hill is playing it for her own interests - as would any other politician - but the voters of Michigan should have some kind of representation. If the tables were turned I believe just about any poitician would do the same. Don't fool yourself about them....

I should add that I was very impressed by the endorsements that O receieved today, especially from Caroline Kennedy. She is first class all the way, and if she "believes," then maybe there is something here that I'm missing. I did find it very amusing to hear FOX News "floating" Ted's endorsements. Imagine FOX floating Ted? Man, now THAT'S irony....