Damn interesting night. Obama basically ensured himself a place on the ticket. He is either going to win the nom, or he will be tapped for VP. Obama is a fucking Rock Star right now, fo shiz, fo sheez. The JFK point is a good one I think Baha. Very inspirational, and I think with his win in Iowa, he will get a lot more people to believe. The again, now he gets to to see how it is to be the leader of the pack. Hillary was in a tough position basically being at the front the whole time. I don't think last night was a huge blow for her. She's got smart people, and she knows what it will take in the next few weeks. I think the big loser for the Dems is Edwards. He put everything he had into Iowa, and his type of message seems made for the Caucus, but he also suffers from "I've heard all of this before". He didn't deliver one state to Kerry in 2004, so I think he is dunzo for 2008, but stranger things have happened.
Hillary's strategy will be interesting. She has to go after Obama, but if she is too dirty, audacity of hope wins. Not sure if Obama would tap her for VP, or if she would accept. I think Hillary would tap Obama. If I were Obama, I would probably go for Chris Dodd, who did a great job, but was going against too many heavyweights.
As for the Goopers, Huckabee is good news for Guiliani because it spreads the Jesus lovers out, and it spreads Romney's money out as well. Huckabee's record as governor is going to come out more, and it won't stand well with the fiscal conservatives. Iowa and New Hampshire are strange places where crazy shit can happen, but I don't see him benefitting from the Iowa momentum in the same way as Obama. I think Iowa voted him in because he was the most sincere about dropping loads of farm subsidies all over the place.
PS I missed this:
Quote
tliet'How Bush became a government unto himself'
Bush has issued 1100 signing statements -- almost twice as many as all previous presidents put together -- often completely reversing the intended effect of legislation. For example, when Congress voted overwhelmingly to ban torture, Bush announced that this would "make it clear to the world that this government does not torture." Two weeks later, he added a signing statement to the bill that allowed him to ignore it.
God, I really don't see why people are so up in arms over this. Signing statements have increased in frequency with Bush, but they have increased in frequency with every presidential administration since Reagan. I think it is every right as a president to implement the laws as they see fit. That is part of the job of the fucking executive branch. Signing statements don't mean the next president has to interpret or enforce the law in the same way. Wow, a study that shows a task force put together by a bunch of lawyers thinks that Bush is full of shit. How is that supposed to be news? What if some Evangelicals convened a blue ribbon task force that stated Darwin was full of shit? Doesn't meant that it is true. It's like if signing statements were taken away, somehow Bush would be reigned in somehow.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/04/2008 09:16PM by Mokers.