Category Archives: John Edwards

First Votes of New Hampshire Counted

At Midnight the small town of Dixville Notch, total of 17 voters, cast their ballots at Midnight in New Hampshire. There were 12 Independents, 3 GOP, 2 Dems. Fox notes that they do not have a particularly good record at predicting the results of the state– should I be hoping that McCain is leading? I think not. (Looking at the ballot counting, I assume the blue ballots are Dems and the Pink are GOP.  They look fairly split.) Here they are:


  1. McCain 4 votes
  2. Romney 2 votes
  3. Giuliani 1 vote


  1. Obama 7 votes
  2. Edwards 2 votes
  3. Richardson 1 vote

Note that Hillary got no votes, OUCH!

Thank goodness for Mitt that this is not usually a good indicator.  Whew!  VOTE FOR MITT NEW HAMPSHIRE


Filed under Barack Obama, Election 2008, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Republicans, Rudy Giuliani

Should Iowa really have this much control?

Perhaps the real question is do they really have any at all?

Reading the coverage today I was reminded of one of the posters hanging on our wall at work. You know the kind, where they are supposed to have some sort of trite phrase that affects the employee’s morale and motivation? Anyway, you can see the particular poster I’m reminded of here.

Yes, none of are indeed as dumb as all of us, CNN tells us this is true. I will applaud the subtlety.

Looking at that page without understanding the English language you’d be forced to see the pictures only. Which candidates seem to have the most appeal for CNN? What would you say about their personality, or suitability as a candidate based on photo alone? It would appear that according their coverage that Rudy, Hillary and Barack are the only viable candidates. Then interestingly enough compare the adjectives in the descriptions of each candidate. Look at the difference between the Edwards and McCain excerpts. Both of whom were unsuccessful in their seeking of the presidential nominations. Interesting.

The real question becomes, do small things like adjectives, photos and the like have so large an effect on us as individual thinkers? The answer is surprisingly, no. The problem is that those little things have a tremendous effect on people as a whole. In an election nobody wants to back the loser, so often times they pick the person who has the highest likelihood of winning. Not the best person for the job. That is what is alarming to me in this presidential race. There are only three people (or so) that I will be able to vote for, in no particular order: Barack, Mitt, Mike (Bloomberg). I’m half joking about Bloomberg, but if it’s a choice between Hillary and Rudy, I will either abstain or be voting some independent third party (if any real ones emerge).

My prediction will be that harnessing the power of Chuck Norris, Mitt will edge Huck by a few points with McCain a distant third, Ron Paul a close fourth.

Let’s hope the all of us are not dumb enough as some of us that buy into the garbage that Huck is presenting during the race.

~RationalZen  – part-time contributer, full-time thinker.

Go Seahawks!

1 Comment

Filed under Barack Obama, Candidates, Democracy, Election 2008, Hillary Clinton, Iowa, John Edwards, John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Race, Ron Paul, Rudy Giuliani

OPEN THREAD: What is your ideal ticket for 2008?

This is your chance to share what your ideal GOP and/or Democratic ticket would be.  In a couple of days I will post the which candidates and veeps received the most votes.  Comment away!


Filed under Bill Richardson, Democrats, Election 2008, Fred Thompson, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Politics, Republicans, Ron Paul, Rudy Giuliani

Hillary’s an Idiot

Last Friday while speaking to the Congressional Black Caucus, Hillary said that if she became President she would mandate that all babies born in America would be given $5,000 to start an education savings account.  She gave no explanation as to how this would be implemented, how this would be paid for, or how to ensure the money actual went to the child’s education.  She’s an idiot or must think that we are all stupid (probably the latter).

While these questions certainly need to be answered, they are not the crux of the problem.  The problem is greater than one specific idea or program like this, but what this is indicative of is Hillary’s natural pull towards greater government involvement in our lives.  In this campaign cycle and even in much of her voting in the Senate over the last 8 years, Hillary has been trying to come across as a moderate.  Many people have bought it, while many are still doubtful as they remember her years in the Whitehouse.  This education plan confirms the skepticism that many have had.  Hillary has not changed at all.  She still has her socialistic ideals as strong as ever.  This would not bother me as much if she was just up front about it.  People are free to believe what they will.  However, we (and her especially) well know that socialists don’t win elections in America.  So she continues to attempt to look moderate, when in all actuality she is far from it.  This is a wise strategy on her part to try to win, especially because she is so divisive.  However, she revealed her hand too much on Friday night and exposed herself.  Sadly, most people won’t even notice and the media will act like it never happened or will applaude her for her forward thinking and generous ideas. 

1 Comment

Filed under Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, Candidates, Conservative, Democracy, Democrats, Election 2008, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Liberal, Liberalism, Politics, Progress, Progressive

Sizing up the Democrat Race: It’s Already Over

Well, we are now well into September and the political races are heating up…or so we should think.  However, on the Democratic side of the house it appears to me that things are at a low simmer.  Over the Summer, the race was brought to a boil and now the cook has turned down the heat.  Strange thing for this to happen when no one has even voted yet and certainly many people would completely disagree with this assessment; especially Edwards, Obama, and Richardson.  But ultimately, Hillary has already won the nomination.  While Barack Obama is still extremely exciting and popular and has the backing of a strong group of individuals, his hayday was July and August.  He has faded and will continue to.

You see, the Democratic race (and one may be able to argue the GOP at a lesser level) is dying because voters feel that Hillary is unavoidable candidate to represent their party in the General.  As a result, people are going to be less inclined to support the other candidates.  It seems to me that Obama has some extremely strong backing, perhaps the strongest in the entire race for both parties, however more and more big names are turning to Hillary.  I believe that most of those Hillary supporters, or at least the recent converts, like Obama more and believe that he would be a better president.  There are probably a lot of voters that feel the same way.  But because people want to back the eventual winner, most of those endorsements and votes will ultimately go to Clinton; despite the fact that if they all voted for whom they actually liked best, Obama would win.  

The only state that is remotely competitive right now is Iowa.  There is a solid race and if the winner is anyone but Hillary, that candidate may have a small chance to really use that as momentum.  But most likely, there will not be a quick enough turn over and bumb before New Hampshire, where Hillary currently leads by 20.  Once Hillary wins New Hampshire, the ball will be in her court and the nomination will be hers.  So here is my prediction, you already know that I am picking Hillary for the nomination, but I will predict that she will win 48 states.  She will lose Illinois and New Mexico, and New Mexico is just a shot in the dark, I think the ever popular Richardson can pull that out.  This prediction of course is assuming that both Obama and Richardson are still in the race come Feb. 5th.  If one or both drops out before then, that respective state will go to Hillary.  It is well within the realm of possibility that Clinton could win all 50 states and DC. 

 What this does for Clinton is it allows her to save her money for the general election, where she already has a much larger war chest than any GOPer.  She can do a minimum of campaigning now, for she is the most well known of the candidates and she has the media to give her free positive advertising.  If I were Obama, I would quickly realize that the race is all but over and hold off until 2012 or 2016.  If he plays his cards right he will be a perfect Dem candidate.  He is still young enough for the wait to not matter too much. 

This win by Hillary in such a manner ultimately establishes her as the de facto incumbent candidate.  With this status, the money, and the fact that the GOP are eating themselves alive in an extremely close race, Hillary not only holds the advantage in the primary, but also in the general.  Much to my chagrin.


Filed under Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, Conservative, Democracy, Democrats, Election 2008, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Media, Politics, Progress, Progressive, Republicans

The Media on Hillary v. Barack, Romney v. GOP, & the Primaries

Ocassionally while flipping through the channels on TV I stop on cnn or foxnews or any other news program out there.   As a rule of thumb, I do not watch partisan news shows (e.g. Hannity & Colmes, Olbermann, etc), however if there is a topic that interests me I will stop and try to last as long as possible without throwing my shoe through the TV.  I have always paid attention to politics and the goings on in the world, I have always had an opinion about everything, but it was not until I started blogging that I realized how much information the media leaves out or fails to cover.  I have also noticed that they push things they want to be true regardeless of if they are more than I ever anticipated.  This is especially true of the ’08 election.

First, the media gives predominant coverage to the Democratic race, despite the fact the GOP race is ridiculously tighter.  It would be comparable to sports writers constantly writing about an AL East race where the Red Sox are up by 7 games on the Yankees in mid-September, but it is reported like it is neck and neck.  The reason for this coverage seems to be 2-fold.  First, the media wants a Dem victory in ’08 and they think it is inevitable.  Second, the media seems to have (on average) a fascination and crush on Barack Obama.  So regardless of how large Hillary’s lead gets, the media will continue say the race is closer than it looks.  The media needs to clue in to the fact that Hillary is the nominee for the Dems. Period.

The close race, despite a fairly large lead nationally, really resides in the GOP.  We’ve got Giuliani with about a 10 point lead nationally on Thompson and a twenty point lead on Romney.  Looking purely at this, it seems that Giuliani is a near lock.  However, Romney has a huge lead in Iowa and a solid lead in New Hampshire.  Additionally, he leads in Wyoming, Nevada, and Michigan, all comprising  the first five contests– and Thompson leads in South Carolina.  So Giuliani doesn’t really lead the race.  No one leads the race.  Despite this all we hear about is the democratic contest. 

This leads to my next piece of evidence.  It appears that the media (mainstream and otherwise) is fairly anti-Romney and it baffles me.  He certainly has been raked over the coals more than other candidates and is the primary target of other GOP attacks.  Usually, this is a sign that he is the biggest threat among GOP candidates, something that I believe is accurate.  However, whenever I watch news shows or go to MSM websites they always tout Giuliani, Thompson, and McCain.  They fail to recognize that Romney is a legitimate candidate and is running no worse than a solid second, or even tied for first in the race.  And McCain is all but dead (despite a slight resurrection of late).  So not only does Romney get the most negative coverage, he also gets treated like a second tier candidate.  Something is not adding up, second tier candidates are not the target of negative media attention (unless your Ron Paul).

Finally, (and this expands on some comments above) whenever media folk are summing up the race for the GOP they say something along the lines of this, “While Giuliani leads nationally, Romney leads in the early states of Iowa and New Hampshire, and Thompson in South Carolina.”  And then they proceed to act like the order of the primaries are IA, NH, SC, FL, then super-duper Tuesday in February.  By only mentioning those select states, they act like a Romney win in IA and NH would be fairly easy to overcome.   Which, if this were the actual order, it would be in the realm of possibility with SC going to Thompson and FL likely going to Giuliani.  It would be wide open in February.  However this is not the schedule.  The schedule is/will likely be IA, NH, WY, MI, NV, SC, FL, ME, then super-duper Tuesday.   So looking at this, Romney is not only ahead in the first two states, he is ahead in the first 5.  A Romney sweep of those first five states would be near impossible to overcome.   But, probably to keep people interested, we never hear about that.  It is a slight to not only the true status of the race but also to Wyoming, Nevada, and Michigan that they are rarely mentioned. 

(Side note, we never hear anything about Wyoming.  I don’t even think a poll has been done there.  How strange.  I know that it is largelt inconsequential, but considering there are reports about polls in PA and OH, two states that vote later, one would think that at least an occasional story or poll would come out of Wyoming.  I would think that they would have at least some sway in the momentum of the race, being so early and all.) 


Filed under Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, Brownback, Bush, Conservative, Democracy, Democrats, Election 2008, Fred Thompson, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, John McCain, Liberal, Liberalism, McCain, Media, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, People, Politics, Progress, Progressive, Republicans, Romney, Ron Paul, Rudy Giuliani, Sam Brownback, Senate

Mitt & Hillary Extend Leads in New Hampshire

The latest CNN/WMUR Presidential Poll gives Mitt Romney a 15 point lead in New Hampshire.  While we are still early, 6 months from the first primary, Mitt has incredible momentum riding in these early states.  Most analysts are already conceding Iowa to Mitt and it now looks like he has a iron grasp on New Hampshire.  Naturally, anything can happen and change, and there is a good chance it will.  But this is certainly good news for the Romney camp.

GOP Results:

Romney: 33%     Giuliani: 18%     F. Thompson: 13%    McCain: 12%

In the Democratic race Hillary also extended her lead but Obama is well within striking distance.  It looks to me like Hillary is a fore gone conclusion on the Democratic side, but with Obama’s fundraising and if he can somehow manage to pull out at least one of the first two states it could get interesting.   No other Dem candidate has a shot.

Democratic Results:

Clinton: 33%    Obama: 25%     Richardson: 10%    Edwards: 8%    Gore: 8%

How about Richardson leap frogging Edwards!  Edwards is done, he is tied with a guy who isn’t (and won’t be) running.  Good for Richardson, his hard work is paying off.


Filed under Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, Congress, Conservative, Democrats, Diane Feinstein, Election 2008, Fred Thompson, Global Warming, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, John McCain, Liberal, Liberalism, McCain, Media, Mitt Romney, Mormon, Mormonism, People, Politics, Progress, Progressive, Republicans, Romney, Ron Paul, Rudy Giuliani, Sam Brownback, Senate