Posted on 01/04/2008 7:11:45 AM PST by COUNTrecount
THE amazing victories by Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee in Iowa last night are truly historic. They demonstrate the impact and viability of a message of change in both parties.
On the Democratic side, Obama - by winning in a totally white state - shows that racism is gone as a factor in American politics. On the Republican side, Huckabee's win shows how a truly compassionate conservative can win by harvesting voters who want the message of concern for the poor and for values to prevail.
But what of Hillary Clinton? She's down but not out. In the first really contested election of her own political career, she lost dismally - outclassed, outdrawn and outpolled by Obama.
Her campaign professionals (including Bill) decided to stress experience, precisely the wrong message in a Democratic primary. Prematurely appealing to the center and abandoning the left, she fell between two chairs - not sufficiently centrist
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
The first caller to WRKO’s Reese Hopkins Show is a Black man who started by calling Barack Obama an Uncle Tom.
“The first caller to WRKO’s Reese Hopkins Show is a Black man who started by calling Barack Obama an Uncle Tom.”
Does he work for Hillary? Sharpton? Farrakhan?
“Uncle Tom” is kinda 1960’s, isn’t it?
“History” is nothing more than selective voyeurism: I would not care what the name/image of someone is as long as their policy matches mine. The I’d vote again after no having voted since Reagan.
Correct me if I’m wrong.
Other than Carter, no winner of the Iowa caucus was ever elected as president.
Will history repeat? (Not Carter.)
The only comment regarding teh republican race (note no Fred mention):
Much the same process will evolve on the Republican side. With his fifth-place Iowa finish, Rudy Giuliani appears to be in even worse shape than Hillary. But the scrutiny unfolding for the Republican Party may leave voters wondering if all that stands between the White House and the Democratic Party is a Mormon (Mitt Romney), a Christian evangelical (Huckabee) and a 70-year old (John McCain). Rudy, like Hillary, may look start looking better.
Some people are gpoing to regret all their cheerleading of Hillary’s demise. Obamanation is a scary thought. Obama doesnt have the baggage and the negatives that Hillary has according to national polls.
The pundits are going into overdrive by the results in Iowa, which are not representative of the country. Each primary result will bring a new analysis. We will have a much better view after South Carolina, which will be the real test for a number of candidates before Super Tuesday. Until then, I take all of this speculation with a grain of salt.
I am always amazed by the commentaries after one of these events. What has really changed? The sun came up a little earlier and will set a little later today. The cold is still with us. The ground is still covered with snow. More seed catalogs will come in the mail. The dollar will loose a cent or two. Gasoline will be up a cent or two.
I still have the same old aches and pains as does my wife. Lets keep it all in perspective.IMHO
Democrats:
1972 - Iowa Caucus winner: Edmund Muskie. He neither became the party candidate nor the President.
*
1976 - Iowa Caucus winner: No Winner, the largest vote went to “Uncommitted” (the eventual President, Democrat Jimmy Carter, only got 28% of the vote)
*
1980 - Iowa Caucus winner: Jimmy Carter - lost in general election to Ronald Reagan
*
1984 - Iowa Caucus winner: Walter Mondale - lost in general election as Ronald Reagan re-elected.
*
1988 - Iowa Caucus winner: Richard Gephart was not the Party’s eventual nominee.
*
1992 - Iowa Caucus winner: Tom Harkin in a landslide victory -eventual party nominee and next President, Bill Clinton only got 3% of the vote
*
1996 - Iowa Caucus winner: Since Bill Clinton ran unopposed in the caucus, Iowa caucus-goers couldn’t help but vote for the eventual winner.
*
2000 - Iowa Caucus winner: Al Gore - did not become the next President of the U.S.
*
2004 - Iowa Caucus winner: John Kerry - did not become the next President.
2000- George W. Bush* (41%), Steve Forbes (30%), Alan Keyes (14%), Gary Bauer (9%), John McCain (5%) and Orrin Hatch (1%)
1996- Bob Dole (26%), Pat Buchanan (23%), Lamar Alexander (18%), Steve Forbes (10%), Phil Gramm (9%), Alan Keyes (7%), Richard Lugar (4%) and Morry Taylor (1%)
1992- George H. W. Bush (unopposed)
1988- Bob Dole (37%), Pat Robertson (25%), George H. W. Bush* (19%), Jack Kemp (11%) and Pete DuPont (7%)
1984- Ronald Reagan* (unopposed)
1980- George H. W. Bush (32%), Ronald Reagan* (30%), Howard Baker (15%), John Connally (9%), Phil Crane (7%), John B. Anderson (4%) and Bob Dole (2%)
1976- Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan
Dick Morris is spot on... :o)
Dick Morris has been wrong more than right. His views change with the direction of the wind.
HAW, HAW, HAW!
Herself, the Cold and Joyless, comes in THIRD PLACE. Does Herself understand what this does to the doctrine of “inevitable”?
Gives that core belief in destiny a good square swift kick in the butt, that is what it does. So hard, in fact, that Herself has had to stifle a bloody nose.
Herself may still succeed in wresting back the lead, and very possibly, the nomination. But if Herself has been edged back by even the Pretty Pony, it must be obvious by this morning that the lack of a clear message has been one of the major stumbling blocks for Herself.
Some 95% of Herself’s share of woe in this contest has been self-induced.
Thanks for the history. Interesting.
How unenlightening.
Your wrong. Way wrong.
First, the question should be did they pick the parties presidential candidate!
In 2004, they had Kerry vs. Bush. 100% record. Bush went on to win the Presidency.
In 2000, they had Gore vs. Bush. 100% record. Bush went on to win the Presidency.
So the winner has an excellent shot of winning.
One of the key exceptions was our friend Bill Clinton who did not compete in Iowa in his first run. However, his gal pal, the weathervane, did compete and did compete heavily.
The Iowa caucus has a good record of picking the parties candidates for president.
1972 Ed Muskie and ?
- Okay, pretty bad in the first year.
- lets toss this year out.
1976 Uncommitted and Gerald Ford/Ronald Reagan
- Carter beat Ford. 1 out of 2.
1980 - Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush (32%), Ronald Reagan* (30%)
- WOW. Looks like they got both right on this one.
- Reagan and Bush roll to victory in the General!
- 100 score%
1984 - Walter Mondale and Ronald Reagan
- WOW. Looks like they got both right on this one.
- Reagan rolls to victory in the General!
- 100 score%
1988 - Richard Gephart and Dole
- Ooops. O for 2.
1992 - Tom Harkin and Bush
- 1 out of 2.
- Probably the reason they are pushing this line since Bill boy only got 3%. Perhaps it is REALLY bad.
1996 - Bill Clinton and Dole
- 2 out of 2. 100%
2000 - Al Gore and Bush
- WOW. Looks like they got both right on this one.
- Bush rolls to victory in the General!
- 100 score%
2004 - John Kerry and Bush
- WOW. Looks like they got both right on this one.
- Bush rolls to victory in the General!
- 100 score%
= Pro death penalty for those that are within 9 months of conception = against dealth penalty for anyone else.
NOT A CHANCE !!!
No he doesn't, but he is a far better choice than Hillary. It's time to turn the page on that corrupt candidate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.