Friday, January 04, 2008

Iowa

So Obama wins big, Edwards is second and HRC is third. Not a bad turn out. Obama wins that big because Richardson played king maker and asked that his caucus members vote for Obama, otherwise those results may have turned out the same but it would have been A LOT closer.

Unfortunately, I fear Obama's victory may be short lived. The HRC machine was never really banking on Iowa and has always focused on NH first. That kinda sucks because I would prefer an Obama presidency over a HRC one and an Edwards over both. Hopefully some miracle happens but there it is.

On the other side of the fence you have Huck trashing everyone else. Mitt came in second but pretty weakly. I think that was more or less predicted. What is interesting on that side is how well Paul and McCain did and how lousy Rudy did. Although Rudy is betting on Florida and bigger states so he more or less didn't campaign in Iowa or NH, so I guess that isn't that much of a surprise. But Paul and Thompson tied for 4th and McCain is 3rd, not bad. NH will be really interesting.

5 comments:

James said...

So, I'm really not an HRC fan at all. But, today, I found myself feeling bad for her for the first time ever. Looks like yesterday she got a little teary-eyed when responding to a question. Well our wonderful news media pounced on the story and, as they are so good at doing, blew it completely out of proportion. While not a single tear ran down her face (reports are that her eyes just got a little watery), one newspaper went as far as to label their headling "Weepfest"...unbelievable! And, even if she had gotten even more choked up than she had, is that really a top news story? Is it wrong for our country's leaders to show a little emotion? Why is this a problem? I seem to recall Bush having a similarly teary moment, possibly on or related to 9/11, and people debating whether that seemed un-Presidential? Is it? Really?! I, for one, don't want a leader with a robot-like lack of emotion. I think knowing that thousands of Americans had just been killed warrants a tear or two. And, again, while I don't care for HRC, it doesn't make me like her any less or worry that she'd be any less of a leader if she sheds a few tears in the campaign. Anyway, consider this my guest post rant for the day. :-D

James said...

Some links related to my rant, including the "Weepfest" headline first...

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/01/08/2008-01-08_weepfest_wont_help_hillary_clinton.html

http://blogs.reuters.com/trail08/2008/01/07/hillary-clintons-emotional-moment-takes-reporters-by-surprise/

http://www.pensitoreview.com/2008/01/08/nobody-criticized-bush-for-crying/

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/07/clinton.emotional/index.html

Ryan said...

Right on. The media is broken. A bunch of High School gossipmongers that do very little reporting and a lot of gossip-mongering. Disgusting.

But I would say that some of this is sexiest as well. Here is a link that talks about that: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/opinion/08steinem.html?_r=2&ref=opinion&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

James said...

So HRC makes a "comeback" and wins NH last night...this morning some idiot on NPR is talking about how her "crying" episode must have made her appear more "human" and thus appeal to more voters. His conclusion was that now we can expect all the candidates to start crying more. UNBELIEVABLE!

Ryan said...

Sing it brother!