January 6, 2008 5:51 PM GMT
Well, with the first results in, I guess it's time for an update. Again its only my opinion, for what it's worth, as someone far removed from the American political process. Despite his victory in Iowa I don't think Mike Huckabee has much staying power. The support of the evangelicals is all well and good but it lacks crossover appeal. It's not wise in a democracy to be too closely associated with any one particular interest group. I think the lessons of recent history have been well learned. Also, he seems to be a man with a facade that will crumble under closer scrutiny. I understand he is a Baptist Minister so undoubtedly he is a good speaker but that as we know can hide a thousand sins. I was glad he beat Romney, however. He's too slick, too corporate. He is also a Mormon. I would never prevent people from holding certain views or practising their faith, but that's not to say I won't question them. I would never vote for, Romney. If my only justification for not doing so is the fact that he is a Mormon then I have to own up to my prejudice. Guiliani is playing a dangerous game in waiting, just waiting until the larger States vote in the primaries. If someone does build up a momentum in the meantime he could become the forgotten man of the race before it has even really started. Let's hope so. Which leads us to John McCain, who not so long ago was virtually written off, by me amongst others. He has run for the nomination before of course, maybe he has learned some valuable lessons. His continuing support for the war in Iraq sticks in the craw, however. Ron Paul is an internet sensation apparently, but his polling is 6% or thereabouts. So where do you go with this, Ron? Have the courage to run as an Independent. If you really believe in what you are saying, and much of what you say is good and worth fighting for, then go for it. It's not about you, it is about your country and those people who put their faith in you, and have contributed money to your campaign, some I'm sure, who could ill afford to do so. Fred Thompson, who seemed to be nominated to run by popular demand has repaid that support with inertia. With only goes to show that celebrity does not equate to substance. You may as well withdraw now and stop wasting everyones time. To sum up I would say it is slightly edging towards, John McCain. You're welcome to disagree of course. I'm just an English girl, after all. What do I know lol.
The race for the Democratic nomination is a fascinating one. Are we witnessing the start of an unstoppable Obama bandwagon or is just a flash in the pan. There is a strong element of novelty in his candidacy. He is young, black, and relatively new to politics. And it is the latter that could still be his Achilles heel. Hilary is right to keep highlighting his lack of experience. It didn't work in Iowa but don't be surprised if she bounces back in a big way. Americans will be electing to office the most powerful man or woman in the world. We live in very unstable times and people may well vote for a steady hand even if they have to hold their nose when doing so. Sometimes it truly is better the Devil you know. I will be sticking with, John Edwards. His problem is that those who are looking for the candidate for change may well now be thinking, Obama. I admit that I think he is attractive and quite fancy him actually but my support is not based on that and never would be. I like his message, I like the fact that he comes from a relatively modest background and I admire the courage of his wife. It is a shame that Joe Biden and Chris Dodd had to withdraw so early. I also like the message of Dennis Kucinic but it appears that he will soon be forced out of the race. I'm making no predictions on this one. But I'm sure Hilary remembers how her husband lost the first five primaries. I have to say what a wonderful thing the idea of the caucus is, but I don't think we should get over-excited about the results. The small number of those involved and the openness and informality of the voting mitigates against it. Now I will see if I can find the most recent debates on the internet.
January 9, 2008 4:27 PM GMT
I suppose I could take some credit here for predicting the great Hillary Clinton comeback. It was no surprise to me that she won the New Hampshire Primary: and I would gladly blow my own trumpet if I though I had been particularly prescient. However, it seemed glaringly obvious to me for the reasons I stated in my previous post. When people say they want 'change' they don't actually mean change. Not when that means re-writing the Constitution or adopting a planned economy, which is real change. So it is easy for the young to be enthused by the prospect of change, but the older and more mature amongst the populace will not vote for it. Why? Because they have responsibilities. Change for the majority of those who actually vote equates to a more equitable tax system, a stable economy, lower interest rates, greater access to healthcare, security at home and in the workplace, better education for their children, and clean and transparent politics. Bread and butter issues perhaps but overwhelmingly important to most people. What we seek in a Government is fairness, honesty and efficiency. And an Institution that reflects the moral values of those it purports to represent. So there is a tendency to vote for various forms of the status quo. Stability in Government as in life is all important. As I've said previously better the devil you know. So I'm not at all surprised Hillary won. I am only surprised that the so-called experts and pundits were. I think it is a classic case of not seeing the wood for the trees. It is likely that Obama will bounce back to a degree in in South Carolina but I think the result in New Hampshire has stripped bare the rhetoric somewhat. It is an unfortunate result for John Edwards, who could have done with seeing Clinton's campaign further derailed. He would have stood a chance in a straight face-off with Obama, but the likelihood is that his bid for the nomination will now be squeezed.
John McCain's victory was a little more predictable. He won there in 2000 and New Hampshire apparently has the highest percentage of veterans in the U.S. Also his stubborn refusal to backtrack on his believes, in a field where some of the candidates have been doing double somersaults, and his tendency to look you in the eye and answer the question, is quite endearing. And will quite possibly be his downfall.
I believe George Bush snr, once said he didn't do the vision thing. Recent years have witnessed challenges to our values and horrors perpetrated upon our way of life. Our reaction to this, though perhaps understandable, has not always been sensible or wise. Maybe, this is not the time for visions or indeed change but rather moderation and common sense in Government. So much more to say - but don't worry - I'II be back!
January 9, 2008 6:34 PM GMT
Hillary - Obama this will go back and forth for the entire primary cycle. A very tight race and will be hard to call. If Obama does become President would that make the US an Obama-Nation?
I would not have predicted Mc Cain winning in NH especially after his appearance on "Meet the Press" this past Sunday. On that show he said two things that I thought would make him slide down the polls.
1. When asked if he knew the everything we know about the Iraq war today (like no WMD's) would he still have invaded Iraq? He said most definetly and the Iraq war was/is justified.
2. Then he proceeded to say that US troops should be in Iraq for as long as it takes.... if it takes 100 years, so be it.
I'm greatly sadden but the outcome of the NH primaries, I just over estimated the intelligence of the people in that state.
January 9, 2008 7:02 PM GMT
I entirely agree with you regarding John McCain, Sandi. I only find his willingness to express such views refreshing when so many only say what they know their audience wants to hear. Were I an American I certainly wouldn't be voting for John McCain or indeed Republican. I find the party duopoly that dominates U.S politics, as indeed it does here also, to be oppressive and essentially undemocratic.