I watched all of the debates

and found Obama to mostly speak in generalizations

He seemed wishy-washy on some issues

and it was difficult to discern what if anything,

he had definitive positions on or passion about

The man is addicted to fudge

I think, to this point, Obama has been given

a kind of free pass from the national media

He is an inspirational speaker,

but what does Obama really say,

when one goes beyond the catch words,

"Hope" and "Change?"

"Hope and change" are meaningless words,

unless one has the courage of principles

and convictions and is willing to take

a stand even when such a stand exacts

certain personal or professional sacrifice and price

Romney had the money and superior turnout organization.

Clinton had discipline and structure.

In the end, it came down to likability.

Many Iowa bloggers have written about the "retail politics" aspect of the Iowa caucus campaign. Both Huckabee and Obama excelled at this type of "up close and personal" campaigning.

People found they could identify with Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee--they seemed to be common folks who understood common concerns. It was just harder to connect with Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney.

In an atmosphere of change, voters want a candidate who is more like them and less like a carefully scripted, polished candidate.

Obama and Huckabee achieved this connection through the hard work of meeting people in small towns and big rallies.

The one thing that no one wants to talk about: Will Iowa really matter?

For all the attention and millions of campaign dollars spent in the first Presidential contest in the nation, the Iowa caucuses are really a straw poll, little more than a beauty contest.

election Musings [Original]

I was not at all surprised by last night's Iowa caucus results. In fact, I fully expected them.

However, I have substantial concerns about the choices made.

Were this a personality or "likability" contest, I would probably concur with the results on both, the Republican and Democratic sides.

Both Huckabee and Obama seem like very likable individuals. They both possess keen intelligence, quick wit and come across as genuinely nice guys.

But, are either of these men equipped and prepared to deal with a dangerous, complex and in many ways, chaotic, contradictory world?

That, I am not so confident about.

I don't know that Mike Huckabee has ever stepped outside the bounds of the United States. He seems to have little knowledge, experience or curiosity about the worlds outside of religion and state politics.

The same was true of George W. Bush in 2000.

And we see what an absolute disaster that Presidency has been.

Huckabee doesn't strike one has having quite the same arrogance and ruthlessness as George W. Bush. But, his experience seems as limited.

Moreover, Huckabee's tendency to mix Religion and politics truly bothers me. There is a reason we have separation of Church and state in this country. There are probably almost as many views on religion (or lack thereof) as people in this country.

Nevertheless, the bottom line is no one has a lock on God.

One is free to believe whatever one wants in this country -- as long as those views do not infringe on the rights of others or are attempted to be forced on others.

Barack Obama doesn't seem to inflict his religious views on others. But, speaking for myself, I am not quite sure what Obama's views exactly are.

I watched all of the debates and found Obama to mostly speak in generalizations. He seemed wishy-washy on some issues and it was difficult to discern what if anything, he had definitive positions on or passion about.

Hillary Clinton took a lot of hard media knocks when she "fudged" a question on immigration, but two weeks later Obama fudged the very same question and totally escaped scrutiny from the press.

I think, to this point, Obama has been given a kind of free pass from the national media.

He is an inspirational speaker, but what does Obama really say, when one goes beyond the catch words, "Hope" and "Change?"

"Hope and change" are meaningless words, unless one has the courage of principles and convictions and is willing to take a stand even when such a stand exacts certain personal or professional sacrifice and price.

Obama has been very critical of Hillary Clinton for her votes on Iraq and Iran.

But, Obama didn't show up to the Senate for the vote on Iran and he was not in the US Senate when the vote was taken on Iraq.

Who really knows how Obama would have voted if actually in the US Senate at the time of the Iraq vote -- especially if a vote opposing the war would have cost him politically?

It is much easier to be critical of something when on the outside looking in, as opposed to being on the inside and having to take full responsibility for a decision.

Why did all those in the Senate with political ambitions vote for the Iraq war? Because to vote against it at the time would have been political suicide for any Democrat planning to run for President later.

My guess is that had Obama been in the Senate at the time he would have either found a way to abstain from taking the vote at all or voted for the Iraq war, despite his reservations.

But, one cannot abstain from making hard decisions in the White House or simply answer, "present" when confronted with difficult dilemmas or proposed legislation.

Fortunately, for Obama, he wasn't in the US Senate at the time of the Iraq vote.

But, that in itself is another problem.

Obama has only been in the US Senate less than one full term and most of that term he has been spent campaigning for President.

There is no real record to go on.

And as far as Obama's record in the Illinois State Senate, well that is a bit unclear, too.

It seems there were many votes on issues that he didn't actually take, but simply indicated "present" to.

What does that mean?

I personally think it means we really don't know what we're getting in Barack Obama.

We know he is extremely intelligent, well educated, accomplished, ambitious, well spoken and seemingly quite idealistic.

But, it is hard to know beyond those things.

Sometimes, Obama comes across (to me) as somewhat dispassionate and detached. -- Like someone who relates to the world on an intellectual and philosophical level, but who might have trouble empathizing on a purely gut level.

Maybe that is not a bad thing... I just don't know.

And therein is my entire problem with Barack Obama: I don't feel I know enough, despite following him throughout the debates and listening to his speeches to feel confident about Obama becoming President at this juncture in time.

There is just not enough history or evidence to know what this man truly is, exactly where he is coming from and where he wants to take this country.

I need more than phrases like "hope and change."

Finally, there is Hillary Clinton.

Well, she took a bit of a beating last night.

Despite the fact, I support Hillary Clinton, I don't feel its a bad thing she lost the caucus in Iowa.

She's made some critical errors and she needs to learn from them.

The first two were those votes on the Iraq war and Iran.

I think I have idea why Clinton cast those votes, but they were not votes I and obviously many other people concurred with either at the time they were cast or now.

I can't get inside Hillary's head to know exactly whether she cast those votes out of political calculation or because she genuinely believed Iraq and Iran were plotting against the US.

Either way, they were mistakes.

The other big mistake Hillary has made is in being too cocky throughout the campaign.

When asked, for example, a month or two ago by Katie Couric if Hillary ever considered losing her Presidential bid, Hillary answered an emphatic, "No."

That came off as too cocky. Nobody is invincible during a Presidential run. Anything can happen in a campaign.

Humility is important and Hillary needs to learn it.

Last night's caucus results are hopefully teaching her.

Despite my opposition to some of Hillary's critical votes and positions, I nevertheless feel she is the best of the candidates running.

She has substance. She is experienced, knowledgeable and prepared. What's more, I believe Hillary truly wants to make this a better country and will undo many of the evils of George W. Bush.

I also believe Hillary will represent the country well on the world stage and improve our image.

But, how she handles this setback in Iowa will tell us much about Hillary Clinton over the next week or so.

Will she come out of this defeat with grace, strength, aplomb, humility and resolve?

Or, will she come out of it, weakened and on the offense?

If she's smart (and I think she is) Hillary will come out of this disappointment grateful for the "learning experience" and a lot more humble.

She needs to gather up her convictions, confidence and courage and move on a stronger person for having known rejection -- just like she did in her marriage.