Obama & Huckabee Win In Iowa


Ok, so the result of the Iowa Caucus has been announced.

For those who don't know, the Iowa Caucus is a vote taken by party members on possible Presidential candidates; the Iowa polls together with those of New Hampshire provide a (arguably the) major indicator in deciding who shall eventually run as candidates for the two major US political parties (New Hampshire holds it's poll next Tuesday).

Click here for a more in depth explanation of all this madness.

So here are the results:

For the Democrats, Barack Obama has come in first, followed by John Edwards, then Hillary Clinton.

On the Republican side, 'Crazy' Mike Huckabee (check out his groovy bass & patriotic stars'n'stripes strap) came in first on a landslide, with 'Mormon' Mitt Romney a distant second.


So what does this mean? Well, we'll probably lose a few non-runners in the next couple of weeks, but really anything could still happen. It looks like the Republican vote is sticking firmly to the fundamentalist lunatic side of things, with the only sane (and anti-war) candidate- Ron Paul- not really making an appearance.

And it's not looking too good for Hillary, having fallen behind 'Ladies Man' John Edwards, who surely can't be getting that many serious votes. It seems the women of America would rather vote for a 'dish' than a fellow lady. Does this mean that if George Clooney ran he'd win be a mile?

Click for full story

Stumble Delicious Technorati Twitter Facebook

8 comments:

January 4, 2008 at 1:18 PM abookisabookisabook said...

Hey Rob,

Iowa, on the whole, means very little. After all its like half the irish electorate voting for the President of America.

That said I think Obama winning by such a margin is impressive. His voters though were seperated more by age than by sex. The NYT's Caucus blog has some nice numbers on that:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/04/the-women-vote/#more-3647
I like Obama but I think Hillary may well surprise everyone and take New Hamphsire in which case the crowning of Obama will look less certain.


As for Huckabee, he is an appealing candidate for the same reasons as Obama, he is different and a change. He is also a Christian (although perhaps one with views mainstream Christians might find extreme). I think his challenge may falter after New Hamphsire.

So although its defintely been an interesting night I'd say it doesn't yet mean anything is set in stone!

Eoin

January 5, 2008 at 2:53 PM Anonymous said...

Your both insane. Rob Iowa means nothing for the republican party. You have to take into account the two front runners didn’t even show up. Giuliani is a pro choice mayor who has in the past supported gay unions. He was never going to poll well in Iowa. McCain was also never going to give it much of a push he is running a national campaign so it’s the primary’s that will be his hot spots.

Obama did very well there is no doubt but again Clinton is running a national campaign. And Rob to suggest Edwards is a laughable figure is out of this world stupid. Read his policy’s. Read about him and remember he has one thing going for him that neither Obama or Clinton do. He is a white man who only just lost four years ago. If he can make it until Super Tuesday (ie if he does not come third in new Hampshire) he is in with a massive chance so don’t count your chickens. Obama got his remarkable result due to the massive amounts of new voters he was able to draw in. It is doubtful he can do this in 49 more states. After all he spend a massive amount of time and money in New Hampshire.

Rob im not sure if you have been on the fox news site but stay away from it.


Beacon

January 6, 2008 at 11:53 PM Clockwork Rob said...

Edwards' policies are pretty good alright, particularly his environmental ones (although I'd worry about his plan to take "aggressive steps to resolve the (Iran) situation").

He just comes across as a bit of a 'character' particularly in the CNN youtube debate, which partially inspired my referring to him as a 'ladies man'.

Other factors involved in my dubbing him as such include his assertion here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utf4-LPhUz0

that he is the candidate most concerned with womens rights; and also the fact that People magazine voted him 'Sexiest Politician Alive'.

Tee Hee.

I do like him though. Check out this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utf4-LPhUz0

Indulge the conspiracy theorists, treat them with respect, but above all, don't have them tasered and arrested.

I wasn't going to get too much into 'which candidates i like & dislike', but for the record:

I think Huckabee is insane; Clinton's foreign policies seem agressive, and she strikes me as a bit insincere; Giuliani has some good policies but is a smarmy fucker whom i would far from trust; Romney is a joke & doesn't stand a chance; Obama is probably my favorite, although I appreciate the 'inexperience' criticism; Ron Paul seems very good (reminds me of Woody Allen for some reason), but a bit of a gun nut & i can't see him getting republican support; I also like Dennis Kucinich but can't see him going far (too left wing); McCain can be summed up here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg

and i do like Edwards, i'd be more than happy if he made it to the white house. Though at the moment suspect that if he does so it'd be on the vice-president ticket he missed out on with Kerry.

Roll on Super-Tuesday..

January 7, 2008 at 10:20 PM abookisabookisabook said...

Rob,

Clinton seems aggressive!

Obama practically declared war unilaterally on Pakistan. Now whatever about the two wars, America is already fighting in that region, Pakistan has nukes and that would be a bad idea!

Otherwise your round up of the relative qualities seems pretty good in my mind! On balance I'd choose Clinton or if she is not a candidate, Obama and failing that probably Mccain.

Eoin

January 8, 2008 at 3:25 AM Clockwork Rob said...

"Obama practically declared war unilaterally on Pakistan."

Woh, i missed that- can you link me to something on it? That's rather alarming...

January 8, 2008 at 11:36 AM abookisabookisabook said...

here ya go:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/08/sparks-fly-over.html

Quite ballsy of him but totally foolish!

In contrast here is Clinton's much more reasoned ideas for how to deal with fighting terrorism in Pakistan:
http://www.wmur.com/video/14986826/index.html


In fact you might be interested to see more of that debate in New Hampshire the other day, complete with audience reaction:
http://www.wmur.com/realtimeresponse/index.html

Eoin

January 8, 2008 at 2:00 PM Clockwork Rob said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
January 8, 2008 at 2:01 PM Clockwork Rob said...

Thanks Eoin!

I see what you mean, Obama has a tendency (as Hillary accuses him) of just saying what he feels, like in his 'immediate pull out of Iraq' comments which Clinton took odds with.

Her plan for Pakistan as outlined in the second link seems quite reasonable, but at the same time she seems to be making policies for Pakistan itself rather than for America, and generally strikes me as a continuation of the whole 'police the world' thing that they really need to move away from.

Also, bear in mind Obama does say he'd go in IF the Pakistani government fail to support the action, implying that his first approach would be diplomatic. I may just be being naive, but I think he's covering his bases and trying to sound like he could act if he had to.

The last site you linked is a great one, and it lead me to this clip

http://www.wmur.com/video/14986826/index.html

in which Obama makes one of the most refreshingly sensible comments I've heard from a candidate yet- that America & Russia need to start disposing of their own nuclear weapons before they have the right to dictate if other countries should have them or not.

That might have been the comment that sealed it for me!