American 2008 Election

[belfastuniguy 18]

Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama have won the Iowa caucuses - the first nominating contest of the 2008 US presidential election.

Mr Huckabee won for the Republicans, defeating Mitt Romney.

At the Democratic caucuses, Mr Obama won a close race to defeat Hillary Clinton and John Edwards - but it is still unclear who was second.

Past Iowa caucuses can give big boosts to candidates. The next contest is on Tuesday in New Hampshire.

With nearly 80% of the results from more than 1,780 caucuses (or public meetings) counted, Mr Huckabee, a former Arkansas governor and Baptist minister, polled 34% of the vote.

Mr Romney, a former governor of Massachusetts, secured 25% support.

The victory for Mr Huckabee is seen as a huge blow for Mr Romney, who has spent tens of millions of dollars more on his campaign.

However, Mr Romney said the battle for the nomination was far from being lost.

"This is obviously a bit like a baseball game, first inning. Well, it's a 50-inning ball game. I'm going to keep on battling all the way and anticipate I get the nomination when it's all said and done," he told Fox News.

In the democratic race, Mr Obama won 38% of the vote, nearly complete results showed.

Mr Edwards and Mrs Clinton were polling 30% and 29% respectively.

"I think there was a hunger for change in this country," David Axelrod, Mr Obama's chief strategist, told Reuters news agency.

Mr Obama, a senator from Illinois vying to become the first black US president, will now be hoping to build momentum for the rest of the race, the BBC's Kevin Connolly in Iowa says.

However, both Mr Edwards and Mrs Clinton vowed to continue the fight for the Democratic nomination.

Similar caucuses or primaries will take place across all American states before each party backs a single candidate to contest the November election for the White House.

The Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary on 8 January are regarded as key for building momentum in the state-by-state process of winning the presidential nomination.

Candidates who do poorly tend to drop out of the race.

Polls from New Hampshire have indicated that the Republican contest is between Mr Romney and Senator John McCain, while for the Democrats Mrs Clinton and Mr Obama lead the field.quote>

FROM BBC NEWS

[John94538 0]

It was very interesting to see Obama and Huckabee win, but what more interesting is the tie of 30% between Edwards and Clinton... I wonder who won second place.

[Zelgadis 638]

Well, I was hoping for Edwards, but Obama will do nicely too. I like them all, really. Though my first choice, Gravel, didn't stand a chance, unfortunately.

ISF

[The_Dalai_Llama 15]

It's good for Obama and Huckabee, but it's far from over. Iowa hasn't exactly been successful in choosing candidates.

[football_fever 6]

I agree. Kucinich is my favorite, but electability is an issue with him.

And Huckabee? I think I might vomit. I'd rather have Bush for another term...plus I've actually started to like Romney. He's socially conservative, but at least he won't turn us into a religious state

[Callbat 8]

Yes I myself was hoping for Mitt Romney, he is my type of conservative

If it has to be a Dem. I really hope it's Edwards or Obama. Hillary Clinton reeks of socialism.

[BurroDiablo 222]

Originally posted by: CallbatHillary Clinton reeks of socialism.quote>

OK, you've spent too long in America, come back to Blighty

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

I hope to see Ron Paul pick up ground in New Hampshire next, I am very happy Hillary was put in her place. I have never believed she was electable with such high disapproval ratings (40%+) as far back as '93. And a closet so full of skeletons, she could make Giuliani blush.

Obama appears to me to be the new Eugene McCarthy, he would lose (maybe badly) to Huckabee or even possibly McCain.

Don't read too much into the results, though. There's still a long way to go. Billy Clinton didn't pick up steam until later in the primaries.

[belfastuniguy 18]

If I could vote I would democrat, so of course I am supporting them. I like Hilary, a good majority in Europe do for some reason. I think she was possibly expecting this, but as many have said this is the first state and I think if I remember correctly Bill Clinton did not get Iowa and well the rest is history. I think she will do very well in eastern liberal states and California, places like that.

I'm just not warming to Obama, if he does get the democratic approval to fight the election then of course I would support, but I like Clinton more. I can maybe forsee a Clinton/Obama ticket.......who knows.....

[ccecill 52]

My little dissection (or should this go in the other thread???)

I love Edwards to death... but I'm getting disgusted with the constant "I'm the underdog", "They've got more money than me" rhetoric. It seems that my wish of an Obama Edwards ticket may be fading away...

I hate Hillary... but... yeah, there's really nothing else to say... She is satan.

I like Huckabee... but I don't. He's using rhetoric similar to that used by John Edwards. "Money can't win elections!!!" While he's right, the thing that he fails to realize is that there is a force more powerful than money, Oprah, or numbers... It's Jesus.. and it's amazing how many people will support you simply because you have the word "pastor" or "reverend" in front of your name...(hitchens quote) or if you quote bible. Once you get the Jesus bunch, that may be just it (in the general elections, look at Bush '04.) It won't mean a darn thing in New Hampshire, but in S.C. and on Super Tuesday, it'll matter (somewhat). I think the primaries will be harder for him than the general election (especially if he faces Hilldog)

Obama delivered one of the best speeches that I've ever heard. Period.... and thank goodness for Kucinich.

Mitt Romney annoys me. Honestly, he seems like (or better yet is) a Eurocentric, flip-flopping elitist. He thinks giving a hard-working child of an alien living here against our wishes (most would say living here "illegally") a scholarship is wrong. He apparently thinks that since 68% of black kids are born out of wedlock, that we (black people) need some good ol' republican "family values" (and mods, I'm going no farther on the race thing.) When does self sufficiency become neglect of the common man??? When Mitt Romney's "values" become that of the Republicans... or are they already?

My picks in N.H.

Dems...

Obama

Hillary

Edwards

GOP...

Romney

McCain (close)

Huckabee (I know, no rudy..)

General Election:

Obama over Romney

[BurroDiablo 222]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy If I could vote I would democrat, so of course I am supporting them. I like Hilary, a good majority in Europe do for some reason. I think she was possibly expecting this, but as many have said this is the first state and I think if I remember correctly Bill Clinton did not get Iowa and well the rest is history. I think she will do very well in eastern liberal states and California, places like that.

I'm just not warming to Obama, if he does get the democratic approval to fight the election then of course I would support, but I like Clinton more. I can maybe forsee a Clinton/Obama ticket.......who knows.....quote>

Yeah, if I could vote I would've went for Clinton... thats IF she didn't have that stereotypical warped view of Video Games all politicians seem to have these days...

Apart from her, none of them speak to my views... wich isn't surprising really

Still... hope Obama wins, he seems like the best choice.

[Callbat 8]

OK, you've spent too long in America, come back to Blightyquote>

You don't know how much I miss England

Hehe sorry burro, I was born a conservative (never voted back in the UK, though only rarely)

because supposedly the conservatives are running some sort of Liberal Conservatism which are exact opposites lol. And I wasn't about to vote BNP But, thats UK politics not U.S.

He thinks giving a hard-working child of an alien living here against our wishes (most would say living here "illegally") a scholarship is wrongquote>

Well, I mean there here, but they aren't supposed to be here. If they are hardworking well good for them I say, but they know they are not supposed to be here. They are breaking our laws and you say we should give them our money? bah! I can barely pay for petrol!

And they are here illegally, think for a momeny sir, they are breaking the law...our laws anyway, so technically it is ok to call them illigal, in our system anyway, maybe to germans or something they are just here "against our wishes" but if your an American and they are breaking laws that the American people and the American founding fathers implemented I would go as far to call them illegal and not simply that "they are here against our wishes"

that we (black people) need some good ol' republican "family values"quote>

Well there aren't any "republican" family values there are just general values of society.

And saying that only "blacks" require more family values is totally out of context, this whole stinking country of a place needs a good smack in the face. Anyway, that was totally out of context ccecill, I don't know how democrats can pull such crap out of their arse

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: football_fever

I agree. Kucinich is my favorite, but electability is an issue with him.quote>

I think electability is an issue with most of them.

And Huckabee? I think I might vomit. I'd rather have Bush for another term...plus I've actually started to like Romney. He's socially conservative, but at least he won't turn us into a religious statequote>

I'm glad to hear I'm not the only one who got queasy.

[belfastuniguy 18]

this whole stinking country of a place needs a good smack in the facequote>

Couldn't agree with you more.

I'm somewhat concerned by the whole religion thing in American politics. Why is it some important? You elected a deeply religious person last time and look at the bloody mess he's leaving.

I personally think politics works better without religion and I think America needs to learn this and not just vote for people that preach about God and pray constantly. Just because you like their faith does not in any way make them a better Presidential candidate. Having religion in politics is never good and will always influence decisions and policies.

[ilikehotdogsalot 311]

Not only does Huckabee have a terrible name, but I think he's the most annoying little bugger ever. I lost all respect for him with the Chuck Norris and preaching ads he made.

Obama doesn't really seem like someone who is ready to take this country in the new direction it needs, in my opinion.

I'm not sure why everyone hates Clinton, I like her simply because she seems like someone who will do progress on some of the issues that really matter, plus, It's kind of reassuring to me that she has Mr. Clinton to turn to...

Basically, we really need someone good after the last 8 years of bushiness...

Originally posted by: Callbat

He thinks giving a hard-working child of an alien living here against our wishes (most would say living here "illegally") a scholarship is wrongquote>

Well, I mean there here, but they aren't supposed to be here. If they are hardworking well good for them I say, but they know they are not supposed to be here. They are breaking our laws and you say we should give them our money? bah! I can barely pay for petrol!

And they are here illegally, think for a momeny sir, they are breaking the law...our laws anyway, so technically it is ok to call them illigal, in our system anyway, maybe to germans or something they are just here "against our wishes" but if your an American and they are breaking laws that the American people and the American founding fathers implemented I would go as far to call them illegal and not simply that "they are here against our wishes" quote>

Obviously, something needs to be done about the borders, I don't want terrorists and drug dealers moving back and forth across Canada, Mexico, and the U.S freely, BUT...

What about all of those who left Castro's regime? The terrible conditions in Haiti or lack of jobs in Mexico? Should we just send all 12 million of them back? Most of them do the jobs Americans don't want to do, simply to feed themselves and their children. It's a very tricky issue.

[BurroDiablo 222]

Originally posted by: ilikehotdogsalot

Obviously, something needs to be done about the borders, I don't want terrorists and drug dealers moving back and forth across Canada, Mexico, and the U.S freely.quote>

Terrorists from Canada? lol, I wanna live to see the day...

I'd always thought the US would have taken down the Border guards between yourselves and Canada, your both well developed countries and neither should have a 'fear' over what is going out/into the country... the EU countries have no border guards and I don't really think theres been a surge in drugs, although, there has been a surge in Immigrants... but I doubt the Canadians would do much damage to the US fiscally if they were to migrate freely.

Cuba and Mexico are different story altogether though...

[TheSixCents 0]

I always remember the episode of Frasier were they accidently take Daphne into Canada.

Anyways Obama has one of those great personalities, although his lack of experience scares me.

Clinton is to polarizing though. I cant see any of the democrats winning. Obama is my personal candidate id choose.

Obama or Hillary are our next presidents.

[Boggy1 45]

Over here in Europe there is huge support for Clinton (for some reason; I've no idea why. Probably because we loved Bill.), and I'm kinda sad to see her come in second place.

I've never really looked at Obama much, but after reading his political views, he seems like a genuinely nice guy, with good liberal policies.

Huckabee would be a disaster for the USA. His ultra-right wing policies (heck, by European standards he would be classed as a neo-nazi) and his hatred for progression, I am really appaled that he came in first for the republican vote.

Now, I don't really understand American politics..at all..so would someone care to explain to me exactly what a caucus is, why it's important, why it's held in Iowa (of all places), and how it effects the overall presidency campaign?

[Frankie_Grove 32]

While I forgot this was on the 3rd, I am not really surprised by the outcome. Except, how did Huckabee manage to get so much support suddenly? He wasn't doing nearly as well before, and the other Republican candidates lost by a rather large margin.

I'm glad Obama beat Hillary, as I prefer him over Hillary. Even if Obama is un-patriotic, I think he can do a better job than Hillary.

Huckabee....I think he has some good ideas and views, but he is not nearly as good as some of the other candidates. Most people on this forum seem to hate him just for being religious, but everyone is entitled to their own opinions.

On that little issue of "separation of church and state.." if we elected only atheists/non-religious people to all political offices, doesn't that make it biased?

[Micah 16]

The Iowa caucus doesn't matter at all. It's full of activists on both sides. It's the New Hampshire primary where it really counts.

There's a reoccurring problem in America politics. It doesn't matter about the issues. It's all about likeability. People like Huckabee because he has a great personality and he seems like an average man, and people like Obama because he seems charismatic and, yet again, has a great personality. And that was the problem in 2004. People who couldn't make up their mind in the final hours were thinking "Well, I like Bush's personality better. He seems like a guy I can have a beer with. Kerry seems a little bit snobbish. I'm going for Bush." And seeing how vulnerable this country is at this moment, that's a very dangerous stance to be at.

[Odainsaker 2,136]

Huckabee, huh? Republicans are asking to throw the election if they ultimately nominate him, as his social positions seem even more right-wing than Bush, regardless of how nice of a homespun face Huckabee puts on, though I suppose that is the sort of thing the Christian evanglelical base prefers. Still, I am glad that he beat slickster Romney, who strikes me as a clone of Bush and the Bush machine. I still like a recent attack ad of Romney's that tried to point out all the bad anti-Republican positions McCain supports, which led me to realize that even as a Democrat I could still possibly give McCain a real chance. At least he speaks with gravitas on the issues. Religion and immigration are going to slowly isolate the Republican party...and perhaps that is for the best, for even though the major Republican candidates carefully avoid using the current president's name, almost all of them would essentially uphold the Bush legacy. We've had enough years of that out of which we have to dig ourselves.

Obama is inspiring enough to be our next youthful JFK. But despite the powerful speeches and the vision of Camelot, we must remember how scantily little of important domestic legislation the inexperienced Kennedy actually could successfully push through Congress. The great Civil Rights reforms and social programs of the Great Society had to wait for LBJ, who wasn't very likeable but who knew how to strong-arm political rivals, wrestle the system, and force compromises. This is the primary reason I think Edwards simply won't succeed...he is so busy demonizing the Washington system that it will refuse to play with him, leaving him with limited options in the world of realpolitiks with its deliberative compromise among competing interests. Of course, strong-arm LBJ is not necessarily the best model for Hillary, given how the murky encumbrances of the Vietnam War and social polarization ultimately shattered his presidency. But it also brings up another thought: I don't think American culture has any example of a powerful woman who is not portrayed as an emasculating Amazon Queen, Harpie She-Devil, or Marie Antoinette. Be it the president in the new "Battlestar Galactica," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, to any role starring Glen Close or Diane Ladd, politically strong women in traditionally male-dominated leadership roles are shown as cold and calculating nutcrackers laden with feminine psycho-baggage. Hillary, the establishment candidate, is likely the least radical of the Democrats, and yet is consistently perceived as the most dangerous Socialist strong-arming Rhymes-with-Witch in the nation. I guess there really is a political glass ceiling, though it doesn't help that Hillary is always self-referentially phrasing things as "I want to be your President..." or "I am ready for the mantle..." while Obama is brilliantly and correctly framing everything in terms of "us" and "we."

Still, none of it really will matter if the Congress, particularly the Senate, remains as divided as it currently is along such narrow margins, which is the recipe for obstructionist stalemated politics.

[football_fever 6]

Well said, Odainsaker. Very good points.  You hit the description of Hilary perfectly as far as how people view her.

Even though I'm a Democrat, a few years ago I'd have voted for McCain in a heartbeat. My favorite politicians are those that can cross party lines if that's where they stand on the issue. My congressman, Jim Ramstad is like that. He's a Republican and has been in Congress for 20 years I believe. He's the one, if anyone remembers, that supported Pat Kennedy (a democrat) when he crashed his car while impaired (the story is here if you want it)

McCain used to cross party lines all the time. He'd speak his mind and didn't care if anyone in his party or the other disagreed with it (and actually, a large part of why I've despised Bush for 7 years is because of his crooked tactics in 2000 where he bullied McCain out of the running). But ever since he became a candidate again, he's fallen into a trap he won't escape from with the presidency. He's changing his stances to agree more with Republican views, and much like the rest of the candidates, speaking only in sound-bites (even Obama's acceptance speech was a sound-bite).

It'll be interesting as there are more caucuses. McCain lost it in South Carolina in 2000...maybe that's where he'll pick it up this time

[MrCinatit 30]

Originally posted by: Boggy1

Now, I don't really understand American politics..at all..so would someone care to explain to me exactly what a caucus is, why it's important, why it's held in Iowa (of all places), and how it effects the overall presidency campaign?quote>

Don't worry, Boggy, many of us in the States don't fully understand it, either, but I will attempt to give a cliff not interpretation.

The "caucus" are, basically, the nomination for the seat of the President by the two main parties, Republican and Democrats. There are no third party caucus', to my knowledge, and it has probably been at least 100 years since there has been a third party powerful enough to make even a slight impression.

They are not held only in Iowa, but in all states - but Iowa is the first state to have a caucus. It is considered most important by some, because the first person to win will have some pretty good momentum going for them = and, yes, there are some people who will mindlessly vote for the person who came in first the last time.

Later, both parties have a Convention, where the nomination for each party is officially made. After that, of course, comes the general Presidential election.

My biggest beafs are:

- Independents are not allowed to vote in a caucus a lot of times. This is unfortunate, because there are many of us who do not like to tie ourselves with one party. (we can, however, vote in the final Presidential election).

- There are only two parties. Last I looked, there were more than two different points of view in the country.

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

Originally posted by: football_fever

And Huckabee? I think I might vomit. I'd rather have Bush for another term...plus I've actually started to like Romney. He's socially conservative, but at least he won't turn us into a religious statequote>

I'm glad to hear I'm not the only one who got queasy.quote>

Likewise.

I'm somewhat concerned by the whole religion thing in American politics. Why is it some important? You elected a deeply religious person last time and look at the bloody mess he's leaving.

I personally think politics works better without religion and I think America needs to learn this and not just vote for people that preach about God and pray constantly. Just because you like their faith does not in any way make them a better Presidential candidate. Having religion in politics is never good and will always influence decisions and policies.quote>

You are not the only one.

There was an article in a local newspaper recently harkening back to the days when a candidate would respond with "none of your business - that is my private affair" when asked about religion.

I could not care less about a candidate's religion. In fact, it has reached a point that it annoys me when religion is made an issue by any of the candidates, the press, or the public. The only problem is, I believe the vast minority of people are interested in a candidate's religion. There are real issues out there. For me, religion isn't even one.

[fukuda 351]

If I could vote in the USA, I would vote democrat.. probably Obama

I find the USA election system a bit confusing.. so many candidates. Here you vote for a list of deputies of a given party. These deputies will choose a candidate for the party, only one (you know which deputy will be chosen, anyway) So instead of directly voting for a person, you vote for a party, and the results are known in only one day. The deputy (which occurs to always be the party's president ) will be then the president of the government (not the state, there's a king)

[nazaguy 0]

My ideal candidate would be Obama.

Hilliary's got no chance as shes just too polarising.

As for Huckabee, well i've seen with my own eyes what happens with a religious government. Sure he might bring 'morality' back (whatever that is) but it would end up being a catastrophy.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: Boggy1 Over here in Europe there is huge support for Clinton (for some reason; I've no idea why. Probably because we loved Bill.), and I'm kinda sad to see her come in second place.

I've never really looked at Obama much, but after reading his political views, he seems like a genuinely nice guy, with good liberal policies.

Huckabee would be a disaster for the USA. His ultra-right wing policies (heck, by European standards he would be classed as a neo-nazi) and his hatred for progression, I am really appaled that he came in first for the republican vote.

Now, I don't really understand American politics..at all..so would someone care to explain to me exactly what a caucus is, why it's important, why it's held in Iowa (of all places), and how it effects the overall presidency campaign?quote>

 

So, you point the finger of Nazism at Huckabee one minute, and then admit you don't know what you're talking about the next minute. You should be ashamed.

Hatred for progression? Define progression! If you mean that he doesn't want to take the country down the road of liberalism and socialism wielded by a nanny state like England...well good!

[fukuda 351]

Originally posted by: manticorefan

Originally posted by: Boggy1 Over here in Europe there is huge support for Clinton (for some reason; I've no idea why. Probably because we loved Bill.), and I'm kinda sad to see her come in second place.

I've never really looked at Obama much, but after reading his political views, he seems like a genuinely nice guy, with good liberal policies.

Huckabee would be a disaster for the USA. His ultra-right wing policies (heck, by European standards he would be classed as a neo-nazi) and his hatred for progression, I am really appaled that he came in first for the republican vote.

Now, I don't really understand American politics..at all..so would someone care to explain to me exactly what a caucus is, why it's important, why it's held in Iowa (of all places), and how it effects the overall presidency campaign?quote>

 

So, you point the finger of Nazism at Huckabee one minute, and then admit you don't know what you're talking about the next minute. You should be ashamed.quote>

From Huckabee's website:

"

• Policies that promote or tolerate amnesty will be rejected.
• Propose to provide all illegal immigrants a 120-day window to register with the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services and leave the country. Those who register and return to their home country will face no penalty if they later apply to immigrate or visit; those who do not return home will be, when caught, barred from future reentry for a period of 10 years.
• This is not a "touchback" provision.  Those who leave this country and apply to return from their home country would go to the back of the line."

"End exemptions for Mexicans and Canadians to the US-VISIT program, which tracks the arrival and departure of foreign visitors. Since these countries account for the vast majority of foreigners coming here (85 percent), such a policy clearly violates Congress' intent in mandating this check-in/check-out system."

"Impose civil and/or criminal penalties on American citizens who illegitimately use their dual status (e.g., using a foreign passport, voting in elections in both a foreign country and the U.S.)."

"

• The First Amendment requires that expressions of faith be neither prohibited nor preferred.
• My faith is my life - it defines me. I don't separate my faith from my personal and professional lives.
• Real faith makes us more humble and mindful, not of the faults of others, but of our own. It makes us less judgmental, as we see others with the same frailties we have.
• Faith gives us strength in the face of injustice and motivates us to do our best for "the least of us."
• Our nation was birthed in a spirit of faith - not a prescriptive faith telling us how or whether to believe, but acknowledging a providence that pervades our world."

"

•  I support and have always supported passage of a constitutional amendment to protect the right to life.  My convictions regarding the sanctity of life have always been

  clear and consistent, without equivocation or wavering.  I believe that Roe v. Wade should be over-turned.

•  I applaud the Supreme Court's recent decision in Gonzales v. Carhart forbidding the gruesome practice of partial birth abortion. While I am optimistic that we

  are turning the tide in favor of life, we still have many battles ahead of us to protect those who cannot protect themselves, and so it is vital that we elect a pro-life President.

• I first became politically active because of abortion, when I helped pass Arkansas' Unborn Child Amendment, which requires the state to do whatever i

[Boggy1 45]

MrCinatit: Thanks, thats easier to understand. It's a heck of a lot different over here in the UK (and slightly less complicated too, I think).

Every party here elects a Party Leader. The party members vote for the candidates, and those who get the most votes go on to become the Party Leader. Only Party Leaders are able to become Prime Minister. You can pay to become a member of a certain party, and that means you are eligable to vote for a Leader canditate. The good majority of the populace, however, are not members of any party, and thus can't vote for a canditate.

The entire British Isles (Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales, and England), is divided up into around 600 constituencies. Each constituency has ONE representitive in Parliament (called a Member of Parliament).

During the General Election times, each constituency usually has the 3 major parties (and occasionaly a number of small or independant parties) of Liberal Democrat, Labour, and Conservatives putting up one canditate.

The general public votes for which ever canditate they want to, and whoever gets the most votes, will go on to become the Member of Parliament representing that certain constituency. If, for instance, Labour has over half of the Members of Parliaments belonging to them, with the other parties having small numbers of Members of Parliament, then Labour will win and the Party Leader will become Prime Minister of the UK.

Unfortunately, because Scotland and Wales both have devolved Governments, things get complicated as we have our own Parliments and Assemblies.

Also, parties are heavily heavily restricted when it comes to campaigning. Parties can only actively campaign for four weeks before the General Election, and there is a low limit on the ammount of money they can spend on campaigning. During this four week period Parliament is dissolved temporarily. It always suprises me how long your campaigning goes on for, and how many tens of million of dollers candidates spend on it.

manticorefan: I wasn't pointing any finger at Huckabee, I was simply stating the fact that in Europe he would be classified as either extreme right-wing or a neo-Nazi. Politics in Europe and the USA are wildly different. If Huckabee attempted to campaign in Europe, then he would be a joke who wouldn't be taken seriously. In fact, the entire Republican party wouldn't be taken seriously, and certainly wouldn't gain many votes. The policies are just so extreme right wing.

Your Democrats are, to us, right wing to centre.

Your Republicans are, to us, extreme right wing.

So for a European who is left-wing, there really isn't much choice apart from to go with the Democrats, who is the lesser of two evils.

I have looked at the policies of all the candidates, and so I do know what I am talking about. The only thing I didn't understand is how your system works; so I apologize, I should have made it clearer.

For me, progression means the moving from conservative traditional values and ideaolgies to values that are liberal and (I might get lynched for this) socialist and marxist. Personal freedom and total equality and all that stuff. I can't understand people who don't wish those things. If that makes me a Liberalist or Socialist (and the majority of Europe is defined as Socialist) then shoot me.

(Also, I hasted to add that you seem to have left out Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland when talking about a nanny-state. I can only guess it was an error on your part, as, of course, I don't see why an obviously intelligent man like you would purposely leave out the other three regions of the United Kingdom. It is doubly-interesting to me as I live in Wales, and if you are excluding Wales from being a Socialist, Liberalist, Nanny-state, then your original point doesn't quite work or make much sen

[Bookworm 1]

Oh-kay. I'm not going to write a whole huge Russian novel sized post, just this small bit:

I'm not even going to touch on Huckabee - I don't agree with him on anything, really, so there's no point.

The problem with Obama, though, is that he has a huge awesome vision of the USA with him as leader which has about -50% of a chance of ever actually happening. He's too young and too naieve to run a country that large, and has too many idealistic goals. Sure, it would be nice to have free unlimited healthcare for everyone - but is that realistic? I would prefer someone with more experience who has some sort of understanding of what it would take to actually DO what they promise.

[belfastuniguy 18]

After reading that I really do not like him. I think he would be a terrible President.

Though one of the reasons he won Iowa was due to religion. He has no chance in New Hampshire, where people seem to have more sense and tend to ignore religion, thankfully.

@manticorefan - The above polices and views don't seem very progressive to me. They do indeed seem extremely right wing. Something I DO NOT think America needs.

Also...England is not all the UK. I get so tired of people referring to the entire United Kingdom as England, it's extremely ignorant. Yes the UK government has many social minded polices that aim to assist and protect its people. Some are a little over the top but the vast majority are supported by the population and I would much rather live here in Northern Ireland than most places in America. We have world class education for all, universal health, strong environmental protection laws, second lowest crime rate in the developed world and a socially aware governing assembly and central government that seeks to ensure their people are cared for and live in a society where they can prosper.

The government here has not in any way restricted by lifestyle, in fact as a gay person it has been promoted unlike in most of the US, especially the bible bashing states. I don't smoke and they have protected my lung health and that of other non-smokers by banning it in public places. I can travel freely and I enjoy my life. I don't see a problem as of yet with the current polices the liberal and socialist and thankfully religion free ''nanny state''

@Boggy

Unfortunately, because Scotland and Wales both have devolved Governments, things get complicated as we have our own Parliments and Assemblies.quote>

As does Northern Ireland, finally......