Iowa Caucuses

[GroG]

Me being an Iowan, my wife and I went to caucuses tonight. This is my 2nd ever (I caucused for Kerry first time). Anyways, my wife caucused for Bill Richardson, while I caucused for Joe Biden.

In our precinct we ended up with 350 caucusers, apparently last time it was 200 - so almost double the turnout. My Joe Biden group ended up being not viable, we needed 53 to be viable and we only had 24. So I ended up going to my wife's camp with Richardson. In the end, only 4 groups ended up being viable:
Obama - 139
Clinton - 75
Edwards - 72
Richardson - 62

I'm not sure if you guys are following everything on CNN, but here's how the Iowa caucuses are currently (98% complete Dems).
Obama: 38%
Edwards: 30%
Clinton: 29%
Richardson: 2%
Biden: 1%

Also, Dodd announced he is dropping from the race.

Well, anyways, thought I'd post that I went. I'm kind of disappointed that Obama got so much of the state, but that's my personal opinion of him and not so much politics related. Honestly, I hope Clinton wins, I'd like to see a woman president.

Closing: caucusing is fun. Can't wait till next time. Hope you all remember to vote in your caucuses/primaries. Also vote in the election. Have fun and remember to represent your opinion by voting. Your vote does matter.

[Black.Ice]

I was very interested in the caucuses tonight, and was disappointed with Paul's performance. I was surprised Thompson and McCain got such high numbers, but Paul did not have a large support base in Iowa.

On the Democrats, I'm ecstatic that Obama blew Clinton out of the water. I do not like her positions on a lot of things, and I feel that Obama will be the best candidate for the 2008 year. Clinton may be a woman, but other than that, I don't like her positions on a lot of things. I don't think this is the proper place to go into depth about which candidate I prefer though.

New Hampshire next...

[Ender]

Grog, you have my utmost thanks for being a Biden supporter. I don't understand how he didn't do better, he was clearly the only candidate with any kind of experience (excluding Richardson) in the Democratic field. Hilary only has one term as a Senator (I don't believe being First Lady gives you any sort of political experience necessary for being President), Edwards had one and is no longer serving, and Obama hasn't finished his first term. People are saying they were voting for change, but Bush only had one, two terms as Governor and look what happened. Terrible mistake - Biden was the only man for the job, and now we've lost him.

[Battlecruiser]

I was very interested in the caucuses tonight, and was disappointed with Paul's performance. I was surprised Thompson and McCain got such high numbers, but Paul did not have a large support base in Iowa.

On the Democrats, I'm ecstatic that Obama blew Clinton out of the water. I do not like her positions on a lot of things, and I feel that Obama will be the best candidate for the 2008 year. Clinton may be a woman, but other than that, I don't like her positions on a lot of things. I don't think this is the proper place to go into depth about which candidate I prefer though.

New Hampshire next...

This pretty much sums up my feelings, except for the woman part. I could care less about the woman part, but her policies are horrible and she's just another chicken hawk. I don't want war with Iran. I was happy Obama did well, but I didn't expect it. I thought Edwards would be the victor, simply because I thought Iowans would probably feel more connected with him. It's good to know that racism isn't playing much of a part in the race.

I was very disappointed with Ron Paul's performance. I was expecting a third place finish, but fifth? What the hell? Well then again, 68% of Republican Iowans are either satisfied or enthustiastic about the Bush Administration, so I guess it shouldn't have been a surprise. Of the people who were mad at the Bush administration, Paul got about 50% of them, the most of any candidate. And Ron Paul did beat Guiliani, the anointed media star, so I guess that's decent. Still, this felt like a punch to the stomach. Even though Iowa and New Hampshire aren't important in the long run, Paul needs to start getting momentum. Though it's possible Ron Paul might be using the same strategy as Guiliani, where you ignore these beginning states, and try to win the rest of them.

And yes, it's a shame that Biden (And Dodd) had to drop out. I guess it has to do with the way the Democratic caucus is run. You need 15% or else you have to support someone else, which seems to bolster the support of the "frontrunners" and hurt any one else. Not a good thing if you want a good political discourse.

Grog, you have my utmost thanks for being a Biden supporter. I don't understand how he didn't do better, he was clearly the only candidate with any kind of experience (excluding Richardson) in the Democratic field. Hilary only has one term as a Senator (I don't believe being First Lady gives you any sort of political experience necessary for being President), Edwards had one and is no longer serving, and Obama hasn't finished his first term. People are saying they were voting for change, but Bush only had one, two terms as Governor and look what happened. Terrible mistake - Biden was the only man for the job, and now we've lost him.

People say they want change, but those people you mentioned (Other than Obama, perhaps) don't even represent that. They really are inexperienced people for the status quo. Change is simply a buzzword to them. But they get the support just because the MSM supports them. To a large majority of this country, the election is like a game for them. They simply don't realize how large the consequences can be if the wrong person is elected.

[DoctorZettabyte]

On the Democrats, I'm ecstatic that Obama blew Clinton out of the water. I do not like her positions on a lot of things, and I feel that Obama will be the best candidate for the 2008 year. Clinton may be a woman, but other than that, I don't like her positions on a lot of things. I don't think this is the proper place to go into depth about which candidate I prefer though.

I second Black.Ice's posting. Also, I find it interesting that Iowa, being a primarily conservative state voted on the liberal side so much. Perhaps everyone is taking a reactionary standpoint on politics (as they usually do), rather than a much better action-oriented standpoint.

Just closing with a great part of Obama's speech last night:
"There are no red states and there are no blue states. There are just the United States."

-DocTera

[Black.Ice]

I agree with Battlecruiser on a lot of points. I was downright surprised that a black man could win in a 91% white state. That was a really surprising thing. If he can win in Iowa, I don't think he'll have major hurdles to jump over for the rest of the nation.

Biden was a good man. I liked his polices, but I didn't agree on all of them. My primary reason for not supporting him more vocally was because he was such an unknown character and was not gaining momentum as fast as Paul or others.

Despite Dr. Paul's bad performance, I'm still supporting him. In a month or so, depending on his performance, I'll be voting for either Paul or Obama at the primaries here. I'm in Illinois though, so it's not like it's gonna make a big difference, but still the numbers in the primary are always important. (It's also fortunate that Illinois has a semi-open meaning I can jump back and forth between parties and vote either Republican or Democratic without declaring a party beforehand.)

As with Battlecruiser, I don't care if Clinton is a woman either, it was simply a reply to Grog's opening post where he said it'd be nice to see a woman as president. Her issues on our civil rights and foreign policy is simply appalling. I don't like Obama's foreign policy that well, but I don't like any other candidates foreign policy other than Paul's!

It's really intersting now, no candidate is really doing as anyone expected them to. I mean, Edwards beat Clinton -- who really expected that. I guess only time will tell.

[Faiien]

Obama's Victory Speech
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqoFwZUp5vc
i believe this is an example of how Obama won the voting. He is just such a great speaker.

[Ender]

I know you're right Battlecruiser - change is just a buzz word and Biden didn't "represent" change. He didn't have name recognition. He's just the kind of guy who will get things done because he knows HOW, is respected in congress by both parties, and known worldwide. But we'd rather vote for the people who get the press - the black man who has Oprah on his side, or the former first lady. Absolutely ridiculous. It disgusts me that the public can't look what the press tells them, and that the press is so biased. They call CNN the Clinton News Network for a reason, right?

Come election time, here in Michigan (even though we've been stripped of our delegates) I'm going to vote undecided, and during the actual election, unless McCain is by some miracle the Republican nominee, I won't even consider voting for one of the candidates. I'm going to write in somebody, because this is just plain wrong.

[Black.Ice]

McCain out of all people? I didn't like his platform at all.

The main thing with the Americans though is they're not looking for change; they're willing to settle for anyone better than Bush. The sad part seems like Clinton will be no better than Bush. Obama is not offering that much change; he's just better than what we currently have

He's very eloquent, very young, and has a lot of charisma. I think the nation needs someone like that to revitalize our current situation. Experience is damned important, but I also hope that a candidate will rely on their intellect and their ability to learn to lead them as a president.

[GroG]

Just a comment about how Obama won a conservative, 91% white population state like Iowa: I'd like to remind everyone that prior to the 2004 election, Iowa has largely been a democratic voting state. Secondly, Obama appealed to a population that regularly does not go out and caucus. He didn't sway people that were regular caucus goers, he got new, young people to caucus. That's why the voting population was almost double the normal - it's because of Obama.

Anyways, Ender I pretty much agree with you. My largest issue when listening to politics is overseas nation building and offshoring. I think it should be against the law, personally. One of the main reasons I didn't caucus for Clinton was due to Bill Clinton being the one who created/supported (not sure if he in fact created it) NAFTA, which started the whole offshoring/importing craze. Biden said he would deal with this issue, something most of the other candidates chose to avoid even talking about.

[Battlecruiser]

Come election time, here in Michigan (even though we've been stripped of our delegates) I'm going to vote undecided, and during the actual election, unless McCain is by some miracle the Republican nominee, I won't even consider voting for one of the candidates. I'm going to write in somebody, because this is just plain wrong.
You'd vote for McCain? He's just about the greatest war monger in the race next to Giuliani. Now, I'm not going to tell you who to vote for. That's your decision. But this guy is the antithesis of change. He will continue the empire that has growing for the past 60 years or more. I found this video just 5 minutes ago on Digg.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf7HYoh9YMM
My god, this guy will bankrupt the nation. By the looks of it, I wouldn't be surprised if he wanted our troops in every nation on this planet.

Anyway, related to this thread. I found this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faD7o5KC7cg) where Blitzer says that Paul could be a much bigger factor in New Hampshire than he was in Iowa given that New Hampshire is dominated by independent/libertarian types. And he seemed to be pretty impressed by Ron Paul beating Guiliani. I don't want to get my hopes up again, so I won't make any predictions, but I think we might see some interesting results on Tuesday.

[Black.Ice]

All of the Republicans, minus Ron Paul, are war mongering. I'm extremely pleased that Giuliani did terrible in the Iowa caucus and I hope that he's forced to drop out pretty soon. I mean, imagine what would happen to our civil rights if he were president. He turned New York into, pretty much a police state. I'm guessing he wouldn't be afraid to take that same scheme to a national level.

I can't wait for New Hampshire. I'm also kind of excited about the minor states like Nevada and Wyoming. Even though they are not major, if they have a majority vote to Ron Paul, that would be pretty sweet.

[Ender]

I said I wouldn't even consider voting for any of the candidates unless McCain is an option - consider, not definitely vote. The man has some edges and things I don't agree with, but there is no candidate I'm ever going to 100% agree with. I like to look at ability to lead, how effective he can be as bipartisan leader (and McCain is pretty bipartisan), and I believe McCain will be a better and more effective leader who can maintain respect, authority, and support. I also believe that going into Iraq was the right decision - we certainly mismanaged it horribly, but in the face of the evidence the American public had and the fact that Hussein himself simply needed to be gone, I think it was the right decision. I also think just cutting and running is the stupidest thing we could do - we can't go in, tear up a country, and then leave. We've done it before and it has been a catastrophe. We can't do it again. We need to stick it out and somehow get that country on its feet.

Black.Ice is right that people have an anyone but Bush, and more than that, they have a AVOID ALL TRAITS BUSH HAS mentality. That might not be a bad thing, but I think people are getting swept up to much in this promise of change. I don't question the need for it, I simply question certain candidates abilities to do it. After most of the debates and speeches, Obama and Clinton haven't ranked very well in many reviewers eyes from multiple news sources - I happen to agree. They both seemed to me, and many others I've talked to at my university, that they seem woefully ignorant and misinformed of a great deal. By contrast, my man Joe Biden was almost every time seen as the candidate who knew the most about every issue and had the ideas everyone else was supporting - except for that whole abandon Iraq thing. He was the only candidate with an actual plan to try and fix Iraq without leaving it to the shitter. He had the best response the everything that's been going on with Pakistan and he is simply the best and most effective leader of the bunch. Obviously, this is my opinion, but I don't think he got a fair shot by the media, except for the individual writers and bloggers who always gave him high marks on debates and speeches.

GroG makes another point about foreign policy and things like NAFTA. He says Biden was the only person to address these major issues - and he's right! Biden was the only one. He had a plan for EVERYTHING, and he has the most foreign policy experience of any candidate in the field, except for MAYBE Bill Richardson - I have them tied in that category. Obama knows nothing about foreign policy, he made multiple gaffes on it and he simply hasn't been doing it in his incomplete single term as senator. A leader who knows foreign policy and who has established positive relationships with foreign leaders is what we need - and now, except for Richardson (whom I don't feel has the ability as a leader we need, though I do like the man as a person, as a governor, and a U.N. ambassador), the field is utterly devoid of anyone with significant foreign policy experience. I'm pretty depressed about the next 4-8 years. I was hoping it was going to be over.

[GroG]

Even though Iowa and New Hampshire aren't important in the long run, Paul needs to start getting momentum.

Battlecruiser, go crawl back into your hole. Every state is important. If Iowa isn't important, why have 2 candidates already dropped out of the race due to the results here?

I'm not saying Iowa isn't the most important state, but hell to say something like that is just plain rude.

[Icarus]

I have a question.

What is political "experience"? Why is this a good thing? As far as I have seen, the more time that a person has legislated on capital hill, the more obscure and crooked they become. Is reading, writing, and voting on legislation a skill that you get better with over time? The process is supposed to be simple: You make clear what your legislation is and how it works and how it's going to be financially supported in an organized paper, then you get up on the podium to talk about it, sit back, and vote. It's not like crafting furniture, or building houses, where experience would be understandably better.

[Battlecruiser]

Battlecruiser, go crawl back into your hole. Every state is important. If Iowa isn't important, why have 2 candidates already dropped out of the race due to the results here?

I'm not saying Iowa isn't the most important state, but hell to say something like that is just plain rude.

The early states are not any more important than the later states for RON PAUL. I also said in the LONG RUN. We have support in all states, but it's not really concentrated in one place, like Huckabee's support was with evangelicals. Iowa is important for some people, like Mitt Romney and Huckabee who invested a lot in these early states and are hoping their momentum will continue into other states. But I don't think it will because the people in other states look for different things and are made up of people with very different concerns. If it was so important for everyone (As you seem to think), then why does Guiliani not even give a shit about Iowa and New Hampshire? He's was in Florida the last time I heard, which was during the time of the Iowa Caucus.

By the way, if you think what I said was rude, you are definitely among the most easily offended people that I know.

[Ender]

I have a question.

What is political "experience"? Why is this a good thing? As far as I have seen, the more time that a person has legislated on capital hill, the more obscure and crooked they become. Is reading, writing, and voting on legislation a skill that you get better with over time? The process is supposed to be simple: You make clear what your legislation is and how it works and how it's going to be financially supported in an organized paper, then you get up on the podium to talk about it, sit back, and vote. It's not like crafting furniture, or building houses, where experience would be understandably better.

And yet experience is better in politics - it matters. The political process heavily involves manipulation of people and interests to get things done. It requires established relationships, respect, and dealing with a lot of situations to become a better leader. It's no different than being a police officer - through the years a police officer learns from his mistakes and successes in a variety of situations. A politician has to do the same thing. Politics isn't nearly as cut and dry as you seem to see it, because of everyone's conflicting views. It seems to me you're saying it is easy for a Iowa Senator and a Texas senator to compromise on a bill regarding energy - it isn't. It DOES take skill and experience to draft legislation and exert leadership, because sometimes legislation fails. Sometimes it doesn't work, and with more experience being involved in the political process and being involved in the political world, the better one becomes. You can learn the pitfalls that come with being a leader and politician. Experience IS needed. People who have simply BEEN THERE more will have a lot more history to draw on. They can saw "I saw something like this before - we responded this way and it worked or didn't work." That's incredibly important.

[Prozerran]

And yet experience is better in politics - it matters. The political process heavily involves manipulation of people and interests to get things done. It requires established relationships, respect, and dealing with a lot of situations to become a better leader. It's no different than being a police officer - through the years a police officer learns from his mistakes and successes in a variety of situations. A politician has to do the same thing. Politics isn't nearly as cut and dry as you seem to see it, because of everyone's conflicting views. It seems to me you're saying it is easy for a Iowa Senator and a Texas senator to compromise on a bill regarding energy - it isn't. It DOES take skill and experience to draft legislation and exert leadership, because sometimes legislation fails. Sometimes it doesn't work, and with more experience being involved in the political process and being involved in the political world, the better one becomes. You can learn the pitfalls that come with being a leader and politician. Experience IS needed. People who have simply BEEN THERE more will have a lot more history to draw on. They can saw "I saw something like this before - we responded this way and it worked or didn't work." That's incredibly important.

I call bullshit. First, I don't think "political experience" is actually referring to one's actual experience as a politician but rather their voting experience on previous legislation. This is considered the best indicator of a candidate's position on the issues, but I don't really even think it is a good indication at all. Legislation is one of the most misleading criterion by which to judge a politician on the issues, especially when bills can include clauses OUTSIDE of the issue being voted on. Bush is notorious for introducing bills to the congress that have varieties of issues on the line, but years from now candidates are going to have to answer for why they did or did not vote for a particular bill... in which case the single issue becomes the question in the minds of voters instead of the fact that the candidate may have wholly supported the issue and still voted against the bill.

But aside from that, there is no real qualifying measure of how much political experience one needs to effectively lead our nation. I believe any competent citizen can effectively lead this country with an appropriately appointed staff of equally competent professionals. It's a management position more than anything else. It's about putting the right people in the best positions to efficiently and effectively carry out the tasks. Even foreign relations is like this. You cannot be everywhere as President. You have to be able to effectively delegate the work that needs to be done to those you have appointed to carry out those tasks.

So, when you see candidates answering questions about how they might handle foreign policy, you're really only hearing how systems will be set up for representatives of the U.S. for diplomats to follow in relations. It's not like Obama or Huckabee will be making "first contact" with these alienated nations. Paul's going to basically put systems in place for diplomats to follow, and those systems will be distinctly different than systems Clinton or Thompson would put in place. Let's just be clear that it isn't experience in the sense that politicians have had this experience in the past. Make no mistake, none of them have had the experience necessary to put these systems in place. That's why we have a voting system in place for the public to decide which platform is the best direction for the nation, which includes the issue of U.S. foreign policy.

[Ender]

I call bullshit. First, I don't think "political experience" is actually referring to one's actual experience as a politician but rather their voting experience on previous legislation. This is considered the best indicator of a candidate's position on the issues, but I don't really even think it is a good indication at all. Legislation is one of the most misleading criterion by which to judge a politician on the issues, especially when bills can include clauses OUTSIDE of the issue being voted on. Bush is notorious for introducing bills to the congress that have varieties of issues on the line, but years from now candidates are going to have to answer for why they did or did not vote for a particular bill... in which case the single issue becomes the question in the minds of voters instead of the fact that the candidate may have wholly supported the issue and still voted against the bill.

But aside from that, there is no real qualifying measure of how much political experience one needs to effectively lead our nation. I believe any competent citizen can effectively lead this country with an appropriately appointed staff of equally competent professionals. It's a management position more than anything else. It's about putting the right people in the best positions to efficiently and effectively carry out the tasks. Even foreign relations is like this. You cannot be everywhere as President. You have to be able to effectively delegate the work that needs to be done to those you have appointed to carry out those tasks.

So, when you see candidates answering questions about how they might handle foreign policy, you're really only hearing how systems will be set up for representatives of the U.S. for diplomats to follow in relations. It's not like Obama or Huckabee will be making "first contact" with these alienated nations. Paul's going to basically put systems in place for diplomats to follow, and those systems will be distinctly different than systems Clinton or Thompson would put in place. Let's just be clear that it isn't experience in the sense that politicians have had this experience in the past. Make no mistake, none of them have had the experience necessary to put these systems in place. That's why we have a voting system in place for the public to decide which platform is the best direction for the nation.

I'm going to call bullshit right back, because I'm not talking about how they voted on the issues. Issue voters won the last two elections and we recieved an underqualified president who has shown nothing but unbridled incompetence. And why? Because he has very LITTLE experience in actual leadership. Can you honestly tell me you believe that an ordinary citizen can simply step into the role of the president and make INTELLIGENT appointments? That he would know the roles of all the people he needs to appoint, the manner in which to appoint them, and their exact qualifications? I don't think so - you have to have been involved to know the kind of person who would make a good NSA, Press Secretary, or Chief of Staff. Politics is a minefield, and it takes experience people to navigate it. Bush did everything you say he did - he took ordinary people and put them in charge and we saw catastrophe. We saw Michael Brown, a friend of Bush with no government experience placed in charge of FEMA and we watched as the U.S. government took longer to get involved in Hurricane Katrina than many other groups. The Canadian mounties from British Columbia had people in New Orleans before the U.S. government. Fidel Castro had a legion of doctors and nurses there before the U.S. government was there. And why? Because they had no idea how to respond to a crisis, what resources were available, who was the right person to put in charge and handle. As soon as they figured out "Hey, we need someone who knows what the hell they're doing," they put in a 3 star general and stuff started happening. We saw the President - who dodged the draft by joining the National Guard and saw no service time - say to his Joint Chiefs of Staff "I know how to run the war better than you, so I'm going to" and basically cut them out of decision making. As a result, we bailed on Afghanistan too early, went into Iraq with a poor, poor plan, and now we're fucked in BOTH places. We saw a President who has alienated the nation to the rest of the world by his atrocious foreign policy skills. Want to talk about delegation? How about our U.S. ambassador to the United Nations (in itself, a corrupt organization, I'll admit, but still the world forum) publicly stating upon his appointment that the U.N. was useless and the United States should essentially withdraw from the world immediately? Oh yes, experience in politics and leadership doesn't matter at all. Most of the issues people vote for in a President are even his constitutional power! Death penalty? State issue. Abortion? State issue. Gay marriage? State issue. Screw the "issues." The President needs to know how to lead the country and WHO to put there, and he needs to have some experience in DOING so.

And just so you know, you're little comment about foreign policy is incredibly ignorant, because one of the President's duties is CHIEF DIPLOMAT and it is his responsibility to set foreign policy, sign all treaties, and effectively negotiate all major foreign policy-related problems. He is the face of the nation abroad, and while he does have help (as you say, he can't be everywhere at once) the person we elect still needs to know what is going on! The President DOES meet with these nations - perhaps not first, but as you say, the President sets foreign policy for others to follow, so the President still needs to know foreign policy, doesn't he? The people select foreign policy? Really? Besides representative accountability, what voice do you have in foreign policy? When was the last time you voted on a treaty directly? You don't - all you can do is vote for the person you think will best handle foreign policy matters, and for that we need EXPERIENCE. I completely agree with you in that no candidate we have has this kind of experience. We had one in Joe Biden, multiple senate terms of the Committee of Foreign Relations and now Chairman of that Committee certainly gives him the experience. But no, we were so obsessed with picking based on "change" from an incompetent leader (as a result of his inexperience), Iowa selected... another inexperienced candidate who already made a few foreign policy slip ups. Wonderful.

[Prozerran]

I'm going to call bullshit right back, because I'm not talking about how they voted on the issues. Issue voters won the last two elections and we recieved an underqualified president who has shown nothing but unbridled incompetence. And why? Because he has very LITTLE experience in actual leadership. Can you honestly tell me you believe that an ordinary citizen can simply step into the role of the president and make INTELLIGENT appointments? That he would know the roles of all the people he needs to appoint, the manner in which to appoint them, and their exact qualifications? I don't think so - you have to have been involved to know the kind of person who would make a good NSA, Press Secretary, or Chief of Staff. Politics is a minefield, and it takes experience people to navigate it. Bush did everything you say he did - he took ordinary people and put them in charge and we saw catastrophe. We saw Michael Brown, a friend of Bush with no government experience placed in charge of FEMA and we watched as the U.S. government took longer to get involved in Hurricane Katrina than many other groups. The Canadian mounties from British Columbia had people in New Orleans before the U.S. government. Fidel Castro had a legion of doctors and nurses there before the U.S. government was there. And why? Because they had no idea how to respond to a crisis, what resources were available, who was the right person to put in charge and handle. As soon as they figured out "Hey, we need someone who knows what the hell they're doing," they put in a 3 star general and stuff started happening. We saw the President - who dodged the draft by joining the National Guard and saw no service time - say to his Joint Chiefs of Staff "I know how to run the war better than you, so I'm going to" and basically cut them out of decision making. As a result, we bailed on Afghanistan too early, went into Iraq with a poor, poor plan, and now we're fucked in BOTH places. We saw a President who has alienated the nation to the rest of the world by his atrocious foreign policy skills. Want to talk about delegation? How about our U.S. ambassador to the United Nations (in itself, a corrupt organization, I'll admit, but still the world forum) publicly stating upon his appointment that the U.N. was useless and the United States should essentially withdraw from the world immediately? Oh yes, experience in politics and leadership doesn't matter at all. Most of the issues people vote for in a President are even his constitutional power! Death penalty? State issue. Abortion? State issue. Gay marriage? State issue. Screw the "issues." The President needs to know how to lead the country and WHO to put there, and he needs to have some experience in DOING so.

It's because of Bush's connections in Washington that he even got support in the Republican party to begin with... and let's not be naive, Ender. The more involved you are in politics throughout your life, the more people you have to do favors for who got you to where you would eventually be as President... and that's a LOT of people. Your rant that this is "exactly what Bush did..." is just that, a rant. The bottom line is that Bush didn't put the best people in the best positions to lead. Like I said, the executive office is one where power must be DELEGATED among professionals, not wholly directed by one man (Mr. Bush) and his cocky friends (Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc.). I don't like the guy any more than you do, but I disagree with how you state the problem and its solution. Just because you have experience in politics doesn't make you better able to lead the nation. It only improves your "electability" in the eyes of voters because you learn to sidestep those career-ending land-mines.

And let's get this straight. Bush is a bad leader because he doesn't know how to properly delegate authority and tasks to qualified people. Then, like you say, he takes it upon himself to direct the military instead of letting those who are qualified to make those decisions actually make them. This doesn't take experience in politics (which Bush DID ACTUALLY HAVE AS GOVERNOR, mind you), it takes reasonable intelligence, humility, respect for others, and professionalism, all of which are apparently unimportant to Mr. Bush.

And just so you know, your little comment about foreign policy is incredibly ignorant, because one of the President's duties is CHIEF DIPLOMAT and it is his responsibility to set foreign policy, sign all treaties, and effectively negotiate all major foreign policy-related problems. He is the face of the nation abroad, and while he does have help (as you say, he can't be everywhere at once) the person we elect still needs to know what is going on! The President DOES meet with these nations - perhaps not first, but as you say, the President sets foreign policy for others to follow, so the President still needs to know foreign policy, doesn't he? The people select foreign policy? Really? Besides representative accountability, what voice do you have in foreign policy? When was the last time you voted on a treaty directly? You don't - all you can do is vote for the person you think will best handle foreign policy matters, and for that we need EXPERIENCE. I completely agree with you in that no candidate we have has this kind of experience. We had one in Joe Biden, multiple senate terms of the Committee of Foreign Relations and now Chairman of that Committee certainly gives him the experience. But no, we were so obsessed with picking based on "change" from an incompetent leader (as a result of his inexperience), Iowa selected... another inexperienced candidate who already made a few foreign policy slip ups. Wonderful.

My criterion is different than yours, Ender. I know that when a candidate enters the race, he or she enters on a platform that addresses the key issues of the time. Foreign policy is a big issue right now, but just because someone has political experience doesn't mean they have a good approach to foreign policy. Take Ron Paul. To my knowledge, he has little to no experience with foreign policy, but he has a pretty basic understanding of what the problem is and how we can fix it. It's not that difficult to understand. We get the fuck out and stop trying to police the world. Historically, we have been a nation of non-interference, but we've been meddling in the affairs of the middle east for WAYYY too long, and that's mostly why we are feared and hated over there now.

Get it through your head that political experience doesn't necessarily qualify someone to lead. Sometimes, the better person is the person with the greatest distance from the melting pot that is our political system. And this is evidenced with great Presidential leaders from history. Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Jackson are two noteworthy name-drops (both men from the middle class with not much political experience to speak about), and there are others, I just don't care to look up every Tom, Dick, and Harry to make the point any clearer than it already is.

[Battlecruiser]

I like to look at ability to lead, how effective he can be as bipartisan leader (and McCain is pretty bipartisan), and I believe McCain will be a better and more effective leader who can maintain respect, authority, and support. I also believe that going into Iraq was the right decision - we certainly mismanaged it horribly, but in the face of the evidence the American public had and the fact that Hussein himself simply needed to be gone, I think it was the right decision. I also think just cutting and running is the stupidest thing we could do - we can't go in, tear up a country, and then leave. We've done it before and it has been a catastrophe. We can't do it again. We need to stick it out and somehow get that country on its feet.

I certainly have a lot of respect for a guy that contradicts himself.
http://parocks.com/mccainoniraq.JPG
He sure knows what he's talking about. All that military experience sure helped him make these incredibly accurate statements. /sarcasm

Now compare that to this guy Ron Paul who asked the congress in 2002 to "think twice before thrusting this nation into a war with no merit, one fraught with danger of escalating into something no American will be pleased with". What an idiot Ron Paul is, he has no idea what he's talking about. /sarcasm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLV7zDhKzDY

[Prozerran]

LOL!! McCain vs McCain. That's pretty clever. I think McCain is a great example for my point about political experience. Here is a guy with multiple contradictory statements on record in the media. If you actually ever listen to him respond to this, you'll notice that his statements are nothing more than backpedaling. Sure, political experience has gotten him further in the primaries than if he had no experience at all, but it doesn't make him a better choice. The only effect his political experience really has on his campaign has to do with his skilled maneuvering in and out of contradiction...


... with himself...




... and that's really funny to me.

[Icarus]

Why did Biden drop out? Why do the candidates take Iowa as if it was an ample model for the entire united states?