Obama is your candidate? OK then, welcome to 4 years of President Huckabee

[Harper_is_Bush]

Mark my words, that will be the result if Obama gets the nod.

[Mythsaje]

1. Oh, Gawd. Not even

There's no evidence of that at all.

I'm an Edwards supporter and I loathe that sort of talk. Assumes facts not in evidence. Pure conjecture based on little more than blatant racism.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JDPriestly]

26. Edwards' analysis is correct. This election is about change,

and Hillary is not really about change. That leaves Obama and Edwards. Check out Obama's past. There are a lot of unusual things there. And there are a lot of things that he doesn't really talk about. He is a great guy, but he may not be electable at this time.

He needs to deal with the some of the facts about his family, about Madelyn and Stanley Dunham and his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham. What does he say about them in his books? I have not read his books.

[creeksneakers2]

86. Hillary would change lots of things. n/t

[stevietheman]

131. Yes, lots more change in the pockets of greedy corporations. n/t

n/t

[ingac70]

3. No way the corporate whores in the GOP....

would let Huck be Pres. NO WAY.

[Common Sense Party]

4. Highly doubtful.

Most of the Republican base cannot stand the guy (Huckabee). He won't be around much longer.

It could wind up being McCain. And Obama looks young and energetic and positive (without having and specific, concrete vision), while McCain looks old, tired and cranky (with no vision).

[Harper_is_Bush]

6. Well then 4 more years (at least) of rightwing government, WHOEVER it is.

The point is Obama can't win.

[ingac70]

7. He's certainly more apt to win than Hillary! n/t.

[Emit]

10. Why not?

On edit, is your reasoning akin to this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=2576908

[Common Sense Party]

11. I disagree. I don't even like the guy, but I recognize that he can

beat most of the likely Repuke candidates.

What on earth makes you so sure that Obama would go down in crushing defeat to the Repubs?

[lapfog_1]

12. The raw numbers from Iowa are against you.

Iowa is hardly a solid blue state... and yet our top THREE all beat their top guy. Each. Think about that.

[Common Sense Party]

18. Well, I wouldn't make too big a deal out of that alone.

We had a three-way race. The top 3 Democratic each scored in the double digits. The fourth-place finisher had only 2%.

The Repukes are in disarray ight now. They don't know who they want. They had FIVE of their candidates post in the double digits. So the support is more spread out.

[lapfog_1]

30. Wow... reread what I posted.

Raw number of votes.

Democrats showed up almost two to one compared to repukes. In Iowa.

Not New York or California or somewhere. Iowa.

Hillary got more raw votes than Huckabee. And she finished third to two other Democrats.

For Huckabee to win Iowa in the general, not only would he have to get all of the Republican vote but attract a huge percentage of Independents and Democrats away from Obama. And the exit poll from the caucus showed just the opposite.

See KO's piece about this on his show from last night. It should be posted around here somewhere.

I'm feeling better and better about any of our candidates against any repuke. With the caveat that I still think Hillary is a lightning rod of winger hatred and will cause a much bigger turnout for repukes in the general. But even WITH that, I still think we win. And I know that a bunch of Hillary supporters will be along shortly to tell me that my gut feeling about that is just soooo wrong. I have no idea why the repukes hate the Clintons so much, but they do... even the conservatives in my family (who might vote for Edwards, possibly even Obama)... so I'm sticking with my gut feel about this.

[leftynyc]

71. Do we know

how many of those democratic voters were actually registered democrats rather than independents or republicans trying to influence the race? Although I agree that any of our top three can probably win in November (especially against Huckabee) I don't think we can discount that there are those that want to make sure our candidate is someone they perceive as being weak.

[lapfog_1]

80. That's tired already

Obama got out the youth vote, something that no one, not Hillary nor the pundits, thought would happen. Are they really college republicans in disguise? I don't think so. And why pick Obama? Hillary would be the natural one for them to run against... see the quotes of Rove and the winger pundits. They can get their base to turn out to vote (for McCain, Rudy, or the Huckster or even Mittens) if they feel that they are voting AGAINST someone. And the person they hate the most is Hillary. Even within my family, there are many Hillary haters, including my sister and brother-in-law (god it's awful to hear them sometimes). But Obama? Edwards? not a peep. Of course, the right wing spin machine has had something like 15 or 16 years now to spew hate and lies about Hillary, and it's had the intended effect. My niece's husband recently told me how Bill Clinton is to blame for Iraq and the price of oil because under Clinton, we sold the Chinese an oil refinery! Holy crap. He isn't very bright, but holy crap. Could they be taught to hate Obama or Edwards in the next 10 months... sure, but they already irrationally hate Hillary. So why stack the deck to get Obama as the Democratic nominee? Doesn't make sense.

[leftynyc]

106. I don't trust the republicans

and some of their minions in the press (certainly talk radio)to bring out every unsourced, ugly rumor there is out there - just like they've done to Hillary. They're experts at it and it's been very effective for them. And I think about the 51% of the morons that voted the chimp in 04. The pubs will appeal to the basest part of them. I wish I had more faith in this country's citizens. Fear has worked too many times for them not to try again. And you're right, it almost doesn't matter who we serve up - the ugliness will happen. Biden was my candidate and I have until 2/5 to make up my mind. It's really very up in the air for me because I love all our top 3. I will pull the lever for any of them enthusiastically.

[earthlover]

82. yeah,,,and I bet you thought they wouldn't get 240000 to caucus in Iowa....

Obama WON in iowa convincingly and brought out a record turnout. We got way more to turn out than the Reps did. Everyone is seeing this as a sign that the Reps are in big trouble.

Obama won in almost every demographic group. the only one he lost in were the seniors.

He won among whites, by the way, too.
Iowa is overwhelmingly white. If Obama can win there, he can win enough states to win the presidency.

[lvx35]

8. Obama vs MCain is a nightmare race.

Seriously, Obamas lack of experience will be super underlined against McCain. I think he could beat Huckabee or Romney though.

[Common Sense Party]

14. Energy and optimism beat crankiness and bad ideas.

I do not think McCain would be as tough as you think.

[lvx35]

17. Energy and optimism win when times are good...

...but trusted experience win when times are bad. If people are feeling nervous at the time of the GE, they are going to want that time tested war vet in the Oval office, not the guy with 3 years experience in national politics.

[Common Sense Party]

22. I dunno. If it were someone else, with the experience, perhaps.

But McCain just looks so old and broken-down.

I agree that Obama's lack of experience will hurt him...but if he offsets that with enough new, young voters and people desiring a change at any cost from the Repubs, then he can overcome that.

[lvx35]

25. That is the wildcard in all this, isn't it?

The crazy way Obama turns out young voters, as he did in Iowa.

[Common Sense Party]

27. Oh yeah. And whether he can continue to do so in other states.

But in a wide-open race like thise, EVERYTHING is wildcard.

Contrary to what the OP from Canada is suggesting, there is NO GUARANTEED WINNER.

Hillary wouldn't have a lock. Edwards doesn't have a lock. Giuliani, McCain, whoever?

To suggest that ANYONE is a guaranteed, surefire, take-it-to-the-bank shoo-in...that's just ludicrous. And so is suggesting that any of the viable top-tier candidates have NO chance whatsoever.

[cali]

36. um. democrats win on the economy- particularly when it's bad

that's a truism because it's true. And Americans are showing overwhelmingly that they want change. Frankly, it's just a piss poor year to be running as a repuke- no matter who you are.

[lvx35]

43. True, but economic bad times aren't the only bad times.

I'm talking about more creepy events in Pakistan, possible military escalations in other parts of the world. I sincerely think in a situation like this we'd want Hillary Against McCain, not Obama. The sense of experience she brings would be enough to counteract McCains considerable military experience and connections.

[cali]

55. when the economy is bad it invariably trumps ALL other issues

and her experience just isn't that great. She didn't even have security clearance in the WH. She has more experience than Obama, but experience isn't the only thing- judgment counts too. And she's doing the fear mongering thing now too. Just ugh.

[lvx35]

68. I thought you were a bit of a Hillary supporter, Cali.

Maybe I was wrong. But Hillary Clinton's experience weighs about 200 pounds and is named Bill Clinton. I'm not a total supporter of her myself, but I could imagine the appeal of having Billary back in if times get really crazy. Obama is a bit of a wildcard with only 3 years experience in federal government.

[earthlover]

84. But hillary can't make an issue of Iraq--she voted for it! Also, give Obama a good VP...

...like Clark....and this would go a long way to strengthen the ticket.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

102. No, good times are when bullshit wedge issues and "guy you can have a beer with" wins

Sunny optimism is the best thing we can have in our candidate in a bad time. It's what got Raygun elected back in '80.

[ingac70]

15. Funny thing though...

The same crackpots that dogged John Kerry are setting up to do the same to John McCain...

http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com/

[lvx35]

20. It'll be a hard sell after them broken bones.

Kerry being smart enough to stay unhurt over there cost him in the theater of idiotic opinion. The fact that McCain had his bones broken may redeem him in the same theater. I don't know, but that's my gut feeling.

[leftynyc]

72. Do you think he can beat Rudy?

While Rudy is sinking in the polls right now, he's incredibly popular in some of the states with the most delegates. He could still walk away with the nomination. Thompson also could manage to win if all the social conservatives abandon Huckabee (they're pissed he's pro immigration) and many are uncomforatable with a Mormon.

[earthlover]

83. I disagree. Hillary also would not have as much experience as McCain

Obama could continue talking about a new direction in response to McCain who, more than anyone, looks old. Advantage Obama.

But what could Hillary do? She doesn't have near the experience of McCain, not by a long shot. But she can't talk about a new direction because she, more than any democrat, represents the old way. Plus the Reps would have a lot of quotes from hillary extoling the virtues of experience that McCain could use against her. Advantage McCain.

[OHdem10]

24. Looks are in the eye of the Beholder

It may be unfair, but some people see Barak as almost a kid.
He is good looking but boyish looking.

McCain will offer a reassuring look. War, handling Pakistan,
handling Iran, Terrorism. Many people believe the next
6 years will have a President all bound up in Foregin Policy

I am only throwing this out to think about.

[Hoof Hearted]

28. A "reassuring look"? Really?

[Common Sense Party]

29. You're not reassured by his calm, patient manner?

[Hoof Hearted]

132. *snort*

Anthony Hopkins as Mr. Ludlow:

*What's goin' on here?*

[killbotfactory]

5. Nope

So there.

[Eurobabe]

9. Just curious, what is your reasoning behind this statement?

Tell me, I'd like to know. I am open-minded to your OP.

I am concerned that whomever gets the nod, if it's a vs. Huckabee race, it could get ugly. I've said many times before, Huckleberry is slick and compassionate - he will appeal to all the same stupid fools who voted for Bush and even more so.

[Harper_is_Bush]

16. Obama is unelectable. n/t

[Common Sense Party]

19. That's not reasoning. That is an opinion.

Reasoning is the thought process and the evidence that leads you to your opinion.

Care to share your reasoning?

[killbotfactory]

21. Good luck with that

The most you'll get from this guy is that Obama is black.

[Common Sense Party]

23. Let me get this straight. This guy from CANADA is telling us who

is unelectable in OUR country?

Am I reading this wrong?

He knows better than WE do who can and "cannot" be elected?

What unadulterated guano.

[Eurobabe]

75. The fact that he cannot even give reasoned answers

shows that this thread is bullshit.

[Caretha]

89. And all the other threads he has posted

stating the same thing. Me thinks he doth protest too much. ;-)

[GirlinContempt]

76. Just because he's stupid

doesn't mean someone from another country can't have an opinion about your elections or offer criticism.

[Common Sense Party]

118. They can have all the opinions they want, but we know our

country better than any foreigner does. I wouldn't dream to spout off about who in Canada is and is not electable. I wouldn't ever presume that I would know that better than the Canadians.

[GirlinContempt]

121. Well then you're doing Canadians a disservice

it's possible to not live in a country and have really good, meaningful ideas about what is happening and what should happen. You shouldn't be afraid to say those things to someone from that country just because you don't live there. (And much of DU spends much of their internet time making comments about other countries politics/elections/etc). You're sounding sort of.... nationalistic. Maybe you don't mean to, but if you do, I'll just say, you can know your country better than anyone in the world and still be blinkered or blinded. You can still miss things someone else might see. At to not be open to the ideas because they don't reside in the country is silly.

[trashcanistanista]

31. Tell that to the masses of American Dems

who came out of the closet last night in below freezing temperatures in a 90% white moderate and very rural state to make Obama a winner. Don't underestimate American voters, look what it did to Hillary. Obama can win and win big. Despite that, I lean Edwards right now.

[Eurobabe]

33. For what reasons?

[VOX]

44. Bullshit, bullshit and bullshit. (It bears repeating, because you keep hammering away at Obama.)

Almost on a daily basis, it now appears.

And you haven't yet made a logical argument to back up your opinion.

[Dorian Gray]

Can you give a more thought out analysis of why you feel this way?

Or are one sentence opinions truly what a new thread should say? You've said this in all the other threads on the subject you've commented on. Don't know why you need to reiterate what you've already said, repeatedly.

[SOS]

105. Really?

Which states that Kerry carried in 2004 will Obama lose?
New York? California?
If Obama can add just one purple state to Kerry's total he wins.
How exactly does that translate into "unelectable"?

[leftynyc]

74. Huckabee is way more openly religious

than the chimp ever was. I think he'll scare the bejeezes out of independents. I think he's their weakest candidate.

[JI7]

13. he was able to get a huge number of new voters out, he matched young voters with seniors

[MalloyLiberal]

32. How dare you say that!

Now Obama supporters are going to imply something about you that is very bad. Sad, but probably true.

[cali]

34. ignorance is not something to be proud of

you don't know that. In fact, anyone with even a scrap of knowledge would know that Obama's chances against huck are fantastic. He beats him in polls. Obama is demonstrating that he can bring new and young voters into the system. The repuke party is floundering, and hucky would divide it. Put down your crystal ball, and stop buying into racism.

[Common Sense Party]

35. You can, too, be proud of ignorance--just be loud and confident

and brook no disagreement.

It works for the * administration. It can work for the OP.

[leftynyc]

78. Huck isn't going to be the candidate

The establishment would arrange an accident before they'd let that happen. That said, the real question is whether the numbers of young voters and independents that Obama would undeniably bring outnumber the racists. To pretend racism isn't there is not helpful. We don't like it and it makes us sick but it's real. And Obama isn't only a black man. If you don't think having Huessin as a middle name hurts, just think back to the fear mongering '04 election. Check out the increase in anti-Muslim vandalism and attacks. Nobody plays dirtier than the pubs - they've proved that over and over again.

[Naturyl]

37. Obama will NOT be my candidate until he

Stops praising Reagan's approach to welfare and puts down the crack pipe that made him say such a senseless thing.

[Common Sense Party]

38. Link, please? n/t

[Naturyl]

39. Right here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2597657

Hopefully (or maybe not so hopefully) the OP can verify a source. If he said it, he is a tool.

[Common Sense Party]

41. Show me where he "praises Reagan's approach to welfare."

Please.

And do you think the welfare system is NOT bureaucratic? You've never tried to apply for SSDI benefits then.

[Naturyl]

48. Um... I've been on SSI for 8 years.

And Obama said that Reagan's complaints about the "liberal welfare state" "contained a good deal of truth."

[Common Sense Party]

112. Complaints are not the same thing as approach. And you cannot

deny that the welfare system is horribly bureaucratic.

[cali]

40. "puts down the crack pipe"?

racist much? And provide a quote for him praising Reagan's approach to welfare, or prove yourself to be just another smear artist. Oh, that's right. You already did that.

[Naturyl]

45. Ugh... I always say "put down the crack pipe"

I've said it about white Republicans countless times.

Thanks for smearing me as racist, though. A smear artist couldn't have done better.

[MalloyLiberal]

47. Get used to it...it's their new tactic as discussed on ObamaGirl.com

Just accuse everyone who doesn't like Obama of being a racist and a Republican!

Funny though that you don't support Obama even though Kucinich says to.

[Naturyl]

49. Kucinich says to support Obama?

I've been away recently... when did that happen?

[MalloyLiberal]

50. He asked people to support Obama in Iowa if he did not become viable.

Which of course, he didn't become viable.

Pissed off a lot of Edwards fans including myself. He still has not explained why he supported Obama over Edwards, beyond being jealous of Edwards stealing his message.

[Naturyl]

57. Yeah, thats what I wasn't getting...

Why not Edwards? He is the progressive choice.

I'd have had to disobey Dennis on that one. :)

[MalloyLiberal]

60. He also was very snippy with Thom Hartmann

Who seems rather fair.

Just very angry, wouldn't answer Thom's questions, nasty.

He also has refused to support the Democratic nominee. And he calls himself a Democratic congressperson. That's fine if you choose not to, but change to an Independent or Green then.

[Naturyl]

63. Well, I kind of agree Kucinich belongs in the Green party

But not because he isn't a real Democrat. On the contrary - because real Democrats don't seem to have any place in the new center-right Democratic party.

But that's just my opinion. Beyond that, I don't get to say who is a "real Democrat" and who isn't. I will support the Democratic nominee because even if it's a DLC sellout, that's still far better than a full-bore Repuke.

[MalloyLiberal]

64. It's a shame, I wish the 30% that supported Edwards would help form a Progressive Democratic Party

[MalloyLiberal]

46. He did provide a quote.

Stop playing the race card. It's getting really old.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2597657

[cali]

52. no he didn't. that quote has no attribution.

no link to anything but something someone wrote on DU.

[MalloyLiberal]

54. Source: THE AUDACITY OF HOPE: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream by BARACK OBAMA

http://wsws.org/articles/2007/feb2007/obam-f14.shtml

Book review.

[cali]

56. I've read the book. I don't recall the quote, but the

book is the opposite of Reaganomics- or Reagan anything. Taking a quote out of context doesn't really prove anything. Furthermore, the source you link to is a laughable rag.

[MalloyLiberal]

59. Don't particularly care.

The quote is taken from the book. For Obama to write anything remotely like that quote, is wrong for a "Democrat" or "liberal".

He is no liberal. There is a reason all the top right wing 'thinkers' and columnists are lining up behind him.

[Naturyl]

61. Bingo. It's not something a progressive says.

An bona-fide economic progressive doesn't even think such things. They don't enter the mind. Obama is in a hurry to get crossover votes and pander rightward, and he's willing to throw the poorest of the poor under the bus to do it. Not good.

Bill Clinton lost a lot of credibility with me for doing the exact same thing, and welfare recipients nationwide got shafted because of it. Best I can tell, Obama is making it clear he is willing to carry on that proud "Democratic" tradition.

[MalloyLiberal]

62. I'm just so tired of it. And people go along with it like it's ok.

It's not. Oh well. The poor don't have a voice anyway, except when Edwards talks about them, and they're silencing him, too. Michael Moore sometimes gives them a voice and probably should do a documentary solely about Poverty.

[Naturyl]

66. That's not a bad idea.

I loved Sicko, but I kind of resented the fact that Moore excluded the uninsured completely. I can only cry so many tears for the insured who are being screwed when there are 40 million who don't even have a chance to be screwed because they have no health care whatsoever. The are beyond screwed - and it's as if no one cares.

It reminds me of this very brief article about poor people, which I wrote for a humor site:

http://theequineschool.org/ged/index.php?title=Poor_people

[VOX]

42. Hucky is gonna take New York? California? Illinois? Minnesota? New Jersey? Oregon? Washington?

Massachusetts? Wisconsin? Etc., etc. There is no way in hell that Hucky's act will fly in those states. Obama -- or any other Democratic candidate -- will take those states, pitted against Hucky or any other member of the very weak GOP hopefuls.

I keep repeating it, but apparently I still need to -- the real question is: Will the corporate right wing allow a fair election in America in November? Or will we have another Ohio and/or Florida?

[MrSlayer]

51. I'm still thinking Guiliani is going to sneak in.

And that Hillary is going to be our candidate after all is said and done. All the big states still favor those two. And we'll be seeing President Rudy even though he'll have no business holding the office. I need something to get me off this negative kick.

[MalloyLiberal]

53. Your man chose to support her....

He could have actually run and done very well. The general election would be no contest, we'd win the south easily with Gen. Clark.

[MrSlayer]

69. I know, I lament it often.

It pains me to see someone I admire so much on the side of someone I admire so little. Just goes to show that even the very best and brightest can make poor choices now and then.

[Eurobabe]

77. Hell no, Rudy is toasted like a marshmellow

[MrSlayer]

81. We'll see.

I hope you're right.

[weeve]

58. Actually ...

Last I checked the secret vote tabulators were still in the hands of private corporations ( just because Diebold changes its name to Premiere, doesn't mean anything's changed ). And we saw how Corporate Media completely covered for them last time. So if they don't want Obama, they won't allow him to win. And if they DO want him, well that's troubling for a whole different set of reasons.

The Corporate Media got rid of the last election's Populist (Dean), and are trying to do the same with Edwards right now ( who came in second again in Iowa ?!? ). They'll continue to shout about how the youth have never been more motivated to vote for change blah blah blah (as in 2004), and then when the Democrat loses they'll marvel at the huge Evangelical turnout, or how racism is unfortunately still alive in America. Mark my words.

I suspect though that the huge Media build-up for Obama is precisely because he really ISN'T a major agent of change ( hence their repeating that he IS , pretty much non-stop ). They'd prefer the Republican , but they'll gladly settle for Obama (or Hillary).

But why should WE settle, just because they want us to? Which is why I'm donating to John Edwards !!

[pointsoflight]

65. You're dead wrong in at least two ways.

First, Obama or Edwards or Clinton will fare will in the General.

Second, no way does Huckabee get the nomination on the republican side.

[donheld]

67. Stupidest thing I've ever heard

:crazy:

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

70. Why don't you keep this stuff in GD:P where sane people can ignore it? n/t

[WilliamPitt]

73. Funniest DU post I've seen in years.

Wow.

I don't even know where to begin. And no, I'm not an Obama booster.

I'll start with how cute it is that you actually think Huckabee has a chance at the GOP nomination. That's priceless.

OK, never mind me.

Wow.

[Eurobabe]

79. Ignore Huckster at your own peril

He's as smarmy as Bush ever was - with speaking abilities. Aw shucks, watch out for Gomer.

[kevinbgoode]

85. I don't believe that at all. . .

And people are rather sick and tired of the fundamentalists dictating things. I think the Huckster has so much dirty laundry to have aired that he will cause a permanent divide in this country.

Yes - there will be some people who won't vote for Obama because of race - but then, aren't those the same supremacists who signed up and are donating to Ron Paul now anyway?

This whole ridiculous idea that, in a country of 300 million people, the only viable candidate for President must be some ugly heterosexual white male disgusts me. Since when is a representative government constantly dominated by 35% of the population?

[JTFrog]

87. Aw, shucks, did someone else sit on your inevitable throne? Pity that. Not. n/t

[Harper_is_Bush]

133. Not at all. I'm not a Clinton booster. Just wise enough to recognize the US is not ready for a

black POTUS.

Pity.

[Voltaire99]

88. So what? We're free to vote as we like.

You can shackle yourself to some miserable lowest common denominator. We're not playing.

And if Huckabee were to win, we'd have the consolation of knowing you're extra miserable.

[MalloyLiberal]

92. It's our country too

Not just yours

Congratulations on 8 more years of Republicans

[Vinca]

90. Huckabee would be the best candidate for us if Obama is the nominee.

A large chunk of the Republican party does not like him. Some are sick of the fundie influence, others are opposed to Huckabee's notion of helping the poor. Some of those Republicans would hold their nose and pull the lever, but more would cross over and vote for Obama. Add in the Indies and Obama could win by a very large margin.

[salin]

91. again?

I think we caught the gist of your thinking on this the last long thread around.

[Nye Bevan]

93. There is absolutely *no way*

that the draft-dodging Governor of a small Southern state with a reputation for philandering and no foreign policy experience can possibly beat the sitting president who liberated Kuwait.

You mark my words.

[salin]

96. philandering?

That's a new one to me. Ethically challenged - now that one I have heard and read about.

[FreeStateDemocrat]

94. The reality of demographics would prove you prophetic. The only way the pukes win is if we do

something stupid like nominate an un-electable candidate like Obama.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

95. I've Marked Your Words...

Unfortunately, they were marked with spit that flew from my mouth after laughing out loud at their utter stupidity.

[Dorian Gray]

97. You are wrong. Mark My Words.

Totally wrong. Huckabee isn't going anywhere, and he will lose steam in New Hampshire and beyond.

I think all of the Democrats can beat Huckabee. The only Republican they might have trouble with is McCain, and that's because he has a lot of Independent Voters support.

(And how does one actually mark ones words? With a red pen?)

[JVS]

98. Huckabee polls so low nationally that he may very well not win the nomination

[spanone]

99. naw

[Laura PourMeADrink]

100. Y ???

[Pachamama]

101. I disagree....I think that if Hillary gets the nod, that President Huckabee or McCain, Giuliani etc

is certain....


I think either Obama or Edwards would make a fine President or Vice President and would win as opposed to Clinton.

But, if I'm being really honest with the situation in the US, the Hillary-hatred and racism in this country is so wide-spread, that perhaps really, only Edwards will prevent a President Huckabee et al.

[Scriptor Ignotus]

103. yea

well, if Obama's win in 96% white Iowa is ignored and all the Republicans and Independants who like Obama are ignored and all the enthusiastic crowds Obama draws are ignored and all the various Huckabees scandals are ignored and the Bush/GOP fatigue that permeates this country is ignored, then yes you might be correct.

[book_worm]

104. man you sure are anti-Obama first with the black man can' be elected crap

and now this. It sure bothers you that an African-American might be our nominee, doesn't it?

[salin]

107. he also has a global warming slam on Obama...

he did this earlier this year (spamming the board with hater posts) against Edwards. Am starting to wonder just what the agenda is.

[bryant69]

108. Thank you mr. DU Poster I was about to make a big mistake

Who should I vote for?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Alexander]

109. You're so obviously not a progressive AT ALL.

Give it up already, at this rate you'll be banned in a week.

[smoogatz]

110. Subtext: On accounta he's a nee-grow.

Who voted this racist concern-troll wankery onto the greatest page, anyway? You losers should be fucking ashamed of yourselves.

[paulk]

111. the Republican establishment

is not going to let Huckabee be their nominee. I mean, really. He makes Bush look like a genius.

[krabigirl]

113. Or President McCain, Romney, etc. (Not sure Huckabee will get nod.)

[salin]

114. Oh, and Edwards has a really big House...

:eyes:

See that you have moved on with your candidate bashing/stalking (in terms of number) threads to another candidate. And weren't you really hostile to the idea of Gore getting into the rac?

It does make me wonder what your agenda really is.

[Alexander]

122. HIB's agenda is obviously racist and counter to what Democrats want.

This little troll has been bothering people for some time now.

At this point, it'll be fun watching the tombstoning.

[salin]

125. given how HIB has an MO

Go after one candidate over and over and over again and with each thread kick it up for days on end, then going after another in the same way... I find it hard not to see or assume an agenda.

[Arugula Latte]

115. Oh, piss off. nt

[Mz Pip]

116. Why?

Because you say so?

Huckabee won't be the candidate.

THe country has had 7 years of what was originally perceived as likable folksiness. I doubt it will go down that path again.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[B Calm]

117. Out of all the candidates, polls show Edwards as the most likely to win

the national election. I agree with the opening post!

[951-Riverside]

119. Harper_is_Bush I take it you are voting for Huckabee.

:)

[Tesha]

124. I'm amazed at how many of the reactions here have been nothing more than knee-jerking.

The original poster's concerns are quite valid, even
if we on DU are "oh so more civilized" than to ever
think that people would vote based on race, gender, or
religion.

This lack of consideration of the realpolitik of the
situation is naive at best and downright self-destructive
at worst.

Tesha

[salin]

126. if the thread were alone - perhaps

but for the longest time this poster has focused on one candidate or another and put up demeaning/bashing threads about that candidate - and kicking the thread for days, then start another one and another one and another one.

there was edwards hair, edwards big house, edwards not using incandescent lightbulbs... then it was all the reasons why folks who wanted gore to get into the race (last summer) thread after thread

So now in short order he has Will People Really vote for a Black man for President (something like that), followed by Obama = President Huckabee, followed by Obama = More Global Warming.

So the reactions you are seeing are knee-jerk, but for a reason. This is just more of the same old HIB - oh I forgot to add how antagonistic the tone of most of the threads are.

[kurth]

120. No Truer Words

[Tesha]

123. I absolutely agree with this.

Full disclosure: I said the same thing about the
gubernatorial race in Massachusetts, turned out
to be wrong, and openly acknowledged that I was
wrong, but for America as a whole, I fully believe
that if we run either Clinton or Obama against
Huckabee, Huckabee wins in a landslide.

And as I said re: Massachusetts, I'll hope to be
proven wrong, but this time I'll bet that I won't
be.

Tesha

[kid a]

127. the most idiotic thing i've seen today...and i've been on GD all morning!!!!!

[JackORoses]

128. what a bitter little man... Sorry the sHill has failed you. Choose an honest candidate next time.

[stevietheman]

129. Nonsense, I would work my arse off and scratch others' eyes out...

to support an Obama candidacy.

My first choice is Edwards, but Obama would make a *fantastic* candidate.

[Neshanic]

130. This is true. You and I will be part of the "told you so" gang.

Disclaimer:

Not racist.Just the nasty little facts that seem to elude people when the crowning achievement of Republick spin that occupies the Oval Office squats right in front of them. Obama will fold like a cheap card table when the republick shit machine starts.

[Minstrel Boy]

134. Sorry to say I agree

In fact, I think Edwards is the only electable Democratic contender in 2008, but most Democrats won't recognize the fact until it's too late. And by then they'll already be saying there's no way to lose in 2012.