Iowa Caucuses:
 

Hillary is shaking like a dog *****tin' chicken bones, as my old man liked to say. :)

Why? Is she supposed to lose? I haven't paid attention. Don't really care. I don't like any of the candidates. Maybe Ron Paul. But he seems insane.

I think most "experts" are predicting Hillary to come in third. If that happens, I think Obama will wake up with his throat slit in the near future or maybe go down in a plane.

He should stay away from Fort Marcy Park:D

I went hiking there once. Very eerie. Actually, I wasn't afraid of getting killed there, just having my body dumped there afterwards. But since I always carry a sidearm, that was unlikely to happen to me then.

I hear lots of people shoot themselves there...for whatever reason. So maybe having your sidearm would be a bad idea, you know in case the mood were to strike you as they say.

Seriously, anyone who gets in the way her thighness needs to grow eyes in the back of their head. She'll get the nomination whether it's by popular vote or by default when the real winner quits or dies.

Less than 10% of the population of Iowa participates in these "cacuases" so I cant understand the media frenzy going on about this. This is REALLY overkill and pretty lame.

Loved one of Jay Leno's jokes last night....something to the tune of it being so cold in Iowa that Hillary could see Obama's breath going down the back of her neck...

That's true. But it IS the first real event of the election process which assigns delegates and thus chooses the nominee.

Wayne, my take on Clinton, Obama, and Edwards is that none of them sound like they understand the complexities of the job they're going after.

This is an excerpt I cut and pasted yesterday to send to some friends. It's from Bob Novak's column, but I can't find the whole thing anymore. I agree with it.

"Democrats: This is a three-way contest among Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), Sen. Hillary Clinton (N.Y.), and former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.). It's possible that there are only three survivors out of Iowa for the Democrats and that the second-tier candidates will be gone by New Hampshire.

The similarities between Obama 2008 and Howard Dean in 2004 are real and could show themselves Thursday night. Obama is the new, fresh face in the race with youthful, enthusiastic, and idealistic supporters. For Dean, that same formula translated into caucus-day bust. Will the same happen to Obama?


Obama leads in most polls, and significantly in some. His negatives are much lower than Clinton's, and his positives are higher than Edwards'. He has as much money as Clinton and the edge in enthusiasm. However, his campaign team in Iowa is the least experienced of the top three. He could flame out like Dean, but all considered, he has to be viewed as the favorite.


Hillary's organization may be the strongest, but her negatives are the highest.
Her hardball tactics against Obama will hurt her. For the Democrats, who have a
viability threshold of at least 15% in each precinct, second choice matters, and
that is where Hillary's negatives will hurt her. She doesn't appear to be the second choice for very many voters at all.


Edwards has run in Iowa before and done well. His second-place finish in 2004, however, was in a weaker Democratic field. His negatives are low, however, and many polls have shown him as the most popular second choice among supporters of the second-tier candidates. In polls, he is right on Hillary's heels, and it is likely he will pass her in the caucuses.


The second-tier candidates -- Sen. Joe Biden (Del.), Sen. Chris Dodd (Conn.), and
New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson -- will struggle to reach the 15% viability threshold in many districts, with the top three garnering 85% among them in most areas. Of the three second-tier Democrats, Richardson has the best chance of even registering in the final results.


The Democratic field looks to shake out this way:


1st Place: Barack Obama
2nd Place: John Edwards
3rd Place: Hillary Clinton
4th Place: Bill Richardson"

My prediction:

Clinton 1st by perhaps 2 or 3 points.
Obama second, too close to call it a loss.
Edwards at precisely half of Clinton's percentage. The rest of the field in the small single digits.

I'm contributing to a Republican candidate, so it's not really my affair, but I think Obama is smarter than Clinton. He was the Editor of the Harvard Law Review. Relatively few dummies get that post. He's a former law schol prof at a top ten school, so I think he can get up to speed fast enough. Certainly she's not stupid, she did go to Yale, but she had a pretty privleged background, so it's not that impressive. Rumor has it she got better informal grades than Bill (Yale had a no grades policy back then).

Clinton's inexperience is starting to scare me. Obama knows he's inexperienced and looks like he's trying harder and is educating himself. My impression is that Clinton thinks she is experienced and pretends she knows more than she does rather than break down and admit she doesn't know something so she can learn it right the first time. Clinton recently, in two different forums, gave interviews talking about the upcoming presidential elections in Pakasta. She said something like Musharif might be the only candidate on the ballot. The problem is, Musharif was elected president a monthn or so ago. Pakistan has a parlimentary system and it is parlimentary elections that are coming up. Not to grasp the nature of the system of government in one of the most strategic countries of our time is scary.

Huckabee has had some gaffes about Pakastan, but I think that was more based on old information, Clinton's really seemed like a fundamental misunderstanding. I haven't heard many other obvious gaffes from any Republicans or Obama.

You wouldn't guess that I prefer a Republican to Obama and Obama to Clinton, would you? Huckabee is not the Republican candidate I'm backing now, but I prefer him to some others, particularly the ones from the Northeast.

Regarding Clinton's inexperience, my take after listening to her responses in the various debates is that she wants to form a bi-partisian committee to establish a number of bi-partisian committees.

Clinton's experience is not the kind of experience I want any president to have. I can't think of any way to be more wrong on every single issue. If she told me the sun will rise in the east tomorrow, I'd be worried. I just don't understand how anyone can agree with her, let alone find her likeable. I don't think Obama is one iota different in his political beliefs from Clinton. But he is certainly a likeable fellow. And that's why I'd prefer Hillary to be the nominee. She couldn't peel away a single GOP voter and might get a few swing voters. Obama could easily do both.

And that experience is being a WOMAN.

Hell, that didn't stop Bush.

His resume was running a couple of daddy's oil companies into the ground and cozying up to a bunch of Saudi sheiks. Oh, and running Texas for a while. At least Al Gore was off inventing the Interweb. . . ;)

It is sad that these three clowns are the best the Dems can come up with to run. They cannot and will not win in the general election.