IOWA CAUCUSES!

Election 2008: Battle of the Amusing Sounding Names!

The fact that Huckabee won for the Republican side is NOT A GOOD SIGN.

Most of the "mainstream" candidates in the Presidential elections lack the "experience" that a McCain, Biden or Dodd possess. Unfortunately, there is more to being President than being able to be in Washington, D.C. for 30 years - over 90% of incumbents win their re-election campaigns as they are able to raise more funds and have better access to the media. Experience is a great asset, yes, but charisma, values and vision are equally important.

Obama has no less experience than Romney, Clinton, Edwards, etc. He was an Illinois state senator for twelve years, during which time he was also a lecturer on constitutional law at the University of Chicago (this is very relevant!). He has served as a US Senator since 2004.

Clinton has just finished her first term as a US Senator and before that was the unelected "First Lady". Edwards was a US Senator for one term. Romney was a governor for one term. Giuliani was a mayor. Huckabee was a pastor (though he has served as governor for several years now). Despite being an active Democrat, I actually like Huckabee. The internet is up in arms about him right now, but only because they fear a man with religious convictions.

The entire conservative moniker is a misnomer. The has been literally no difference in government spending during between Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. They just spend their money on different things - defense instead of public services. SPEND, SPEND, SPEND, as you put, is a good thing if there is a return on investment. Most spending, however, by both parties is waste full of earmarks and pork. The person with the most earmarks for his home state? The Republican senator from AK, Ted Stevens (aka the intertubes guy). The average state recieves about $400-$1000 in earmarks per citizens\, Alaska recieves upwards of $10,000. I do wish that the federal government was held to the same standard that states are - you can't spend more than you make. It would also be nice if they use modern business accounting practices instead of the archaic billing methods they use now that hide the true value of our deficit.

American politics are complicated for what I gather is no apparent reason. Electoral colleges and insignificant state primaries and whatnot. It's about who each party will pick to run for presidency.

As a Canadian living in Japan (not exactly in the know), I gather that of the two parties that stand a chance of getting elected ("the only two parties that count") they first have to choice which candidate to nominate to run against the other one. The first test is in primaries, which I think is when each state's party members (I believe any person can register to be a member of either the Democrats of Republicans) vote on who they think should get the parties nomination for presidency. For a reason I don't know, Iowa gets their primary before all other states and whatever the people in Iowa decide affects how the candidate feels about themselves, and how everyone else in the country will feel. I think most states have laws that their primary can't be before a certain date, but others don't. If certain people wanting the nomination continue to do poorly, I think they usually drop out and put their support behind another candidate, and usually before all the primaries are finished, each party has decided who will get their nomination. Once decided, they will run against each other for Presidency.

I read an Australian editorial somewhere that said this system leads to so much choice and freedom for the American people. I thought that was silly.

Based on my limited knowledge, I'd be happy if Obama won. But if there's another candidate for public health care, and for changing the focus on that war they started (as opposed to pulling out as fast as possible or staying to fight in the name of liberty), then I'd be happy if they won. Of the Republican candidates, Huckabee and Paul scare me the most. Although Paul more than Huckabee.

Unfortunately the actual election process here is obscenely complex and contains many facets of questionable usefulness - like the electoral college, for example. Generally speaking, many Americans barely understand the basics, if that.

As for Obama's so-called 'lack of experience', there are presidential candidates who have had less experience, now and in the past. Barack is the same age as Kennedy when he died, and it's not like Huckabee had a whole lot of experience in law or politics before becoming a governor.

I'll have to disagree with Holb on Huckabee though - I really don't think he is someone we need right now. He has some rather extreme policies, and the evangelical experiment hasn't been so hot in the past. And while I hardly base all of my opinions on the link provided in this thread, I don't really trust a guy who behaves like that to have the sensitivity to solve the cultural problems we face in our country, much less the Middle East and other turbulent regions.

Just to clarify things for the Canadians, the current process ongoing by both parties to select their candidates is an unofficial process of both the GOP and the DNC and is not sanctioned by our constitution. If the parties wanted to draw straws to decide their candidates, they could do that as well. This has nothing to do with the federal government.

The national parties work with their affiliated state parties to host either a caucus or a primary to earn "delegates", who in turn decide the state party's candidate, very similar to our electoral college. For example, here in Minnesota the state affiliate for the DNC (Democrats) is the DFL party - Democrat-Farmer-Labor party. Depending on the local state party, the caucus or primary may be closed to only registered members or open to any registered voter of any party. They also set their own dates, though Iowa and New Hampshire move theirs up accordingly. New Hampshire actually has a state law declaring they must always go first. The dates are more about tradition than any other reason. Why shouldn't Iowa and New Hampshire go first? However, the two major parties like this status quo and will punish states that try to upset it. For example, both Florida and Michigan lost all their delegates to the DNC by moving their dates up.

The process, as mentioned, is unofficial. Parties are mentioned nowhere in our constitution, in fact many of our founders opposed the notion. Thomas Jefferson, however, believed strongly in them. Minor parties sometimes just find a candidate to endorse and run with them. A few years back Pat Buchanan became upset at the GOP when he lost in the caucuses and primaries and decided to run under a third party platform.

The electoral college is an outdated program that has outlived its usesfulness. It was originally intended to keep the "uninformed masses" from voting a total idiot to the office of president, as the electors are the ones who actually determine the winner of the state. Judging by the last two elections, they failed in their jobs miserably. Actually, most states now have law declaring whoever wins their popular vote gets the entirety of the state's votes anyways, so it's slowly being eroded away.

Also, I don't care how "extreme" people think Huckabee is. As a pastor, obviously he's said things that will upset your typical young person or liberal. But it's not about someone's personal opinions, it's about what they would do them. Huckabee's record as a governor is actually far more left-leaning than most Republicans and even some conservative or moderate Democrats. I'm a Christian yet I would eagerly support a muslim or an atheist running for president if I thought they were the right person for the job. 99% of the crap circulating the internet about Huckabee is not about his policies, but rather his "extreme" beliefs, which, to me, are irrelevant unless he plans to enforce them on everyone. Also, remember this is the man who was was against the war in Iraq and called President's Bush foreign policy "fear tactics and bunker mentality" - of course, you don't hear that part when the liberals are slandering him.

Also, I saw him rocking out on Leno.

Edit: Karsu, the only two evangelical "born again" Presidents have been Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush. Oh wait, they both were terrible.... but I doubt religion had anything to do with it.

Wow, thanks for the wholesome explanation Holb. Thanks also to Canuck, and I suppose a slight thankyou to Karsu.

Of course, it is not until I ask that we discuss it in Social Studies the next day at school...