I don't know how much I have to add to the media buzz on polling out of Iowa this week, but I am interested in this. It seems that there is no front-runner in either party 6 weeks out in the Iowa caucuses, with Obama holding a (probably statistically insignificant) lead over Clinton followed closely by Edwards.
In the Republican caucus race, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee has pulled into a statistical dead heat with Mitt Romney (read New York Times blog on that for more).
The main thing I wish to point out is something I try never to say (but other columnists revel in): I told you so. I predicted that things were going to tighten in both races considerably, and they have. I'm also not surprised to see Huckabee moving up. For a long time it has seemed likely that a former Arkansas governor with strong conservative credentials would have massive appeal with Republican voters.
However it's certainly too early to make any predictions about outcome. John Kerry was polling at 4% this far out in the last Iowa caucus with Howard Dean in a massive lead. This ABC News clip (click on the headline) indicates that most Iowans (probably in an ABC News poll) find Hillary Clinton the "most electable" which mystifies and terrifies me in turn. They also point out that Edwards is still very much in it.
Sara S. Nichols Follow me on Twitter at @snicholsblog Sara S. Nichols is a former progressive lawyer/lobbyist turned new thought minister/spiritual scientist-- she is moved to share her thoughts on politics spirit movies, plays & books My best rating is (:)(:)(:)(:)(:) out of a total of 5 Snouts Up -- I almost never give 5 Snouts--that's just for the best ever.
Showing posts with label Democratic presidential Primary. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democratic presidential Primary. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Friday, August 31, 2007
I Guess I Can't Count Hillary Out
I think I need to come clean on something. I have rested my case against supporting Hillary in the primary on the idea that she can't win in the general election. I realize now that I may be wrong.
Here's why: Bill Clinton wasn't supposed to be the nominee. He wasn't supposed to win the general election. He wasn't supposed to be re-elected after he was embroiled in the Lewinsky scandal. Hillary wasn't supposed to waltz into the State of New York and become a U.S. Senator. She also wasn't supposed to be easily the front-runner in the Democratic field. The Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary weren't supposed to have been rendered potentially meaningless.
So what I'm saying here, if it isn't obvious. Is that with the Clintons, you can never say never.
Here's why: Bill Clinton wasn't supposed to be the nominee. He wasn't supposed to win the general election. He wasn't supposed to be re-elected after he was embroiled in the Lewinsky scandal. Hillary wasn't supposed to waltz into the State of New York and become a U.S. Senator. She also wasn't supposed to be easily the front-runner in the Democratic field. The Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary weren't supposed to have been rendered potentially meaningless.
So what I'm saying here, if it isn't obvious. Is that with the Clintons, you can never say never.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Four Snouts Up for You Tube--CNN Presidential Debate
(:)(:)(:)(:)for the You Tube--CNN Democratic Presidential debate last night broadcast on CNN. I found this a very refreshing and sometimes disarming debate to watch. Anderson Cooper did a surprisingly good job of moving through the new format where the Democratic presidential candidates responded to crudely produced You Tube video questions (displayed on individual computer screens in front of each candidate along with a small subscreen for the television audience--presumably the quality was too low to blow them up to full screen size).
What made the debate disarming was the candor of the questions. I'd judge that at least 50 percent of them were questions I simply would not want to field as a front runner--and only a few were out and out softballs. For example, a question directed to Hillary: how do you justify the possibility of two families (Bush and Clinton) dominating the white house for 28 consecutive years? Another: would you work for the minimum wage if that's what the presidency paid?
Some were cute but policy-oriented, a snowman asks "how will you address global warming so that my son can live out a normal life?" Others quite odd, two "good old boys" commenting on the speculation about Al Gore getting into the race. Wondering, "does that hurt y'all's feelings?"
This was actually the first debate I've watched this year. I thought that Edwards comported himself extremely well, with bold decisive answers on health care, nuclear energy and other issues. He seemed to genuinely enjoy the format and the questions and took it all with good humor. Frontrunners Obama and Clinton had a lot more to lose.
All this talk about Obama being a progressive seemed ludicrous to me after watching this debate. Obama seemed visibly uncomfortable to me. As far as I'm concerned he waffled on everything from health care to nuclear power to putting his kids in private school.
Hillary put decades of waffling experience to use, waffling much better than Obama and coming off like the pro she is. She didn't make me want her to be President, just more fearful that we might have to contend with her as the nominee.
Of the lesser candidates, Chris Dodd, Bill Richardson and Joe Biden were all pretty impressive. Dodd especially good on the environment. Richardson was passionate on covering undocumented workers for health care, clearly campaigning for the latino vote. Biden was excellent on the war and wierd but effective on gun control. Kucinich was sweet with his comb-over and ernest face.
What made the debate disarming was the candor of the questions. I'd judge that at least 50 percent of them were questions I simply would not want to field as a front runner--and only a few were out and out softballs. For example, a question directed to Hillary: how do you justify the possibility of two families (Bush and Clinton) dominating the white house for 28 consecutive years? Another: would you work for the minimum wage if that's what the presidency paid?
Some were cute but policy-oriented, a snowman asks "how will you address global warming so that my son can live out a normal life?" Others quite odd, two "good old boys" commenting on the speculation about Al Gore getting into the race. Wondering, "does that hurt y'all's feelings?"
This was actually the first debate I've watched this year. I thought that Edwards comported himself extremely well, with bold decisive answers on health care, nuclear energy and other issues. He seemed to genuinely enjoy the format and the questions and took it all with good humor. Frontrunners Obama and Clinton had a lot more to lose.
All this talk about Obama being a progressive seemed ludicrous to me after watching this debate. Obama seemed visibly uncomfortable to me. As far as I'm concerned he waffled on everything from health care to nuclear power to putting his kids in private school.
Hillary put decades of waffling experience to use, waffling much better than Obama and coming off like the pro she is. She didn't make me want her to be President, just more fearful that we might have to contend with her as the nominee.
Of the lesser candidates, Chris Dodd, Bill Richardson and Joe Biden were all pretty impressive. Dodd especially good on the environment. Richardson was passionate on covering undocumented workers for health care, clearly campaigning for the latino vote. Biden was excellent on the war and wierd but effective on gun control. Kucinich was sweet with his comb-over and ernest face.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)