Obama and Huckabee.

Sounds like a Disney movie about two animal buddies.

Wow, looks like Clinton came in 3rd. This actually makes me feel okay, because I don't think she could win. Yay Barack.

I don't mind if Obama wins. Of all the Democrats he makes me want to puke the least.

Huckabee? Interesting. Altho honestly i still like Thompson. We will see.

I really like all three of the Dems, I wouldn't mind any one of them winning. I probably agree with Edwards the most but I'll happily campaign and vote for whomever wins the nomination.

This really only affects perception, but it's still interesting. I thought for sure Romney would win the Republicans over in Iowa.

President "Huckabee"? Will Tom Sawyer be in the cabinet, perhaps?

Actually Ron Paul won the Presidency already but the MSM is hiding it.

President "Huckabee"? Will Tom Sawyer be in the cabinet, perhaps?

Muttley.

I don't know if Clinton could win, but I really can't imagine any difference between that and a Republican win.

Having said that, I'm not sure that Obama would be any different either, but at least there's some doubt there.


(NB: I'm not in the US, so US foreign and environmental policy are my big issues.)

I agree with octothorpe, although there's something a little oily about Mr. Edwards.

On the Republican side, it's been fascinating to watch the rise of Huckabee from "Who?" to contender, but I imagine a lot of this rides on the fact that he has a proven conservative track record, is a 'real Christian' (not my words or opinion), and has run a relatively clean campaign. Huckabee shows the real power of the Iowa caucus - it has essentially catapulted him into the national spotlight.

But Mr. Huckabee probably won't do well in New Hampshire, and I don't know how he's doing in South Carolina. Isn't that the real litmus test?

I understand it might be less clear from abroad, pompomtom, but their platforms are all quite different: Hillary's and Obama's less so, but very importantly different on health care. And a Hillary administration would mean an enormous domestic-policy difference from a Republican administration. It's always a mistake to think every candidate is the same. Things are quite a bit more sophisticated than that.

The meme "they're all the same, we're just choosing the lesser of two evils" is one of the most pernicious chancres on the American political dialogue. Even between Republicans, would the events of the last 7 years have been the same had they happened on President Elizabeth Dole's watch? President Pat Buchanan's? President John McCain's?

The choice matters. Different people come with different platforms, different staff, different networks, and different legislative agendas. Small differences in policy mean huge changes in the environment, health, and foreign relations. These folks change our lives. Before dismissing a candidate, do a little reading up on them; other judgements tend to be based solely on their representation in the media.

Obama: Environment and Energy
Hillary: Energy Efficiency & Global Warming

Huckabee won't show significantly in NH: I guess I'll make my call on NH for Romney 1, McCain 2, Guiliani 3, Ron Paul 4.

I'm so glad to see Obama win Iowa, and I think he will take New Hampshire and South Carolina. He's the candidate the GOP attack machine least wants to face. They were all geared up to face Hillary and refight the 90s and now the script is flipped. This is great. Yay!

I for one, am overjoyed. GO BARACK!

But Huckabee? I'm sorry - I have a thing about taking anyone seriously in politics whose name reminds me of a stuffed animal.

Huckabee is polling very well in SC (which makes a ton of sense).

I'm unsure how I feel about Huckabee. On one hand, I think he'd be easier to beat in the general election than any of the other top GOP contenders. But on the other hand, I think it'd be the worst result possible result if he won, so I'm not sure if I should be excited for his nomination no matter how slim of chance he has.

Having said that, I'm not sure that Obama would be any different either, but at least there's some doubt there.

Why do think this? I can sorta of understand why people believe this would be the case with Clinton, but why Obama? Do you think he's lying when he gives his stance on foreign and environmental policy topics? Or do you think he's just powerless to carry out his plans once elected?

I, apparently, am quite overjoyed indeed. Admins?

You can say that again!

The choice matters.

Bravo, Miko. I quite agree. If a butterfly flapping its wings one way versus the other can change the outcome of the superbowl, there's got to be a difference between Hilary and Obama. I also think this "they're all the same" attitude has hurt the Left more than the Right these past years. Can you imagine your average Evangelical throwing up his hands and saying "I might as well vote for Kerry - they're all the same." Hell no.

A reminder for all you politics-watchers out there of the fabulous electoral-vote website, the website that almost became my homepage in 2004. He's got interesting pages on contested Senate races and Hot House races, with links to the Wikipedia entry on each contestant. Not completely up to date, though, since he doesn't note that Al Franken's running against Norm Coleman in Minnesota.

I was expecting Obama to lead the Dems there, but I was hoping to see Edwards sneak in under the wire. I think as long as Edwards is in the race it's going to force Obama and Clinton to address more issues. Since Edwards doesn't have the media attention that the other two do, he's got to keep the two of them on the hot seat as much as possible. Based on what I've seen, I still don't think Obama has what it takes to lead the nation, but I'd love to be surprised as the election continues. Too many people seem to be going on the media personas rather than the platforms, which scares me. Personality is important in politics (both in elections and in the actual job of governing), but it's way too much of a focus now.

And on the Republican side I'm happy as long as Giuliani get's trounced and Thompson is humbled.

Lassie - thanks for the reminder about the electoral-vote site. In 2004 that was a major go-to site for me as well.

My fear is that Hillary is the lightning rod that the Republicans need to get out the vote in November. She and her husband are very divisive to many in the Republicans. The Republican field is currently made up of a bunch of stinkers and I think a lot of Republicans won't be arsed to go out and vote in November for one of those guys. However, I think the Republican hate machine can get people out to vote against Hillary. She's carrying that baggage. I think she would do a great job as president, and I will vote for her [like that would matter, I live in Texas and even if 100% of us Austinites vote for the democrat, the state will still go to whoever the Republicans are sending up.

Obama has the youthful energy and that audacity of hope thing going for him. I think he'd go a long way in helping mend things on the international stage. We need a smart person like that to get us back on top again.

Huckabee scares me. Giuliani scares me too. If either one of those guys win in November, I'm seriously going to have to consider leaving the country until it collectively regains its senses. But the nebulousness going on in the Republican side makes me wonder if another candidate emerges with an (R) after their name. Some sort of rock star they are keeping in the wings to energize and solidify the party. Thompson was supposed to be that guy, but he's a yawn.

It will be interesting to see how this pans out. The good news is most of the country will have had their primaries by this time next month so the field will be limited. The bad news is we'll have to sit through the spring and summer and part of the fall with all the bullshit mudslinging on both sides.

My fear is that Hillary is the lightning rod that the Republicans need to get out the vote in November.

I agree, and this is a serious problem with Hillary's campaign. Up until I got to see Obama speak a few weeks ago, she had my support. But I was talking about her with a good friend who is involved in politics, and she relayed some pollster data to me that basically shows she's mathematically inelectable. People already know her and know how they feel about her; she can attract a strong base Democrate vote, but only a very few independents, and certainly no numbers of Republicans. There's not much hope that she can change opinions about her that have become entrenched after her 15 years in a very public eye. Since whoever will win will need to sway the center, she would be at a real disadvantage in the general election.

So I'm kind of worried about her getting bouyed by the Democratic establishment in the primary, then going down in the general. That's one reason I'm supporting Obama in the primary, besides the reason that I have serious respect for and confidence in him and his thinking.

Well, Edwards is my favorite, I decided a while back. (See Booman Tribune for a defense of sorts.) His anti-poverty real populism message resonates well with me, compared to Obama's quasi-adoption of GOP talking points and Clinton's message of little more than inevitability.

But in reality I could vote for any of the three in November.

Huckabee, though, doesn't scare me, so I worry about him getting the nomination. He seems like a "real" Republican instead of all the "suit" Republicans they've got in the field. And per Atrios and other bloggers, he seems to be driving the GOP establishment up the wall, so it will be very interesting, at least, to have him win the nomination.

I don't think it's over by a long shot unless you're Chris Dodd. NH is a very different state and there's been a different mix of attention paid by the candidates. Huckabee concentrated on Iowa with his Midwesterner (Arkansas is almost Midwest) appeal, but that won't translate to the Texas of the East Coast. Obama may do well there, though. But we've got a lot of Super Tuesday linchpins over the next 6-8 weeks, so anybody who stays in the race could score that upset just as somebody else pulls a boner on live TV. You never know.

Can I just say this, though? My nieces (with their developmental disabilities) have latched onto chocolate covered cherries as a Christmas gift for me. I don't like them very much. One or two is enough, but I swear I will get 2/3 through the box by spring and throw the rest out because I can't stand the idea of having another. The US primary system is like that for me. Somebody picks the present I get in April, not me. It's always Iowa and New Hampshire. And Iowa never asks me what I want.

"Obama has the youthful energy and that audacity of hope thing going for him. I think he'd go a long way in helping mend things on the international stage." As an outsider I am not so sure about this. Most of his foreign policy statements have seemed less informed than those of GWB.

Huckabee is a complete fucking nutjob. I hope he lets some of it slip out in time to ruin his campaign. I'd vote for a rabid ferret on meth before Huck.

Although at least this would mostly keep him out of Arkansas.

But, stilicho, if you vote Democratic, you still vote in your state primary, and your state still sends delegates to the convention to vote for nominees with proportional representation. The process works despite the order the states go in; the Democratic primary isn't winner-take-all.

I hate them all. I hate Edwards the least, even though he's a creepy oily lawyer power ranger monster like the rest of them. Huckabee is a terrifying fucking nutjob and Barack still honestly believes that the system is intact enough to be changed from within. Since I no longer believe that, I wish them all the best while I futilely hope for some kind of magical intervention that will blow politics as usual into a million fucking points of light and give us some real alternatives that might bring this country not only back into the ideals it was founded on but also into the 21st century that most of the rest of the developed world enjoys.

In the meantime, I think I'll play the lottery and dream about emigration.

To all the people that threaten to leave the United States because of who gets elected President, please leave already. I am really tired of hearing this kind of whining since I first heard it when Ronald Reagan was first elected. If your life is so bad because of the elected President, then show some courage and go already. If there's another country that will take you where your life will be so much happier, pack up and go. Funny thing is that everyone I've ever heard this from still lives here. No one I've voted for President has ever been elected, but my life is still pretty good here. Go figure.

As far as foreign policy goes, I think we're ready for someone to focus on practicing domestic policy. I don't care one whit what the world thinks of any of the candidates running. Sorry arse_hat. The current president has all but ignored domestic policy the last 7 years. There are some big issues looming domestically that are going to need attention, and I've had enough of focusing on the rest of the world. The current president had no foreign policy experience, but brought in a gang of people that wanted to invade Iraq before he was even elected. Guess what they did? And, people were surprised? Go figure.

I should be excited about voting, but it's getting harder and harder for me to feel that way. Not so much about who is running, but more about what the process has become. Like anything else in this country it's all about marketing and money. Focus groups and fund raising. Our elections have become very little about ideas and ideals. They've become about winning at any cost, and just getting enough to win. In the United States we pick our elected officials the same way we pick just about anything else that's marketed to us, and that's by what the slick salesmen are pushing. And, look what we get. Go figure.

Miko, I understand the process perfectly (PoliSci minor). Wisconsin is late enough in the process that in the last several elections the nomination has already been wrapped up (or all but) by the time we vote. The party engineers this so that they can use the convention to sell the candidate, instead of having a contested convention as they were right up until the 1980s. Although this is in some ways good for the parties themselves, it leaves millions of voters like me feeling like they have no meaningful say in the process.

I can't imagine what it must feel like in California, voting in June. Or whoever it is voting last now, since every state is trying to get their primary in before the first snow melts.

In 1968, Bobby Kennedy could enter the race in March and hope to win a few states like California to have a strong position at the convention from which to bargain against Humphrey. That's a fantasy today.

Of course the other sad thing about this front-loading of the process is that we get to sit through months of a fall campaign that effectively starts in spring.

I'll vote for any of the top three. My first choice is Edwards, I guess. I think Obama is actually my third choice, which is sort of heresy to say tonight of all nights. I listen to him -- I listen really hard -- and I don't know what the hell he is saying. It sounds nice (change, come together, etc.), but I feel as though he doesn't say anything specific about particular issues (other than Iraq, I guess).

I probably won't get the chance to vote for Edwards by the time the primary comes to California, sigh.

Obama's speech was epic -- I can't believe he just won Iowa. Best news I've heard in a while.

Well, I've lived under the "left-wing populist candidate for change", unification discourse and everything. For his whole first term. When he got reelected I gave up and moved out. I might be able to stand this one since he seems to have some brains (a huge advantage over his Latin American counterparts), and even if he doesn't, with all checks and balances of American politics he may not be able to do much damage. One just has to hope he doesn't go all Chavez...

As for the "religious-right neocon populist"... meh, last time I checked a good >40% still liked the current one, so why not get four more years? And who needs an actual platform anyway, he lost a million pounds, he likes Jesus, he smiles a lot... He's like "buddy president"! And at least he might have started to bury McCain... yay for small victories...

God Save The Queen.

This is me, not chiming in.

Carry on.

For people, like me, who don't really know what a caucus is (something to do with Lewis Carroll?), Justin Webb explains.

Rudy G came in behind Ron Paul. I guess 9/11 doesn't have much of a shelf life anymore.

The MeFi thread about it got killed (thank you very little, Jessamyn), but via it I noticed that McCain is saying something that nobody else has been exactly eager to articulate: We're not ever going to leave Iraq, for certain values of "ever." I'm perplexed at how Iraq was enough of an issue in Nov 2006 to affect a Congressional election but now is pretty much off the scope -- maybe US servicepeople aren't dying fast enough to get noticed anymore. And who cares about $200,000,000 a day when it's all borrowed money we'll never pay back?

Hillary = Nanny-state. In the pocket of defense contractors (she's voted consistently to send money into the Iraq war).
Obama = Will do anything for a vote. Also, a first-termer? Is he experienced enough in the minds of America?
Edwards = Ambulance chaser. A lot of people keep saying "I'd be voting for Edwards, but I'm worried about _____ (where blank is some statistical quirk of the primary voting process) so I'm voting Clinton/Obama." Like, the majority of Dems who actually talk about the issues want him, but think he's not electable because no one else wants him. Yeah, umm... you folks need to get together on this one.

I think I like them less-to-more in that order, but I really have no idea what their positions are. Which is great, because I'll probably end up casting a third-party protest vote again anyway. The system works!

I live in MA, so a lot of folks are calling the nomination for Romney (someone even called the election for him yesterday). Not sure how it looks outside his home state.

Seriously, though, anyone who can elaborate on the differences in the platforms between the Dems would be awesome. Because I can't fucking tell. "I say your three and a half cent titanium tax doesn't go too far enough!"

she can attract a strong base Democrate vote, but only a very few independents

As a registered Independent who usually votes however-I-damn-feel-like it, without regard for political parties (which are the real chancre/cancer/canker), I can tell you firmly that I will never vote for Hillary. Obama or Edwards, maybe, if they really dazzle me. But our first female president is going to have to be someone with integrity class and character or else she'll also be the last for quite some time.

Sorry to be so bristly, but I really hate national politics the same way and for the same reasons I hate professional sports. No offense intended.

I love reading the right-wing blogs (Redstate and such) today and read their fuming frustration with Huckabee's win. He seems to be the last person (other than Paul) that they want to win the nomination. The Republicans are perfectly happy to take votes from redneck hillbillies but aren't too thrilled about the idea of having one actually want to take power.

Rudy G came in behind Ron Paul. I guess 9/11 doesn't have much of a shelf life anymore.

G. didn't really participate in Iowa at all. He withdrew from the caucus, although he could still technically register votes. Iowa doesn't matter all that much for a candidate who polls strong nationally.

It's interesting that a few MeChazens say they would rather vote for a rabid dog than vote for Huckabee. I feel the same way about Romney. He's oily and two-faced, and I don't fall for it. I've been watching his career since he won in Massachusetts, and I honestly can't respect a man whose opinion changes so drastically as his market changes.

I'm going to keep my mouth firmly shut about Sen. Clinton, or this will devolve into an argument on gender politics. Suffice to say that it's rather telling that her strongest demographic is women who are old enough to have read "The Feminine Mystique".

Put me down on the rabid-dog list. All the triangulation and racing-to-the-middle and whatnot just strikes me as unprincipled. I'll vote for a pro-death-penalty Christian right after I vote for an anti-abortion libertarian.

Even aside from that, Huckabee's a crook--and, maybe worse, an idiot. The gift registry? Wayne Dumond? Denying the Arkansas Times access to his press office? Plus Huckabee's son tortured a dog to death, and have you heard the argument about Huck's weight loss being a scam? It remains to be seen, I suppose, whether the national media picks up on any of these stories. If 1992 is any indication, though, I won't hold my breath.

I think that the only candidate Huckabee could beat in a national election is Clinton.

re: Huckabee. I don't think that Huckabee is viable outside the bible belt and will not be the nominee.

This polling data from MSNBC is interesting:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21228177

I find the religion questions most telling. Huckabee got the conservative Christians in Iowa out to vote. They like his message. They like him as a guy.

And the other notable things is only 8% of Republicans polled think Huckabee has a chance of winning in November.

Also, on Wapo, it is interesting to learn that the employement rate in Iowa is 127.8%. I don't know why illegal immigration is such a hot button issue to Republicans if they are not enough people in the state to do all the jobs. I'd think they'd welcome more workers with open arms.

(other intersting note on the Wapo page is I'm seeing a Mike Bloomberg ad on this page. Now why would a guy not running for pres, buy adwords election issues? I clicked on the ad, and he's into shit like education, healthcare and banning illegal weapons. Of current and former NYC mayors, I'd much rather see Bloomberg running the show.)

Reading this morning about a conversation on Hillary's plane. That they have some real dirt on Obama, and intend to make HIM the focus, as Hillary was the focus in Iowa.

Even though I would vote for her, if my primary was not so late as to make my vote worthless, I would rather see her lose on the high road then win in the mud.

I just started to try and research and compile a quick list of differences among the top 3 candidates, but immediately realized that was silly because:

a) plenty of journalists are getting paid to do it,
b) I am supposed to be at work today,
c) all info is available/searchable online with search strings like "democratic +candidate +comparison +2008), and
d) there will be a Democratic debate tomorrow night which I'm sure will continue to highlight their differences.

One of the things I'm going to be saying to people all through primary season is that you need to do your own work if you care about your vote. Saying vague things like "I'm just not seeing anyone I like" is a cop-out. You want to know who to vote for? Read their platforms. You don't think candidates 'talk about the issues?' their platforms and voting records are about nothing but issues. They already talk about the issues. It's we who have to talk about the issues, and we usually fail to do so, because most people haven't even sought any information about the issues.

But the fact that they are not that different is not a huge sticking point for me. They're all Democrats. Positions vary in subtle but important ways on things like gay rights, family planning, health care, Social Security policy, civil liberties and things like that. But what that means to me is that, since they are fairly well aligned on the major issues, the decision will need to be made by all who vote Democratic on the 'softer' qualities of each. Leadership is an art, and it does not just consist of policies. The policies have to be ones you support, but the ability of a leader to galvanize support, collect smart and knowledgeable staff, and bring good judgement to bear are important, as well. It's this latter category of characteristics that's coming into play in the Democratic choice.

Below is as far as I got.

Obama/Clinton/Edwards differences on the Iraq War:
Hillary: voted to authorize use of force, since decided that was a mistake, plans to limit deployment numbers immediately and continue working with Iraqi government. Declines to set withdrawal date arguing that it cannot be known and that we will be there a long time.
Edwards: Authorized use of force, now says vote is a mistake, plans to withdraw all troops by end of 2008.
Obama: Opposed war, did not vote to authorize. Plans phased withdrawal with all combat troops withdrawn by early 2009, working with Iraqi government on setting benchmarks.

it is interesting to learn that the employement rate in Iowa is 127.8%. I don't know why illegal immigration is such a hot button issue to Republicans if they are not enough people in the state to do all the jobs. I'd think they'd welcome more workers with open arms.

2008's Illegal Immigration is 2000 and 2004's gay marriage - it's a false issue meant to mobilize the voting public.

I'm making a casual prediction for the fall...

Edwards versus McCain.

Obviously, don't hold me to it, but I can see it happening.

Edwards: Authorized use of force, now says vote is a mistake, plans to withdraw all troops by end of 2008.

Either that's a typo, or he's got a time machine someplace, since if he won he'd take office in January 2009.

I don't know what a plan for a "Vietnamization" -type pullout would look like, but I can't imagine a timeframe of much less than about six months to extricate all the troops except the Marine embassy guards.

My early guess for the last couple weeks has been an Obama/Huckabee matchup, but then, I still have trouble believing Bob Kerry lost New Hampshire to Bill Clinton in '92.

I'm thinking Obama/McCain.

It's a typo.

I'm deeply ambivalent about an Iraq pullout plan - extended occupation with a view toward stabilization partially developed via US presence, or immediate withdrawal, letting the chips fall where they may, which I'm sure will mean violence, more deaths of innocents, and the splintering of the tenuous Iraqi governance coalition into factions.

I read the news last night and my roommate opened a bottle of champagne. The cat didn't quite understand why we were dancing around the living room, but hey, she's too young to vote anyways!

Big win and a nice speech from Obama. I think he'll get the nomination if he wins in New Hampshire. I'm not counting Clinton out, but she's in trouble if she doesn't win there. Edwards had a surprisingly strong second-place finish, but I don't think it's enough to go the distance.

Obama and Edwards' first- and second-place finishes could be a sign of the appeal of a more progressive movement. Obama/Edwards would be a strong ticket, but I don't think Edwards is interested in being VP.

Richardson, the most qualified/boring candidate, would make an excellent secretary of state.

The Republicans = a study in moppishness.

The media likes McCain, and some people are saying "we are stunned by the extent of the McCain comeback." What comeback? Dude finished in fourth place behind a sleepwalking Fred Thompson.

All of the liberal justices on the Supreme Court are over retirement age, and Stevens has death on speed dial, so I'll be voting for whoever the Democratic nominee is.

kirkaracha: Why don't you think Edwards is interested in being VP? I know Gore proved that it's no easy route to the presidency, but is there a better option? Certainly not being a senator again. A governship would make sense, but it's probably a big risk to try for the NC job and I don't think he could go after another state.

This brings up a topic I've been thinking about--will the Democratic nominee pick a young star as VP to generate youthful excitement or will they pick an elder statesperson to bring credibility to the ticket? I suppose Clinton would go with the former choice and Obama or Edwards the later. But I'd really like to see Obama or Edwards go with whichever one doesn't get the nomination or someone like Russ Feingold.

"we are stunned by the extent of the McCain comeback."

Am I wrong that McCain didn't even CAMPAIGN in Iowa? I thought that both The G-Man and McCain decided not to devote any resources there. In that case, a fourth-place finish ahead of the dude whose spent several months campaigning there is considered a victory, especially since he's forcasted to do well in NH.

Yes, politics is screwed up,

Between Miko, Birdherder and Stillicho, it looks like all of my comments on this thread have already been made for me. Thanks guys.

Edwards ran for president in 2004, then IMO ran a half-hearted campaign as Kerry's VP. It seemed like he disappeared after the convention, and his performance in the debate against Cheney was pathetic. Based on his 2004 performance and the positioning he's done since, I don't get the impression he wants to be the #2 guy. It'd be great if I'm wrong.

Forget Edwards for NC governor. He couldn't win as dogcatcher here.

Agreed on the "doing one's own research" point, Miko. But everywhere I turn, news outlets only discuss "the platform" without delving into what that platform is. It turns into a sort of MacGuffin, like the suitcase from Pulp Fiction. "Their platforms differ on certain key issues." How? Tell me HOW, NYTimes, you supposed bastion of journalistic something-or-other.

That's why I'm looking for summaries like yours, from people I trust to be somewhat disinterested if not dispassionate.

Part of it is also that this stuff makes me want to projectile vomit in red, white, and blue, so no, I haven't been digging as deeply as I could.

I hear you, Eideteker. But it's really not that hard, taken in small doses. Each candidate has a website and their platforms are there.

I was thinking of posting all the candidate website links for this very reason, but haven't gotten around to it. Today I was also reminded of VoteSmart, which was really helpful in the 04 election. Good, nonpartisan information and comparison there.

Like, I learned that one of Hillary's favorite books is Clan of the Cave Bear. I wouldn't have guessed that...

Edwards won't run as #2 twice. He compromised on some positions with Kerry and fumed about it, and I don't see Obama really being much different in that regard. Barack will need someone with "experience", though, the CW will say, if he is the nominee.

Feingold kinda pledged to serve out his term in the Senate (I'm from his hometown, and ... his brother is my lawyer). I don't think he's interested for a variety of reasons. You never know, though -- and there's always the cabinet. He would make a fantastic AG.