I was down the gym this morning and was flicking through the channels trying to find anything to watch that wasn't MTV, VH1 or any other celebrity obsessed nonsence when I stumbled upon the latest Republican Presidential debate on CNN. It was fascinating, not so much because of what they said, but as a concept. We don't have anything like this in England ( England - I'm so provincial ). Here the Party leaders won't even debate with each other. I do know various things about some of the candidates, and their politics isn't mine, but even so I think I can articulate a reaonably impartial view of what I witnessed. A sort of first impression.
I thought they were all pretty anonymous, even when they spoke, and no one in particular caught my eye or averted my gaze. The only one who seemed to have any charisma was Fred Thompson, an actor apparently, I thought I'd seen him before. However, he seemed strangely lethargic, disinterested even, as if he'd been railroaded into doing this. An interesting, if uncharismatic figure, was Ron Paul, someone I'd never heard of. He is obviously the rabble-rouser for he kept addressing the audience as if he was at a campaign rally. Someone posed the question that he should run as an independent. They showed one of his campaign adverts. I have to say it does have independent written all over it - the Paul Revolution! I feel like launching my own stop Mitt Romney campaign, he's just too slick and no one can possibly look that clean. He could be a resident of Stepford. Why does John McCain always look as if he's hiding something. His eye's keep flicking from side to side as if one of the other candidates is about to reveal a secret - like his age! He is too old, not necesarilly to old to do the job, but he looks to old to do the job. And I wouldn't trust Rudi Guiliani to return my records or not pocket the spoons. Anyway he's a backslider on too many important issues. I'm afraid, for better or worse, the hands down winner was Governor Huckabee, who seemed to express an honesty, freshness and vibrancy the others lacked. So my prediction is that this guy is going to come up the inside rail fast. I might go and put a bet on him while the odds are still good. In saying that my bet on John Edwards isn't looking too good, he can't break the Clinton/Obama stranglehold, but he is holding his own in Iowa. I'm still hoping Hilary will implode.
A bit of a dull thread I know but I just wanted to give an opinion. I didn't catch any of the polling results so if anyone wants to tell me how the various candidates fared I'd be interested to know. Also, the last few weeks I have forgotten how to spell and keep losing my thread - bizaare.

Ron Paul is not only is he the best Republican candidate, he is the best Presidential candidate.
Here is his web site: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/
He is not getting a lot of press even though his campaign raised over 4 million dollars in one day on the
internet. He is definetly not a neo-con. and this is a first time we don't have to vote for the lesser of two evils, he give us the opportunity to actually Vote FOR someone rather than against someone.
Brief Overview of Congressman Paul’s Record:

He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.

He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress.

Thanks Sandi, I have to admit to being ignorant of Ron Paul. Is he a late entrant to the race? I will check out his website. I quite like what you've pointed out. I would be a bit concerned about the not voting for restrictions on gun ownership but I guess there's an English/American divide there. Do you think he would run as an independent. He certainly doesn't seem to represent mainstream Republicanism as I understand it. US elections are always more interesting than UK ones. I like to imagine how I would vote if I were an American. It wouldn't be Republican but Independent, that's different.

Pretty good observations from someone outside the country Porscha. It would actually be nice if you could take bits and pieces from each one and create a single quality candidate. It is still too early to choose a candidate but here is some of my take on things.

Rudy Giuliani is a get it done type guy, question is what does he want to get done.
Mit Romney is a very successful business man and did a good job as governor, like you said almost too squeaky clean, has to be something somewhere.
Fred Thompson has a few good ideas on immigration and the border but not sure he can deal with the economy.
Ron Paul is the squeaky wheel making all the noise, don't know much about him yet but have heard others say he would probably be better as an independent except this country is not yet ready to vote an independent in as president.
Huckabee seems to be interesting, he could be good for the economy, need to learn more about him.

Glad to hear you want to watch Hilary implode, talk about a two sided person, I wouldn't trust her to take out my garbage. But people see the side of her they like and won't listen to the rest of her ranting.
Edwards, I don't like ambulance chasing attorneys, purely in it for the power. I can see him just wanting to dangle the carrot in front of us, never quite letting us get it.
Obama is interesting, just not sure he is quite presidential at this stage of his career.

Problem here in the states is we have lots of one issue voters such as; anti-war, abortion, economy and border security. Unfortunately most candidates focus on these people instead of everything the job of president entails. As we get closer to the election it will become more of a he is bad, I'm better type campaign with little insight to what they will actually do as president. Also it will be "I will give you this if you vote for me" instead of how they can make all our lives better.

Both the democrats and republicans have lots of issues to overcome. For the republicans Bush was not that great, but he actually did do some good stuff. For the democrats they seem to be campaigning against George Bush when Bush is not even running for president in 2008, they also have shown the inability to accomplish anything in congress. Basically it is politics as usual and likely to continue no matter who becomes president.

Oh geez, I missed McCain, is he running again, lol.

For those who read this, please don't argue about this with me, I have not made up my mind who to vote for yet. I have voted for both democrat and republican candidates in the past. Just don't only give me a "Jimmy Carter" type person to vote for. Lots of people say Bush is the worst president ever, I think there have been several competing for that title and Jimmy Carter is running atleast neck and neck if not leading. Clinton actually did not do much, good or bad. He was just in the right place at the right time and road the decade of technology. My 2 cents worth.

Hi Porscha
Im a strong Ron Paul supporter myself. He actually comes off as an honest man trying to do what's best for his country rather than for the corporations. There are many things I like about him, mostly the smaller government aspect of his platform. He has been in the race from the start, but has largely been ignored by the main stream media. Even in last night's debate it was a full 30 minutes into the debate before he got his first question. His popularity is growing mostly by the internet. Like I said before, he set an all time record for contribution in a single day of 4.2 million dollars. May not be alot by the Hillary standards but it does not come from corporations rather it comes from actual people $25 to $100 at a time.

Try http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=RonPaul2008dotcom to watch some of his video's

This may be my favorite. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIivoqLbeeg

I think in the US much like the the UK, the two main political parties have a stranglehold on power. It offers very little alternative. I know very little about Ron Paul but I will find out more. It is interesting what you say because he certainly wasn't reported here as being a candidate. I don't agree with the policies of New Labour, I don't agree with the philosophy of the Tories, and the Liberal Democrats are a waste of space. So then you're looking at fringe parties and we are a first past the post democracy. So I don't vote, such a waste. I think we live in a more diverse interactive world. There is an opportunity for someone to break the mould. I'm glad you and Marsha have replied to this thread because I am interested and I do want to know more. I was raised in an ostensibly anti-American family, there are historical reasons for this, but the US has so much to offer the world if only they understood this.

Porscha:

You did a great job sizing up the candidates from the other side of the pond. Ron Paul is interesting. He is really a libertarian more than a classic Republican. I believe he previously ran on the Libertarian ticket. I like his honesty and straightforward manner, and agree with him on the war and the Patriot Act. Doubt I could vote for him, though, based on other issues.

I had the misfortune of having Mitt Romney as governor. My impression is that his main interest is Mitt Romney. He didn't stand for re-election as governor, and probably would have lost--he spent too much time running around the country dumping on his own state. The classic opportunist, he will say anything to get elected--witness his 180 degree turn on a woman's right to choose.

Thompson's reputation as a leader comes mainly from his role as a prosecutor on TV, not from any accomplishment. Giuliani was widely loathed in New York before 9/11, and I find him very untrustworthy. His own children won't vote for him. McCain has compromised a lot on his principles, letting ambition overtake conscience in my view. Huckabee is a straight shooter for the most part, but I cannot see myself voting for a fundamentalist Christian who believes Bishop Ussher had it right.

As you might guess, I usually vote Democratic, and likely will again, though none of the candidates exactly lights my fire. I sort of like Bill Richardson, governor of New Mexico, widely experienced in foreign policy. Maybe not as progressive as I would like, but a good solid leader. Hasn't much chance though. Our system here is a bit bizzare. The caucus in Iowa and the early primary in New Hampshire may determine the candidate before most of the nation gets to speak. Third party candidates in our system essentially stand no chance. The last one to come close was Teddy Roosevelt in 1912.

Porscha - as Abigail said independents don't have much of a chance to win the presidency. I'm happy to hear that you enjoy American politics. It's something to get used to, for sure.
I really enjoy watching your Prime Ministers taking the heat from their detractors. Our electeds get in trouble for rowdy behavior and name calling.
Speaking of independents - it was only recently that we have an independent US Senator. He's from Vermont ( a rebellious state- in a nice way). We do have one Communist - I think he's still in the House of Representative - he's from Hawaii - if my memory serves me. Historically specaking (dangerouse territory-joke) we're a two party system. There are many smaller parties and even some coelitions. New York City has had many mayors elected by parties getting together.
From where I sit, I'd suggest you keep an eye on Joe Biden(Democratic senator). IMHO the voters wont accept either Hilary or Barrack - too big a jump for even the so-called liberals. As for Republican candidates -I like Huckabee but my arm would probably fall off if I ever voted Republican.

correction - the independent Senator is from Connecticut.
Wow I would have been horse-whipped for that error.

I didn't realise Governor Huckabee was a Christian Fundamentalism. Religion doesn't play a part in British politics, indeed it is considered to be political poison. As Tony Blair's political advisor, Alistair Campbell, said in a press conference when asked about Blair's religious convictions - We don't do God. Also, when Blair addressed the British people on the eve of war with Iraq, he wanted to finish his peroration with the words God Bless! He was adviced not to. In an interview to be broadcast on sunday he says that he wanted to be open about his faith but he couldn't because he knew if he did so he would be considered a nutter. So I have to admit on this this side of the pond all the candidates for both parties seem to be fairly fundamentalist. Ibelieve, please correct me if I'm wrong, that the President has prayer meetings, and breakfast with religious figures etc.
I'm glad you enjoy Prime Minister's Questions, Mary. Gordon's not very good at it, though. Joe Biden is best remembered here as the man who stole Neil Kinnocks - I'm the first person in my family in a thousand generations to go to university etc.
America does have a history of maverick candidates. I'm thinking of people like Strom Thurmond, Governor Wallace, Ralph Nader, Ross Perot. And as Abigail pointed out Theodore Roosevelt and his Bull Moose Party, though he had the advantage of being an ex-President. I'm not sure what IMHO means but I'm intrigued that you think people won't vote for Clinton/Obama. That's not the message we get here.

Porscha, your last statement says it all " Clinton/Obama. That's not the message we get here. " The media tends to be more bias'd then they admit to and for whatever reason they have had a love affair with the Clintons'. A recent poll showed that 90% of the media voted democrat, after Bush got re-elected there were even scenes of reporters crying on TV, so do you really think they can withold their bias? Look at France, with all the media news about how France was anti-american they vote in a new president who wanted to mend relations with the U.S. I think more and more people are actually loosing faith in the media because it is quite obvious they are not getting the full story because of biassed reasons. Look at the last election, several lost their jobs because of false stories designed to make a candidate look bad. Does the name Dan Rather come to anyone's mind.

Mary Grace:

You were right both times. Bernie Sanders , a socialist, is the independent from Vermont. Joe Lieberman, who was a Democrat, left the party and ran as an independent after he lost the primary election in 2006. Two independents, both caucus with the Democrats, which gives them their slim majority.

Marsha Ann:

The problem with the press in my view is not a pro-Democratic bias. While reporters tend to lean Democratic, the people who actually own the media outlets are by and large Republican. The problem with the press is that he coverage is shallow, and focuses on the horse race and polls rather than substance, and their predictions become self fulfilling. Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, and Ron Paul would get a lot more coverage if ideas mattered as much as polls and money.

By the way, by IMHO, I think Mary Grace means "In my humble opinion."

Abigail, The press is not pro-democrat biassed? Please explain how in the 2000 election, within 24hrs of the New York Times using the word "Gravitas" when describing Bush's selection of Cheney as his vice president, the following reporters and politicians used the term in their reports and statements:

Al Hunt, Juan Williams, Claire Shipman, Steve Roberts, Vic Fazio, Jeff Greenfield, Jonathan Alter, former Senator Bob Kerrey, Margaret Carlson, Mike McCurry, Eleanor Clift, Walter Isaacson, Mark Shields, Judy Woodruff, and Sam Donaldson. Can we say together "all on the same page"

And republicans own the media? Please explain Ted Turner and Disney. Of course there is Fox, but the news portion goes into more detail on any given story, does that make them pro conservative? People seem to have a problem calling the commentary shows news shows when they are clearly identified as commentary.

I tend to be a pro choice republican, but I have often voted for democrats. I even voted for Clinton the first time, learned my lesson and didn't vote for him the second time. I think the best recent politician was Zell Miller, former democrat governor and senator of Georgia. I also have lots of respect for Joe Lieberman. When someone says they vote only for a given party or won't vote for a certain party it tells me they are close minded and believe only the things that match what they WANT to hear.

You are absolutely right about polls. Why is it no two polls ever match, could it be self fulfilled prophecy? Of course it comes down to the question, how it is asked and what answers are available. It is sort of like the hurricane forecast every year, when the forecast first appears wrong it is then revised, is that allowed? When the season is over they have finally revised it to the point they are exactly right, amazing how that works.

I don't care who anyone votes for, I just hope they are informed when they vote. Each of us has different expectations of what we want the government to do and what issues are more important in our lives. I don't mean for this post to be argumentive and hope it didn't come across as so. I think honestly we all have our biases and whether we recognize it or not it comes through in our words.

By the way, did you know our constitution never specifically gave us the right to vote for president. We are a republic not a democracy.

"Normally" I keep my mouth shut when it comes to politics and religions but Marsha Ann you seem to have overlooked Sen. Bob Dole. Anything the Dems proposed he voted no. Lets leave it at that, please?
Porscha IMHO means "in my humble opinion" - it sometimes keeps me from getting flack.
Happy December everyone
hugs
Gracie

Sorry Mary but not even I could vote for Senator Dole. You seem to have left out Ross Perot, lol. As I mentioned earlier, I am not a one party voter. I try to evaluate candidates and hopefully vote for the ones that have a plan to benefit all americans not just special interest groups. I don't like the extreme left that lean towards socialism, nor do I like the extreme right that want to tell me how to live my life.

Marsha Ann - we're on common ground. I hope this doesn't sound simplistic but the Democrats appear to want the government to run business while the Republican want business to run the government. There must be a middle ground, otherwise the USA will go down as another attempt at civilation. The Roman Empire thought they had it made.
Sorry Porscha a little diversion.
hugs
Gracie

That's alright, honey, I don't mind a little diversion. Anyway, I thought the American Constitution was framed in the spirit of compromise: and you know what Rousseau thought of civilisation. Governance is all about bringing order to perceived chaos. It doesn't necessarily clothe the naked.

Marsha Ann:

Don't apologize for being argumentative: Argument is a pathway to enlightenment if done with open minds. Of course, you are wrong about the press. Fox News (an oxymoron if there ever was one) is run by a former Regan media bigwig and has no intention of providing anything close to objective reporting. As a one-time reporter myself, I know that there is no such thing as pure objectivity of course. Much of the current press is more stenography than reporting because the press has been cowed by Rovian "shock, shock" to learn there's reporting going on here. (Apologies to the writers of Casablanca for that.)

We clearly have different perspectives, but from my point of view, the idea of a liberal press is one of the Big Lies of the century, and citing Cheney for "gravitas" I think fall on my side of the argument. How about arrogant, pompous, self-righteous bully manipulating a light-weight privileged charlatan into war on false premises, helping enrich the rich? (No attempt at objectivity there, I admit.) The press gave Bush pretty much a free ride from before his election by the Supreme Court in a decision that was absurd by most legal principles until well after the war in Iraq had become a disaster. I wish we had a liberal press. I wish even more we had a competent press.

Okay, enough ranting after a couple of glasses of wine. Chock it up to an old liberal, would be hippie, still upset that I didn't get to wear granny dresses.

Mary I agree we are pretty much on common ground, the point I have been trying to make from the start is there are good and bad in each party and that I consider it wrong to vote straight party line. Both you and Porscha mentioned finding middle ground and that is how things should work. Now a days all either party does is fight against whatever the other party offers, no matter what the merit of the proposal is. It seems as though politicians prostitute themselves by selling their vote to special interest groups or by being allowed to add wasteful pork barrel spending to legislation. None of it seems in the best interest of the people.

Abigail, I hope it did not come across that I thought Fox News was not conservative. I find you need to watch or read news from several sources to get the full story. The "gravitas" statement was only an example how what I consider the liberal media marches to the same drummer. I did not use it to imply it was a right or wrong description of Cheney.

Marsha Ann:

Don't pay too much attention to my rant of last evening. The Bushies just get me so angry sometimes that I need to blow off some steam.

You are right of course about the need to look to multiple sources to have any hope of getting close to a full picture. My favorite news magazine is the Economist. Fairly conservative, but well written and in depth.

Keli
Allow me to correct a couple of things for you - no offense intended.
1. Eisenhower sent the American troops into VietNam first. I was in the Army at the time and luckily ducked it.
2. Baby Bush was born in Connecticut.
3. We don't elect the president - directly - we elect the party's candidate. Unfortunately, our votes may not count since most states(including TX) have the "winner take all" electoral votes.
I know exactly where you're coming from and hope that someday we'll get a government for the people.
lol and hugs
Gracie

Firstly, thankyou all for your contributions to this thread. I did think when I posted it that it would be one of my no reply threads ( I've had a few of those ). I don't mind but it is nice to discuss subjects outside my preferred make of lip gloss. Life encompasses everything not just gender and I like to imagine I live a full life and in some small way contribute to the life of other's.
It has been very illuminating for me to read the views expressed in your posts. You live and breathe the politics of the United States, I only get my information from the various media outlets and I share the views expressed about the jaundiced nature of this news which can be more misinformed than informed, deliberate or otherwise. I have to admit that I was baffled by the Supreme Court decision to effectively present George Bush with the Presidency. I suppose being an historian I am obliged to take the long-term view and I do think that decision will have serious repercussions for many years to come. A Supreme Court should be above partisan party politics and should do all it can to ensure that it cannot be tainted by it. All democracies have this as a common currency: they desire the participation of the people but they fear the power of the people. So electoral systems are devised to emasculate this power. In a true democracy Governments and Presidents etc would be elected according to one person one vote. In the U.S you have an electoral college that means in the Presedential election all eye's are focused on the voting intentions of maybe 4 or 5 States, I'm thinking Texas, California, Florida, Ohio, Illinois. In Britain we have a Constituency system. If you look at a political map of the United Kingdom, England is painted almost entirely Conservative blue yet we have had 3 landslide Labour victories. When actually these victories have been won on 42% of a 60% turnout. Not very democratic really, and it certainly doesn't reflect the will of the people. There has been much talk here about getting people more involved in politics when the system in place is devised to exclude the people. It is governance by elites. It is party politics not people politics. In the U.S it is Democratic or Republican here Labour or Conservative. Life is far more complex than a vote for lower taxes or greater social welfare. I find it quite interesting that in Congressional and State elections the people quite often vote for mavericks.
In the Independent on Sunday there was an article on Governor Huckabee, basically endorsing what I said. All the other candidates have their strong points but have skeletons in the closet. Huckabee seemed fresh and new. However, he probably won't garner enough support to win but is a good bet for Running Mate. When is the next debate between the candidates of both parties, I'd like to know.

Hi Porscha
The downside on Huckabee is that he has never met a tax he didn't like. Since his health problems he has become some sort of fitness freak and wants to pass laws that mandate what you can eat, he has even endorsed a ban on cigarettes. The problem is that he is for even bigger government and does endorse Bush 's policy in Iraq.
As far as the next debate between the candidates of both parties,
Not going to happen until the Republican and Democratic candidates are chosen. then it will only be the 2 debating each other. No matter how interesting it would be to see Dr Paul debating Hillary and Obama debating Huckabee, All the candidates of both parties never meet on one stage together.

.... ER ..George W of course

*vikki extracts tongue from cheek*

LOL Porscha. I always get a kick out of the people the believe the Supreme Court elected Bush. All the Supreme Court did was make a decision to stop the recounts.

Now that we know the recounts were stopped, the Bush haters still feel Bush stole the election. None of these Bush haters acknowledge the fact that nearly every major news corporation plus numerous small ones went in after the election and recounted the Florida votes. In EVERY case Bush remained the winner.

All Gore had to do was win his own state of Tennesee which he DIDN'T. I think it says a lot when your own people don't want you.

As much as I am dissapointed in Bush's performance, I'm still glad Gore did not become president. As I see it, the Bush haters still think he is running for president in 2008. Hey folks, 7 years have gone by, maybe it is time to put this behind us and work together for the good of ALL americans.

The electoral college issue is a big catch 22. On one hand it makes a lot of sense that whoever gets the majority of the votes wins the election. As a general rule that usually happens anyways.

But the reason reason the founders of this country set it up as a republic not a democracy was to insure all states were represented, not just the highly populated states. The electoral college attempts to do that. Without the electoral college the politicians would just pander to the large population centers around the country, ignoring many states altogether. The needs of New York city are far different than Santa Fe, New Mexico.

You can also say that is why we have the House of Representives and Senate, so each area could be represented. Fact is that is all our founders intended us to vote for in the first place, and then to have those representatives choose the president. So in a round about way that is what the electoral college does, it allows the majority of voters in a given state to say who should be president. Is it truly fair to take the minority of voters from one state, add them to the majority in the state nextdoor and now say your state's vote no longer matters, that is basically what popular vote does.

As I have stated earlier in this thread - politics and religions .... their a mine-field.
BUT.....I understand that the states with small populations should have the same representation as the populous states but maybe some states would be better off combining with their neighboring state(s). Montana for examble has a very, very small population. Since the House of Reps. control the budgets wouldn't combined states make out better by increasing their number of representatives?
For what its worth, Jimmy Carter's commission says our election system wouldn't pass muster.
Another thing which could or should be changed is the "winner take all" electoral votes. We are a long way from 1781, we now have computers which can divide each state's electoral votes by the exact results of the popular vote.
Of course we'll have to make sure the computers are honest. There I go.....and I vote too, even in local elections.
hugs
Gracie

Just a thought - with the global warming, the population will change. Montana might become a populous state. Right?
lol
Gracie

Darlene, in no way did you offend me. Actually you're wrong, the Electoral College was described in ArticleII, Section 1, subsection 3 of the United States Constitution. It was revised in 1804 which became the 12th Amendment and only changed in that there would be separate votes for president and vice-president. But the bottomline was our founders set things up for the states to select the president, not popular vote. As you stated when all this was originally put in place it was not practical to collect all the votes in a reasonable period but the greater reason was they feared the population could not make an informed decision.

I am not saying the electoral college is the best thing, but I'm not sure popular vote is either. Porscha mentioned something earlier in regards to it being sad that someone could win an election with 40% of the vote when only maybe 50% of eligible voters actually voted. That is a sadder issue than the rare occasion the electoral college count does not match the popular vote. It has only happened 4 times

The other side of the coin is if people don't take time to get educated about the candidates, do you really want them voting anyways?

I hope I did not offend you Darlene, if so I apologize.
Marsha

Link for United States Constitution
http://www.archives.gov/n[...]pt.html

Link for 12th Amendment
http://www.archives.gov/n[...]27.html

I have learned a great deal from this thread, as I do from all the threads I post. I believe life is a learning process and you cease to learn at your peril. My views have changed over the years but my core principles and beliefs never have, I think this the case with most people. I keep an open mind and have come to realise that rarely is anyone 100% wrong. The views expressed here have been excellent, I don't agree with them all, obviously. Some, however, have intrigued me because though I might find myself at opposite ends of the political spectrum to the people concerned, I find myself sharing the same core values. It is just about finding the best way to achieve them. It is about weighing up the options and making choices, in life not just in politics. Sometimes we are wrong but as long as we are honest both to ourselves and to other's then we have no need to feel shame or disgust at the decisions we make. So I thank you for contributing to this thread. I can't say I have forged bonds of everlasting friendship with people I shall never meet but I have forged bonds of association with people I trust, at least, within the context in which are communication occurs, whose views I respect. That is the sub-text to these threads which is so often overlooked. But that's enough waffle from me so back to the question at hand.
It seems that the media spotlight has finally fallen upon Mike Huckabee. It is reported here that he has been found to have been receiving expensive gifts. Though they fall within the rules of the Arkansas State Ethics Committee it goes against his image as the straight-talking, plain living, ordinary guy candidate. It sounds like he may have had a fairly easy ride up to now, not anymore. There was a profile of Rudi Guiliani in the paper today. It may be a hatchet job of course, but he sounds like a truly ghastly man. Does he have any morals? Does he have any convictions? Or does he simply want the top job for its own sake? So to my mind Huckabee's out, I don't like his Christian Fundamentalism; Guiliani's out, he can't be trusted; Romney's out for the same reasons. He is also a Mormon, which he has every right to be, but it would prevent me from voting for him. Thompson is out to, he just appears lazy and disinterested. I'm not sure they are the qualities you look for in the most powerful man in the world. Fast running out of candidates then. If I were an American, as opposed to the sweet English Rose I am, and a Republican, I would be leaning towards Roy Paul.
As a footnote, it seems that Hilary Clinton's campaign may be hitting the buffers. She is only neck-and-neck with Obama and Edwards in the Iowa caucus. She still has a big lead nationally but her aura of invincibility is beggining to slip. So Edwards may still pull through for me. Not that I have a thing for wealthy, well-preserved middle aged men with their own hair and sexy southern accents lol.

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.

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!

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.

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.