Rex Kickass

McCain v Huckabee? With that Southern voting block and evangelicals coming out in enough numbers in other states, we might not have a winner going into the GOP convention.

Dixville Notch cast their votes. First in the state that's first in the nation. Turnout: 10 votes Obama 7 Edwards 2 Richardson 1

It's widely rumored that this psychotic break is partially of a manic episode gone in the red zone from her BiPolar disorder.

Total voter turnout at the Wyoming GOP Caucus: 1200 voters. Out of approximately 136,000 registered Republicans in Wyoming. That's a 1% turnout.

Honestly, that's weak star power. Dems might not be great at winning elections when it comes to the Presidential race. After all in 2004, Kerry trots out Springsteen and half of Hollywood. Bush got Billy Ray Cyrus and the born again Baldwin brother.

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Jan 5, 2008 -> 07:51 PM) Ok, what is the deal with Michigan and Florida? are they officially of limits to campaign? i head someone mention that Hillary might do something in Florida and I thought all the candidates agreed not to go there or Michigan because the DNC has pulled their delegates for having primaries too early. The Dem party tried to stop the leapfrogging of states to earlier and earlier primaries and caucuses and tried to set a date of Feb 5 as the earliest that most states could have their nominating contest. Exceptions being IA, NH, SC and NV. (NV was given an early date to try to move the initial campaign partially out west and reflect the Latino voting bloc which is large there but small in IA, NH and SC.) Michigan, thanks to a state law, is having its primary earlier than Feb 5 as is the Florida Democratic Party. The DNC has told the states to move their dates back, or they won't honor the contest and strip the state's delegates. Florida refused, calling the DNC's stripping delegates bluff. So the DNC pulled the delegates. Michigan, too... although the state party could have chosen to hold a separate caucus on February 5 that might have gotten their delegates back, but for whatever reason, didn't. At the same time, because MI's primary's balloting laws are relatively lenient, the DNC encouraged viable candidates to pull their names from the ballot. It is my understanding that the only "viable" names left on that ballot are Hillary, Kucinich (who filed the papers but a couple hours past the deadline to withdraw) and Gravel.

I kinda feel bad for her. Horrible family, bad marriage, crazy divorce, bipolar. Having a psychotic break in front of the whole world? This all went from funny to just sad a long time ago.

That's a lame comparison. Clinton has been a Senator for seven years. Deanna's only played tailback for three.

I don't know that Edwards is done. Depends on what happens in S.C. actually. He spent a lot of money and effort in Iowa, but he has good Union support across the board and that can carry him a few more weeks. A strong third or a surprise second in New Hampshire definitely makes him viable through Tsunami Tuesday.

110,000 Republicans participated in the Iowa Caucus. A record in a state with almost 600,000 republicans. And this gets 5 hours of non-stop coverage. That's kinda sad.

Fred Thompson got 13% in Iowa. And he really only campaigned there in the last two weeks. Imagine what he could have done if he cared to put in the effort.

Romney spent 7.2 million dollars in Iowa and got less than 40,000 votes.

My money is on Bloomberg which is a mistake. I like a Richardson or Schweitzer VP nod myself.

Clearly it was the remnants of Dole/Kemp '96.... hoping to get written in by the 15 GOP Iowans that will actually show up to their caucus tonight. It's most definitely not beneath Ron Paul to do something like this btw. The guy isn't nearly as all about the love as his supporters would make you believe. It's a desperate act from a guy who raised enough money that he should be competitive but won't be, because his supporters are so rabid, he just reminds everyone of Lyndon LaRouche.

11% turnout is pathetic. At anywhere and anytime. This is the only election in the nation where 11% turnout gets this kind of constant attention. It can be first, but the truth is that it should be as important as Wyoming is for the GOP, which btw is caucusing for its Presidential candidates on Saturday, in case you didn't know.

QUOTE(WilliamTell @ Jan 3, 2008 -> 03:36 PM) You may think it's silly to have Iowa always first, and maybe it is, but to us Iowans it's something very special and we take pride in it. You wouldn't realize how many people are looking forward to tonight. This is the first time in a long time that both parties are a toss up right now. Iowans love the publicity they get once every 4 years. It's not like New York, Florida, California, Texas, etc. that have the massive population. If it was really that important, maybe more than 200,000 people would show up for these things out of the 1.8 million registered voters in the state. I'm sick and tired of having 11% of a voter base in a state that controls fewer than 10% of my party's delegates having such a big say in who gets to be the nominee for President.

Ultimately, a lot of the oil pricing is speculation, no? The price of oil only touched 100 a barrel because one guy bought a small quantity at 100 to say he was the first to do so. Then he promptly sold it for a loss at 99.40.... (I think it was only a $600 loss on the $100 per barrel transaction). I read that on the internets this morning so it must be true.

Dems: Obama 32 Edwards 29 Clinton 23 Richardson 8 Dodd 7 GOP: Romney 32 Huckabee 31 (Lots of momentum, not so much organization) Paul 12 Thompson 11 McCain 10 Guiliani 2

It's a HUGE gamble for Musharraf that includes severely compromising his friendship with the US which is one of the only stable things left in his government. In a sense, I'd argue that Bhutto's party had everything to gain by her death. She was a failed prime minister twice over who could never seem to walk the talk on the moderate principles that she claims to embrace.

Except that Musharraf had absolutely nothing to gain by killing Bhutto.

You don't hear about Fred because he's put more effort into filming Law & Order episodes than he has in running for President. If you want people to follow your campaign and get press coverage, it might be a good idea to show up at more of your own events.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Dec 31, 2007 -> 10:39 AM) I am unimpressed when they have to publicize that they did it. "Oh, look at me, I donated $10,000 for poverty relief! Ain't I great?" If you are doing it for the right reasons, you don't shout about it to further your own agenda. You want to give back? great! Then do it. Quit telling me you are doing it. However, Reddy made a good point, I am sure the people receiving it couldn't care less. You can't be the founding member and head of a poverty center without anyone knowing that you are the founding member and head of a poverty center. But this debate is pointless for you because there is no way that a guy like John Edwards can win. If he doesn't tell people what he donates, you will say he doesn't give anything to charity and doesn't contribute a serious amount so he "doesn't walk the talk." Then when someone illustrates that a guy like John Edwards does give a serious portion of his income to charity, suddenly its all for a nefarious purpose. Like publicity or to get elected or whatever. But the truth is that Presidential candidates are going to have their charitable contributions exposed, whether they want to be anonymous or not. Because, if you are writing a check, its gotta be declared to the taxman. So now the question arises, if you have to disclose what you contribute to charity, doesn't it make sense to talk about the charitable issues that concern you most?

It's funny that the same people who defend the building of wealth so fervently are so unimpressed when someone who is wealthy tries to give back. It's a trend I've tended to notice with a lot of people.

DJing a lame party in PA.

Doesn't work so well for Musharraf, but there is opportunity here. If Musharraf has elections on time, if he can cut some sort of under the table deal with Bhutto's party. What he ought to do, IMHO, is come out and endorse that party for election in Parliament. Should he do that, I think a lot of the unrest starts to die down.