quote:

John Edwards has an amazing chance thanks to the way the Democrat Primaries have been arranged this time out.
The Iowa Caucus is first and in early polling Edwards is ahead of Obama (27-17) and Clinton (27-16) despite their higher profiles, although the outside challenge will come from Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack who may sneak a second in his home state. Edwards has done a huge amount of groundwork in the state over the past couple of years and he will be there or thereabouts.
Then they head to Nevada for it's Caucus where Clinton really suffers at the hands of not just Edwards and Obama but from another contender - New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson.
Then it's up to New Hampshire where Clinton will do well but Obama's star-status in the north-east will mean he takes victory there with Edwards pushing Clinton for second place.
The last of the opening four elections takes place in South Carolina. Again, Clinton should suffer there at the hands of Edwards and Obama. South Carolina being the state Edwards was born in (he still has a strong southern lilt to his voice) and North Carolina the state he was elected Senator to. It's hard to say who will win there out of Edwards and Obama, a lot may depend on the black vote, but I would plump for Edwards. My gut feeling about the results of the opening Primaries are:

Iowa: 1.Edwards 2.Obama 3.Clinton/Vilsack
Nevada: 1.Edwards 2.Richardson 3.Obama/Clinton
New Hampshire: 1.Obama 2.Clinton 3.Edwards
South Carolina: 1.Edwards 2.Obama 3.Clinton

I can't see Clinton winning any of the opening four which will seriously dent her bid and hand momentum (and money) to the Edwards and Obama campaigns. My personal choice would be Gore/Edwards but I can't see Al running. Edwards would be my second choice but I think Obama will get the nomination and will name Edwards as his VP. If Edwards wins it I think he will pick Obama. Either way I can't see any of the Republican candidates beating them. Hopefully.

One final thought - I can't help but fall in love with the Edwards campaign when you hear his campaign slogan: John Edwards 08 - Tomorrow begins today.

http://johnedwards.com/

quote:

ORIGINAL: Barefoot Doctor

I feel like I don't know what any of these candidates stand for. Sure they all have general platforms but do they have any substantive policies?
 
LB, do you live in America? I'd be pretty excited if I did due to the grassroots aspect surrounding the election, it'd be great to get involved. Not a lot we can do from over here though!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Up With People

Edwards links to Big 'Law', (He was a personnal injury lawyer himself, and most of his major backers made his money the same way) will hurt him.
It's really to early to say but Obama and Clinton both look very strong. Clinton carries a lot of weight with fundraisers and within the Party. Plus her warchest is already massive. Money counts.
Obama has the rock star thing going on. If he's smart he can make his lack of experience an advantage. Approval ratings for the last congress was in the teens, he paints himself as washington stranger he could be on to a winner.

For the Pubbies, Romney is self destructing, he wanted the support of the religous right but his previous softness on homosexuality and mormonism will leave hime nowhere. Brownback will probably end up being their voice. McCain I think will be hampered by Iraq and his age. Guillani would be very tough to beat in the national, but may not make it through the primaires because of his Pro-gay, Pro-choice positions. Also he is a little unstable.

As I say it's wide open and at this point we're really just pissing in the wind.

I'd like Obama to get it though.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

I have a feeling Clinton won't get it. The problem with being the front runner is that there is only one other direction to go...down. Look at Howard Dean last time. Obama has momentium, he's a political superstar in the States. Between him and Clinton and Edwards none of the other nonimations will get much airtime in the media. However I have a feeling the ticket we will end up seeing is a Edwards/Obama or vice versa. I don't think a Clinton/Obama ticket would work - still too much inherent sexism and racism.Would be great to be proved wrong though.

On the Republican side MacCain has an uphill battle if the new troop surge doesn't help in Iraq. It was an idea he has been putting forward for a while. Guillani has a lot of secrets from his time as new York mayor and will not be able to live off the goodwill brought about by 9-11 (esp after people see how much he charges for giving speeches about it).

The Democrats are actully in a pretty good position - they have at least three very high profile nominees while the Repulicans have two moderates as their frontrunners - which will damage the realtionship with the extreme right.

It is really anybodys guess at the moment- how many people would have predicted Kerry as running in 2004? That said, im sticking my flag in the Obama camp - one of the few people that voted against the war. And to folk that say he is inexperinced and too young, well it aint as if the old guys have been much use, and I can't see what experience Bush has had.

In the end im just glad we are starting to move away from one of the worst presidents in the modern age - not only for the what he has done internationally but also how he has created huge divisons in his nation - not since Nixon has someone done so much damage - and even he managed to start talks with China!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Woger

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

I have a feeling Clinton won't get it. The problem with being the front runner is that there is only one other direction to go...down. Look at Howard Dean last time. Obama has momentium, he's a political superstar in the States. Between him and Clinton and Edwards none of the other nonimations will get much airtime in the media. However I have a feeling the ticket we will end up seeing is a Edwards/Obama or vice versa. I don't think a Clinton/Obama ticket would work - still too much inherent sexism and racism.Would be great to be proved wrong though.

On the Republican side MacCain has an uphill battle if the new troop surge doesn't help in Iraq. It was an idea he has been putting forward for a while. Guillani has a lot of secrets from his time as new York mayor and will not be able to live off the goodwill brought about by 9-11 (esp after people see how much he charges for giving speeches about it).

The Democrats are actully in a pretty good position - they have at least three very high profile nominees while the Repulicans have two moderates as their frontrunners - which will damage the realtionship with the extreme right.

It is really anybodys guess at the moment- how many people would have predicted Kerry as running in 2004? That said, im sticking my flag in the Obama camp - one of the few people that voted against the war. And to folk that say he is inexperinced and too young, well it aint as if the old guys have been much use, and I can't see what experience Bush has had.

In the end im just glad we are starting to move away from one of the worst presidents in the modern age - not only for the what he has done internationally but also how he has created huge divisons in his nation - not since Nixon has someone done so much damage - and even he managed to start talks with China!

Obama wasn't around to vote I think, so I suppsoe he can say he didn't support the war, unlike the other spinless tools.

quote:

Obama Speaks Out Against War - Oct. 2002
I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil.
I don't oppose all wars. My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil.
I don't oppose all wars. After September 11, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again.
I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne. What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income, to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.
That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.
Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power.... The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him. But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors...and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.
I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.
I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars. So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure that...we vigorously enforce a nonproliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.
Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LB Jeffries

quote:

ORIGINAL: Woger

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

I have a feeling Clinton won't get it. The problem with being the front runner is that there is only one other direction to go...down. Look at Howard Dean last time. Obama has momentium, he's a political superstar in the States. Between him and Clinton and Edwards none of the other nonimations will get much airtime in the media. However I have a feeling the ticket we will end up seeing is a Edwards/Obama or vice versa. I don't think a Clinton/Obama ticket would work - still too much inherent sexism and racism.Would be great to be proved wrong though.

On the Republican side MacCain has an uphill battle if the new troop surge doesn't help in Iraq. It was an idea he has been putting forward for a while. Guillani has a lot of secrets from his time as new York mayor and will not be able to live off the goodwill brought about by 9-11 (esp after people see how much he charges for giving speeches about it).

The Democrats are actully in a pretty good position - they have at least three very high profile nominees while the Repulicans have two moderates as their frontrunners - which will damage the realtionship with the extreme right.

It is really anybodys guess at the moment- how many people would have predicted Kerry as running in 2004? That said, im sticking my flag in the Obama camp - one of the few people that voted against the war. And to folk that say he is inexperinced and too young, well it aint as if the old guys have been much use, and I can't see what experience Bush has had.

In the end im just glad we are starting to move away from one of the worst presidents in the modern age - not only for the what he has done internationally but also how he has created huge divisons in his nation - not since Nixon has someone done so much damage - and even he managed to start talks with China!

Obama wasn't around to vote I think, so I suppsoe he can say he didn't support the war, unlike the other spinless tools.

Your right he wasn't around to vote as he didn't become a Senator until 2004. But he was a State Senator in Illinois when the war started and he spoke out against it on the record:

quote:

Obama Speaks Out Against War - Oct. 2002
I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil.
I don't oppose all wars. My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil.
I don't oppose all wars. After September 11, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again.
I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne. What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income, to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.
That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.
Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power.... The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him. But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors...and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.
I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.
I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars. So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure that...we vigorously enforce a nonproliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.
Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

Could you honestly see Hillary Clinton giving a speech like that?

quote:

ORIGINAL: directorscut

Barack Obama will not get the nomination. Americans will not vote a man named Barack Obama into the White House. He should change his name to John Smith if he wants to stand a chance.

quote:

ORIGINAL: directorscut

Barack Obama will not get the nomination. Americans will not vote a man named Barack Obama into the White House. He should change his name to John Smith if he wants to stand a chance.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vertigo...Woo.Yay.

quote:

ORIGINAL: directorscut

Barack Obama will not get the nomination. Americans will not vote a man named Barack Obama into the White House. He should change his name to John Smith if he wants to stand a chance.

Ultimately, I think the majority of America aren't stupid enough to let his name get in the way.

Although twice recently, the Fox News chyron has mentioned 'Barack Osama' by "mistake"...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Up With People

quote:

ORIGINAL: directorscut

Barack Obama will not get the nomination. Americans will not vote a man named Barack Obama into the White House. He should change his name to John Smith if he wants to stand a chance.

Yes, because all 300 million Americans are inherently racist and stupid.
Or is that you?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vertigo...Woo.Yay.

quote:

ORIGINAL: directorscut

Barack Obama will not get the nomination. Americans will not vote a man named Barack Obama into the White House. He should change his name to John Smith if he wants to stand a chance.

Ultimately, I think the majority of America aren't stupid enough to let his name get in the way.

Although twice recently, the Fox News chyron has mentioned 'Barack Osama' by "mistake"...

quote:

ORIGINAL: lbiu

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vertigo...Woo.Yay.

quote:

ORIGINAL: directorscut

Barack Obama will not get the nomination. Americans will not vote a man named Barack Obama into the White House. He should change his name to John Smith if he wants to stand a chance.

Ultimately, I think the majority of America aren't stupid enough to let his name get in the way.

Although twice recently, the Fox News chyron has mentioned 'Barack Osama' by "mistake"...

Fox News are hilarious.....they have done it sooo many times it's become a joke.
Personally I need to hear a little more about each candidate before I start a rooting team.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mfj fratelli

It's interesting that you guys show more enthusiasm about US elections than most Americans do. I wish I had that much passion for UK elections. Unfortunately, I'm an indifferent son-of-a-bitch.

Just out of curiosity, did most of you show this much enthusiasm before Bush was elected? Or have you always had an interest in the Geo-Political affairs of the US of A!  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mycroft

It's just one massive crazy power game to play along with, sheer madness trying to influence people throughout such a huge and varied country, one giant soap opera of non-issues and mudslinging.

And don't worry, no-one has passion for UK elections 

quote:

ORIGINAL: directorscut

quote:

ORIGINAL: Up With People

quote:

ORIGINAL: directorscut

Barack Obama will not get the nomination. Americans will not vote a man named Barack Obama into the White House. He should change his name to John Smith if he wants to stand a chance.

Yes, because all 300 million Americans are inherently racist and stupid.
Or is that you?

Please don't turn the meaning of my post, especially to something as serious as racism. This is simply the state of affairs in America. There is nothing racist or stupid with wanting to vote in Mr. Joe America. A lot of people want to keep tradition and do not handle change easily. I doubt we're going to see a similar name being voted as Prime Minister or Taoiseach any time soon either.