Richardson looks like a tourist in the wrong location. Edwards is a salesman. Hillary is a mean woman; really glad I didn't marry her. Obama: what motivates this man to want to lead that party? Maybe that will be his saving grace; he's not really one of them.

I don't think Hillary calculated for Obama. She went into this race with a household name and fair possibility of being the first women president. I think a good reason her campaign failed in Iowa is because she had no choice but to split attention with the other minority candidate "Obama." Similarly this reminds me of Perot's effect on Bush in the '92 campaign taking votes away, although neither were minorities. I just wonder where the Edwards votes would go if he dropped out of the race. BTW I'm more surprised that Edwards beat Hillary in the recent caucus. Perhaps it's not so much what Obama has to say, as it is that the nation already has somewhat of a feel in what to expect from Hillary via Bill Clinton's presidency. Edwards is a bit of an old shoe as well. I'm not voting for Hillary, Obama, or Edwards, but I will start paying more attention to the Obama's news sound bites. Hillary has to win New Hampshire or face the fact that her chances are becoming slim.



Bobby

At this point I am not conceding that Iowa or New Hampshire can elect anyone. There was a time when winning in New Hampshire meant that a candidate has "passed" the electibility test. That is not longer the case, in my view, cause there is a whole lot of democracy to go. How long Edwards can remain in the race is a good question.

I think Hillary on the Democratic side, along with Republicans Giuliani and Thompson, are really banking on the larger states to punch their tickets. But the problem for Hillary is that she expects to win New Hampshire and that would be a setback to lose the second caucus in a row.



Bobby

We can only hope that Hilary loses in NH. She sure is counting on winning, more her home turf area. Given the choices, Obama seems a lesser evil. Not saying I would vote that side, I am still in the Republican camp - so far.

By the way, glad you did not marry Hilary either, George.

Things don't look good for Hillary .She was booed Thurs night at the New Hampshire Democratic Party 100 Club dinner . This is usually abell-weather event prior to the primary. Obama by contrast was greeted enthusiastically . I did not see the debate but will read the transcripts of both next week . I am finding that the candidates are so guarded and scripted that these debates bring nothing of real substance to the table.

Obama: he's not really one of them.Hello again, George:

Bingo. The times they are a changing...

excon

I am interested in hearing some opinions as to why the government is allowing a female and a black man to run for president in a country that is so prejudice. I've known people in the past who made comments to the affect that they would hate to have a woman or a black man as president.

I personally have no problem with either one.

Anyone have any comments on this?


I hesitate to start a thread mentioning color of skin or gender?

Hello again, Dana:

In our country, the government DOESN'T control who runs for president. Plus, I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who don't want a black man or a woman to be our president. So what?? So they don't for 'em then.

excon

PS> You should actually try reading the Constitution. Those are the rules we live by. It's really very easy to understand and short too.

I have been lead to believe that anyone can run but that the government actually makes the decision.


Does the government control who is actually elected?

Do the voters actually choose?

Dana, that would be an excellent topic for a thread. A person has a right to his opinion, and the right to express it; so don't be surprised when you read complaints about either a female or black president. These same people may complain about white male presidents as well; some folks just have problems with authority, regardless of sex or race. At this point, the US constitution does not prohibit females or minorities from being elected president.

George and excon,

Maybe things have changed.

Thanks.

Dana, there are a lot of mis-led people in the US. Many are Democrats who allege that the US Supreme Court chose the president in the 2000 election between Gore and Bush. You really must read the US constitution; it isn't fun or sexy, but many men and women believe it is worth dying for.

George,

You know as well as I do that everyone breaks the rules. Attorneys break the law, the law makers break the law, the police break the law.

Just because it is in the constitution does not mean that people in power do what it says.

Several years ago here the citizens here voted against some propositions for automobile insurance. Although the voters made their decision and their choice, the people in power never put that proposition to work.

In the end, those in power decided what to do and not the voters.

I see it in the city hall officials to. They do what ever they feel like it.

Hello again, Dana:

I know, you didn't ask me. But, I got to big mouth.

I agree with you absolutely. Just because it's IN the Constitution doesn't mean that it's followed. That's why we have courts and that's why our government is supposed to be transparent.

No, it doesn't work perfectly. But, it works better than any other system.

excon

p.s. some people go as far as saying that the white house is for white people which mean other skin colors are excluded. I know the government likes to use people of different races to fool us into believing they are fair to everyone regardless of skin color. Maybe the constitution was mainly written for white people too.

Attorneys, law makers, and police break the law?? I hope you are not under forty years old to be such a cynic. I want to make just two points: First: "the law" is huge; have you ever been in a law library? You should pick a subject sometime and research it in a law library. Second: everyone - attorneys, law makers, and police - are accountable to someone or something. I like that saying: 'what goes around comes around'. Any of those folks you mentioned who tamper with 'the law' will not be involved with it for long.
You said: "...everyone breaks the rules." I hope you aren't under forty!

excon,

Your big mouth is not a problem.

Yes, and we have the right to riot too. I guess that is another way some have excerted their rights.

I have worked for attorneys and I know they break the law everyday.

Cynic is a strong word.

I mean look at how long it has taken for a woman and a black person to run for president.

There was a time when women weren't allowed to work or to buy a house, etc. That was not too long ago.

Actually, women have worked and owned propety for centuries.

But not on the scale as it is today.

Just a few years ago most women's only dream was to grow up and get married and have kids right out of high school.

I used to work for the government where women weren't hired to be engineers, physicist, etc. They had just started to hire women in the early 80s. Most of the women who worked for that large govt corp were in clerical positions only.


Women today are still not allowed to work as mechanics


Isn't it strange that a woman can run for president but can't work as a mechanic?

Yes, and we have the right to riot too. Hello again, Dana:

I really WISH you would read the CONSTITUTION. It is SOOOOO cool! Contrary to George, I think it's VERY sexy. Because it tells us that this country is OURS, and it tells us how to KEEP it that way. ALL the answers to your questions are in there.

You're close. We don't have the right to riot. If we're displeased, we have the right to demonstrate. They're not the same thing. Civil disobedience ISN'T rioting.

I agree, sometimes the cops can't tell the difference either. But you can. You see those people on TV just sitting peacefully in front of a truck carrying bombs or trees or whatever the guy doesn't like. It doesn't matter WHAT he doesn't like. What matters is that he has the right to demonstrate his displeasure with the activity taking place, by civilly disobeying the law - not criminally which is what rioting is.

You can read about that right in the Bill of Rights. They're sexy too.

excon

Back to your original post for a second, Richardson's comment after the Iowa caucuses was priceless, "we made it to the Final Four.” He reminded me a little of Tancredo at his last debate with his "me, too" strategy. Otherwise, I didn't watch any of either of these debates. But if it comes down to "he's not really one of them" I think Thompson wins that gig when he said "I’m only consumed by a few things and politics is not one of them.”

Steve

Just one more point: Hillary bounced back in N.H.. I think the margin of victory over Obama was three percent. You could tell in her reactions that she was surprised by the victory and relieved. On the Republicans side: McCain's victory was expected, and Romney again is second fiddle.

I think South Carolina and Nevada are the next states to hold primary races. After that I look forward to the voting primaries in larger states to see how Hillary/Obama shakes out. At that time it will also be face the music time for Giuliani and Thompson.



Bobby

Order of primaries:
January 15—Michigan Primary
January 19—Nevada Caucus / Republican South Carolina Primary
January 26—Democratic South Carolina Primary
January 29—Florida Primary
February 2―Maine caucus
February 5―Super Tuesday: Primaries/caucuses for both parties in 19 states, plus three Democratic-only caucuses and one Republican-only primary

Check this: Presidential Primaries Calendar 2008 (http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legismgt/elect/2008_Pres_Primary_Calendar.htm)