News-Record.com

I'm not impressed by Mike Huckabee's so-called big win in the Iowa caucuses tonight.*Doug

Yes! But in the Iowa Funny Religious movement, this proves the second coming has happen. And come next Tuesday, he comes face to face with the Devil in New Hampshire, who will no doubt make Mike a believer why Chuck Norris can't kick box in the snow.

I think Iowa will be forgotten in, oh, about a week.*Doug

How about midnight! ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

ary 03, 2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meaning, none of them wins or loses. So, on to the next stop, and the next and the next.*Doug

Winners and losers tonight

Winners

Huckabee--But where does he go from here? The Improv?
Thompson--still alive but at 2% in New Hampshire
Paul--double figures after every single press report stated he couldn't win--exceed his poll average by 40% in a hostile environment

Losers

Romney--bet the ranch on winning there
McCain--badly wanted third place
Giuliani--a humiliating 4%

Also, rumor has it that Rudy is indeed broke.

I'll bet the people of Iowa thought the primary was important. Seeing that many people participate in a vote on a frigid weekday night impressed me.

Hooray for Iowa!!! The win for Obama shows that Iowans are for "Change" and are not hindered with all of the politics of race.

If only Greensboro could do the same...

No matter how articulate, no matter how much an agent of change, no matter how much integrity and quality of character possessed, no matter the leadership qualities possessed, no matter how much experience, no matter who his strategists and advisors are, no matter his achievements, no matter his wisdom - no black gentleman is going to be elected to a national office - it just ain't going to happen -

At this point, it strikes me that Obama has as good a chance as anyone.

If he doesn't make race an issue, most voters won't, either.

Doug, I think Huckabee's fate will partially be determined in South Carolina. If he wins there, he may have more legs. If he does not, it may be very difficult for him to survive in the long run.

Thanks, Joe. I think Huckabee ought to skip New Hampshire, which is as meaningless to his campaign as Iowa was to McCain or Giuliani, and focus on South Carolina.

Maybe Edwards ought to head straight to SC, too. If he shows badly there, he's probably done.

Could someone tell me what change you are talking about? I have not heard one candidate, say one thing about what they would change. Seems a while back the liberals were squawking, when we take over congress, things will change. One changed they promised was lower gas prices. As of 20 minutes ago gas was up 40%. Face it no matter whose in power it's the same old crap.

Talk to your President about gas prices. All of his buddies in the oil industry are the ones profiting from gas prices, so Liberals have nothing to do with that.

As for change, that comes when the people seek leaders that are from outside of the status quo such as a Barack Hussein Obama or a Mike Huckabee. Leaders that will to lead America into a new and much needed change of direction.

Let us elect a president that is not last-named Clinton or Bush and that has no ties to Albright or any of the old guard that has led us to this divisive and segregated place that we are at now.

Mr. Johnson when you mention Liberals, who exactly are you talking about. I would wage that if you "really" look at the position of all of the candidates and them personally our (democratic) candidates are far more conservative than yours (republican).

Doug, I think Huckabee's fate will partially be determined in South Carolina. If he wins there, he may have more legs. If he does not, it may be very difficult for him to survive in the long run.* Joe

Huckabee faith has already been had. Jesus has return to Iowa and holding Huckabee hostage until the primaries are over.Which bring us to another question? Why did the hero of 9/11 refuse to field a team in Iowa? Some hero!

Yes, please ignore Iowa. What a bunch of redneck prima donnas. Except for first-class wrestlers and MMA fighters, nothing of note has ever come from that state, and here we are having to pay attention to it for a matter of months.

" TheGreatGatsby said:

"As for change, that comes when the people seek leaders that are from outside of the status quo such as a Barack Hussein Obama or a Mike Huckabee. Leaders that will to lead America into a new and much needed change of direction."

Gatsby, you said absolutely nothing of substance regarding what the change would be. What is a change of direction? It sounds like the direction is toward turning more and more of our life over to the government to manage for us.

Hilliary was the big loser last night. She was advised to skip Iowa and she refused to do so. She invested a lot of resources in Iowa with her national campaign, and hoped to deliver Obama a knockout punch in Round #1. She has been saying that she would overcome her high negatives by bringing new voters to the polls; young women. Well, they came, but they went for Obama, not Hillary. A 9% loss to Obama hurts her more than she can admit. She is no longer the inevitiable candidate. She gambled, and Obama won big. Consider that over 70% of the voters voted against Hillary, and that is just the Democrats. The message is that people find Hillary just too unlikeable to be president. Obama has John Kennedy charism, but does he have the substance to back it up? Right now, that is all that he has. Irregardless, Hillary is in a dogfight, and she needs to find a message for voters as to why she should be the candidate. Bringing back bill and Hillary is not change. It's back to the past and Clinton fatique.

He should have joined Rudy Giuliani in ignoring this insignificant state, concentrating instead on primaries in more representative places. But he has time to recover and blow off this minor setback.* Doug and the other two Giuliani cheerleaders , Bubba and Joe

CNN Questions Giuliani's Viability

I couldn't believe my ears when I was watching the Situation Room and one of the analysts stated that Giuliani spent a "non-trivial" 56 days in Iowa and lost badly, so his "viability" is questionable. Wow!

The Great Gatsby is wrong that liberals have nothing to do with high gas prices. They have blocked much additional exploration and development of new oil fields and the building of new refineries. Gas prices are set by supply and demand and liberals lower the available supply then scream about greedy oil companies. As for profits, Gatsby may not realize that governemnt makes far more off a gallon of gasoline than the oil companies make.

As for change, I'll quote the late Barbar Jordan at the 1992 Democrat National Convention: "Change from what to what?" The change that Obama, Clinton and Edwards speak about is more change toward the same old failed sixties liberalism. It's SOS - same old socialism.

The Great Gatsby is wrong that liberals have nothing to do with high gas prices. They have blocked much additional exploration and development of new oil fields and the building of new refineries. Gas prices are set by supply and demand* John Blust

Right! Can you explain why the retired CEO of Exxon [ Fat Ba#### Lee Raymond" made 640 million Federal Reserve Notes as his payout when he retired last year? And when can we expect Exxon to pay that 35 billion dollar legal judgement to the citizens of Alaska for the Exxon Valdez disaster after 20 years? It appears that your therory of supply and demand is base on the present form of fascism in the market place...And are you aware that the greatest user of Oil products in the USA or for that fact is the United States Military industrial complex.

Trying to defend the present Global Oil corportions is like the Captain of the Titanic claiming that there will be no refunds after it's first voyage since security and safety is not a issue

Connie Mack, who gives a flip how much money a man makes. If you have a gripe, buy stock and voice your opinion. Strange you liberals never complain about ambulance chasing lawyers. Great Gatsby, you changed the subject, it was your liberals that said they would cut gas prices, not Bush. Mexico is drilling off our coast now for oil and we sitting on our ass worrying about what Al Gore is saying. CM I agree with you about Exxon , wonder why Clinton did nothing about it in 8 years? I still waiting to hear what change!