I only saw part of it and there was no sizzle, unlike the South Carolina debate. I'm sure the talking heads will have plenty of analysis but nothing came out of this IMO. Debates should contribute very little to choosing a president. It's a bunch of contrived soundbites.
Obama owned the night when he said its not about whos most qualified but who is the right choice Obama is going to take this home hopefully
Obama did okay but not good enough for super-tues, IMO. Four years of having to see/hear the w**** on tv everyday is gonna make me puke.
I know. Just tried to make a joke How can Hillary ever get away from Iraq question. I haven't seen a lot of debates but in this debate, answer is certainly not clear. To me it looked like Obama came out winner. It seemed like he would have been more successful in drawing a very clear distinction if he was a little bit more aggressive.
No sizzle. From an entertainment point of view my wife and I missed the others. I think that Obama and Hillary did, too, at least initially. As noted by the analysts both were happy to maintain the status quo-- Hillary with a good size lead, Obama closing every day. Obama did much better in the debate vs. Hillary than in the past. It is good to see that he is learning. When asked I think it was clear that Hillary would consider Obama for VP, but Obama would not necessarily consider her. If Hillary has any desire to be VP, I think it would be pretty intimidating for Obama to have Hillary as VP and Bill as the VP's wife. Not too workable. However, it would still be Obama's best chance to be President, assuming the Demos win. Actually a Hillary-Obama-Bill or is it a Hillary-Bill-Obama Whitehouse would be sort of wierd. It was good to see them stop that stupid fighting. I think Obama might choose Edwards for VP. David Broder is pushing a McCain Huckabee ticket. He sort of opines that Huckabee is staying in to deny Romney the fundamentalist vote. Interesting. He thinks that the longer it goes on, the better Obama's chances.
then whoever thought that is a moron. I have a VERY hard time imagining a fundamentalist Christian who votes based on his religion voting for Romney. Any elitist Republican who thinks this is just absolutely D-U-M-B and is absolutely talking out of his ass.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/02/news-shocker-ro.html News Shocker: Ron Paul biggest GOP fundraiser last quarter Well, it's official, ladies and gentlemen. Believe it or not, Rep. Ron Paul, the 72-year-old Texan who hardly ever gets mentioned in Republican political news and the one-time libertarian who always gets the least time on TV debates if he isn't barred completely, was, in fact, the most successful Republican fundraiser in the last three months of 2007. By a Texas mile. By the thousands Paul's fervent followers donated $19.95 million to the "Ron Paul Revolution." He spent $17.75 million and at year's end had $7.8 million cash on hand, making him the only Republican candidate to increase his fundraising totals in every quarter of 2007. According to his website, Paul's Paulunteers have contributed another $4.1 million this month to fuel the strict constitutionalist's travels and advertising campaign. (since this article was written he has raised an additional $300k) www.ronpaul2008.com Compare that impressive financial success with, say, the late candidate Rudy Giuliani, who raised only $14.4 million from Oct. 1 to Dec. 31 and spent $18.2 million. Or the departed Fred Thompson, who collected $8.9 million and spent $13.9 million. Or even the newly-minted Republican frontrunner Sen. John McCain, who raked in only $9.9 million, spent $10.5 million and had only $2.9 million cash in hand. Of course, McCain's string of primary victories in January will have boosted his financial fortunes. Everybody loves a winner. Mitt Romney actually raised only $9.2 million from other people last quarter, less than half of Paul's haul. However, the former Massachusetts governor -- and if he keeps spending at this rate the quite possibly former multimillionaire -- gave himself $18 million more of his own money last fall for a total of $27.2 million and $2.4 million cash on hand. The former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, who's had trouble raising money, issued an unusual statement Thursday night. "My presidential campaign," he said, "has defied the odds and will continue to do so, as we head into the Super Tuesday primaries, proving the power of of message over money and mechanics." The statement did not include any Huckabee figures for the fourth quarter. Which suggests that the winner of the Republican caucuses in Iowa didn't have a very good fourth quarter. So a certain suspicious blogger, lead by the experienced hand of The Times' campaign finance expert Dan Morain, went to the website of the Federal Election Commission and looked up Huckabee's fourth quarter report. It seems he raised about $6.7 million, a third of Paul's sum, while spending $7.08 million, leaving him on New Year's Eve with cash on hand of only $651,300.68. No wonder he didn't mention numbers in the news release. Now, this month Huckabee will have received some donations after his Jan. 3 Iowa win. But it does raise serious questions about how long the Arkansan can continue to compete after Feb. 5 or even how much he can do before other than get on as many free radio and TV shows as possible. Paul, who's done well in some symbolic straw polls and little-noticed state caucuses until his best showing so far as a second-place finisher to Romney in the Nevada caucuses, has repeatedly disavowed a third-party effort if his bid to be the Republican nominee in St. Paul next summer falls short. His determined followers maintain that a news media conspiracy is holding down Paul's success at the polls, although obviously word has gotten out to somebody for him to raise such sums. Paul's outspoken stands, including withdrawal from Iraq and drastic downsizing of the federal government, run counter to each of his GOP competitors. As for Paul's campaign, his loyal troops plan another "money bomb," a big fundraising day, today in honor of Ron and Carol Paul's 51st wedding anniversary. One of the obvious gifts: the undisputed GOP fundraising championship for the last three months of 2007.
That probably says more about the current state of the Republican party than the enthusiasm for Paul.
Compare all the GOP candidates numbers to what Obama raised in January... $32 million. Just stunning. I'm fixing to go out of town, so I'll make this quick. I think Ms. Clinton won the debate last night. Obama did very well, but I think she just had a stronger performance. He seemed kind of tense and she was very relaxed. (I know they were both tense as hell, but the act counts for something. ) My wife and I were talking about what a good ticket the two of them would make and how refreshing it was to have it come down to two strong candidates, especially compared to the GOP field, when the question was asked about them running together. We had a good laugh. I think Obama is going to win the nomination, but it could be close and Hillary Clinton could surprise some people. This is a lot of fun. Damn, I'm glad I'm not a Republican! Impeach Bush.
I won't be convinced until I see these polls that you speak of. With the view on the Mormon faith from the fundamentalist side, it would be simply ignorant to think that any fundamentalist who votes based on faith would vote for a Mormon. secondly, with Romney's flip flopping on abortion and the flareup over his support on certain controversial issues as governor of Mass, what makes anyone think a fundamentalist would vote for him even if Huck was out of the race and McCain was the only guy left?
while i totally agree that the current republican candidates other than paul are very weak (thats the point though - the establishment needs someone to fall down to hillary a'la kerry in 04), i dont think his fundraising #'s can be attributed to dissatisfaction w/in the republican party. the people donating money to paul are not "traditional" republicans and i doubt they would be supporting another republican if paul was not running. in other words, i dont think paul is siphoning donations from the likes of mccain or romney. and on the flip side, your typical republican bush-supporter would never be donating money to paul - in other words, pauls money is entirely coming from outside the republican party establishment and he is still kicking their asses. if the republicans were really concerned w/ winning they would nominate paul, as he would be brining new blood into the party and tens of millions of dollars that they couldnt otherwise raise.
Because McCain explicitly called out their leaders, referring to Robertson and Falwell as "forces of evil", while Romney has been going out of his way to court their support.
That's not what I was saying. "Ron Paul biggest GOP fundraiser last quarter..." Ron Paul should not be the top fundraiser in the Republican party. I know Republican money is not going to Paul, my point was that Republican money isn't going to anyone (yet), which makes Paul the leader in fundraising.
i dont get your premise. you are saying that the only reason ron paul is the leading fundraiser is b/c his opponents supporters have not yet started donating? where do you get that from? and if thats the case than what exactly are republicans waiting for to start making donations? and even if that is true, what is the point? the fact is that paul is the leading republican fundraiser and the only one whose donations increased every quarter last year. your attempts to dismiss the money he has raised just seems like spin. also, paul is the leading fundraiser among active duty military - i think that speaks volumes about how the military feels about our continued presence in iraq.
I don't care enough about Paul to "dismiss" his money. "Spin" what? For what? You're trying to make this about him. I realize you posted that column for him, but if you think he would be leading in fundraising if the party was energized, you're delusional. That was my point...the lack of energy in the party. Republicans have not coalesced around a candidate, as they have in the past, and the money did not pour in to any of their leading candidates. That's pretty obvious when you compare their donation totals to the Democrats. Maybe it would have if George Allen (establishment + "conservative") didn't have that "macaca" moment, but, for whatever reason, it hasn't happened yet.
