hump

Mrs. Clinton seems to be a little agitated because no one recognizes her 30 years of change.

I am voting for Obama.

35 years? Ha. Just because you boinked the President and piggybacked your way into the White House, doesn't make you qualified Hil. Her public policy experience effectively began as the junior Senator from New York. That's it. All of this other b.s. is just that.

So, I guess Monica is out of the question.

If people are going to be honest with themselves, I think they'll admit that Hillary had a massive effect on the Clinton Administration. I mean she didn't get to present the universal health care plan because she had nothing better to do.

There was a reason that Bill campaigned on the "Two for the Price of One" slogan.

Hillary never expected this to be a race and now she's bitter and scared. Obama has NH wrapped up and very well could win SC too as the polls show him even with Clinton. I wouldn't vote for Obama, but it's nice to see him run circles around Hillary.

Huh? Did I miss something? Latest I saw, Obama's bump from Iowa's win made him even with Clinton in NH.

Obama came off way better in tonight's debate. ARG poll has him up by 12, Rasmussen has him up by 10, CNN has the two tied, and Concord Monitor has Obama up by 1. Depends what poll you look at I guess. I feel confident that Obama will get a boost from NH independents and defeat Clinton in NH. I know you're Hillary's biggest fan, but it might be time to move on.

After she finished talking about 2 tiny examples of "change" over 35 years, I would have loved Edwards to have said, "Well, all your 35 years of experience in trying to make change shows that you failed miserably."

Seriously, I don't dislike Hillary Clinton, and I am sure she would do fine as president, but she has a few things going against her that I now think will sink her for sure. (1) you can't run on change when you represent a throwback to politics of 10-15 years ago, she simply isn't fresh; (2) there are doubts about her electability against a republican, especially if it's McCain; (3) she made a tactical decision trying to work her Senate career to right of center on some issues to help in a general election, which unfortunately for her is not what the electorate is looking for at this time.

I thought Edwards was awful. He just seems like a weasel. How many times did he bring up his "-down-home, so-sad" roots? Ugh. What fucking political fucktard.

Hilary wasn't much better, although she didn't shy from her past and try to "connect" with the "little" people. She was more transparant than Edwards. I despise that guy after this debate.

I would never vote for him (or anyone else other than Ron Paul), but Obama continues to impress me with his (seemingly) honest strength.

Dola.

I was just talking with my wife, and I had a wierd thought. Since I doubt that Paul is going to be the republican candidate, and I always make sure to vote, if it was a choice between Obama and Huckabee or Romney, I might actually vote Obama. Of course, if it was any other dem, I would just write in Paul even though it was a wasted vote.

My wife slapped me, but I'm keeping my mind open.

I will likely be in the same position. I voted Paul in the Iowa caucus and he's the only Republican I would cast a vote for in the general. Since he's unlikely to get there, I can not in good faith vote for any of the other sell outs, crooks, and liars. Obama seems like a decent guy, but I just cannot sell my small government principles down the river like the Republicans have and vote for Obama. In the end, it doesn't matter what party wins the Presidency as we'll just end up with more big government.

But at the debate right before the clip that Vinatieri posted, Hillary did expose Obama pretty good when she brought up his YEA votes for the Patriot Act and funding for the Iraq war. Edwards of course came to Obama's defense and it's obvious that he's just sucking up so that he can get a VP spot.

It was great to see Edwards and Richardson gang up on Clinton last night. They must think that if they can kill the best while she's weak their chances against Obama will be imporved after she's gone.

Edwards after Clinton criticized Obama's position on health care:


Lastest polling has Obama and Clinton tied in NH, and when asked who is more electable there has been a big shift since the last pools conducted December 27-30.

Clinton 45 -> 36
Obama 23 -> 35

Poll source on CNN.com

Edit: Just saw the new Rasmussen poll for NH: Obama 37, Clinton 27, Edwards 19, Richardson 8

I don't get the appeal of Ron Paul, quotes like this scare the hell out of me: "The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers."

But anyway I hope he does cause some Republicans like Jas_lov and Schmidty to stay home, the more Republican voters staying home in November the better off our country will be.

Technically speaking, there isn't anything about a "wall" between church and state in the constitution.


Where in the blue hell have you ever heard me say I'm a "republican"? I would never affiliate myself with one head of the two-headed monster that is running our country into the ground. Yuck. Don't ever say that again, k? Thanks.

I'm not a huge Paul fan, but he is right on this issue. The whole debate is about separation of church and state is simply that there is no state sanctioned religion. This whole crap about you can't have any Judaeo-Christian references anywhere is starting to drive me nuts. I mean we can't have a moment of silence in some schools for kids to use as they want (heck, we had one, but you couldn't pray) but we can force everyone to learn about Islam in public school all for the sake of diversity there is something wrong.

Now, if suddenly tomorrow it was decreed that the Southern Baptist Church was the new state religion and you could only hold office if you were part of the SBC delegation, that would be something different.

you do realize the republicans aren't the party of small government either, right??

what's the stat...the federal government has expanded more under bush than under any president since like...fdr?

Correct, it's not in the constitution anywhere, but to say it's not in the writings of the founding fathers is incorrect. I mean, Jefferson originated the term.

I can't imagine a school allowing a moment of silence and disallowing prayer. That's completely nonsensical. They told you that you couldn't pray silently to yourself? I've never understood why people need a set school prayer, I seem to remember there being plenty of time during school where you'd have the opportunity to pray.

Anyway, I'm sure we've beat that subject to death time and time again here, but I do think Paul is frightening to some with regards to Religion/State, and I've read some things that would lead one to believe he's really pushing for the church to be more of a focus, and I thought I read something to the effect of how the church is more important than the state.

I don't really have a horse in the race. I'm partial to Obama, but to be fair that's purely from a charismatic perspective. I think he has potential to be a nice figurehead for us, and I think we really need someone with charisma and a "vision" after the last 8 years. I don't know enough about the Republican candidates to know if there is anyone like that on their end, but the ones I do know aren't.

Then again, I'm ignorant when it comes to politics, which I guess probably puts me in line with the majority of the population.

That's what I said! More big government! The Bush Administration has doubled the size of the department of edcuation, started a massive beauracracy known as the Department of Homeland Security, a needless war costing hundreds of billions of dollars, prescription drug bill, etc. etc! Didn't you read my post? That's why I'm not voting for the Republicans this year! I am techincally a registered Republican, but only because I had to in order to vote in the Iowa caucus. And I agree with the others about the church and state argument. Ron Paul is right.

Unfortunately I feel that Clinton is the best in terms of electability. Yes, I did actually say that. I think that regardless of Obama's or Edwards' numbers, you'll get similar unfavorables to Clinton as the general gets closer as Republican voters rally around their candidate and paint the opposition as evil, regardless of who it is.

I think Clinton will get as down and dirty as the Republican will. I don't think Obama will, and that's where he'll lose.

Article about Obama from 1995 from the Chicago Reader. Interesting stuff.

Actually, the whole "getting down and dirty" tactic that Hillary has seemingly tried to employ on Obama and also some on Edwards looks to have backfired on her. I think that is precisely the kind of politics that the public is tired of and part of the reason they seem to be looking for change. Obama also used the attacks by Hillary as fund raising opportunities via the internet which is how he got my money.

Bush won the election on 04 IMO by focusing everyone's attention on the problems with the dem candidates (for which there was ample reason to focus) It distracted everyone long enough from how horrible Bush had been for the past 4 years and what a mess we were in to allow him to get enough votes from the right and also those in the middle who didn't like the candidates the dems could come up with.

I think most of us are at our tipping point with the state of things today and we need a fresh face, which Hillary certainly isn't. Not to mention all of the people (dems and republicans alike) who would either vote for her opposition or not vote at all simply because she's Hillary.

That's pretty much where I am. I was a Bush supporter in 2000. 2004 presented mostly the same old crap, Bush vs. Kerry. I sat out the Presidential race in '04 by voting Libertarian. This year the Republican field is pretty much crap, and if Hillary were to get the nod for the Democrats I'd probably be writing myself in or something. I just don't like the way she operates.

Obama is my guy. The more I read about him, the more I like him. The more I read his positions, the more I like him. Of course my whole worldview has changed in the last eight years from pretty far right, to where I'd now consider myself left of center.

Someone commenting on NPR this morning said that the significance of Obama's Iowa victory was to convince people who wanted to vote for him but were not going to because they felt he "couldn't win" that he could, in fact win, and that this is translating directly into changing polling numbers, most specifically in NH.

This type of thing (the public is tired of personal attacks) has been said in just about every single Presidential election, but as 2004 showed, personal attacks STILL work. The swift boat thing may have been utterly horrible on an ethical level, but they worked splendidly. That, more than anything, perhaps, got Bush re-elected to the White House.

If someone like Guiliani wins, the dirt digging will be immense, and in certain portions of the country, certain implied charges against a black man will sink him. Maybe not in the Dem primary, but definately in the general.

While I think nominating Obama would be quite a statement (one of the big two parties nominating a racial minority candidate), I don't think he'll be able to win and part of that could be the reason why he'd be a historic candidate.

Though, in the end, Edwards is really the key. If he sticks it out, it'll help Hillary, because you know more Edwards' supporters will back Obama if Edwards drops out early.

I agree with that. I think there are/were a lot of Democrats who are/were looking for a reason not to vote for Hillary but skeptical that Obama could effectively compete -- and his early debate performances bore out the wisdom of that approach. He has gotten much better at that however, and I think the important thing about Iowa was that he proved to some extent that he could draw from many different groups (youth, independents, etc).

IMO that was what many Democrats (and Independents, I dare say) were looking for. I think that Obama's surge and performance has got to greatly trouble the Republicans who still think that McCain or someone else on their side can capture the center.

That's the reason why his numbers and approval rating are so low. Basically the only people that are satisfied with Bush are the right wingers who detest the left and rally around him for that. Regardless of what the left will say, Bush has not been a right wing president. He has actually been very moderate.

What this election is really going to be about is change. That is why Obama and Huckabee are doing so well. They are not your average polished Washington politician. I do not think that the general population is necessarily going to embrace Obama's positions on the issues, but they will embrace him.

Why is change so important? Which body of the government has a lower approval rating than Bush? Congress. This cycle reminds me a lot of 1992. Clinton was elected not because he was a moderate Democrat, he was elected because he was a change from the prior 12 years. People got disgusted with the government and in 1994 the Republicans took Congress because they ran on and represented change. After 12 years of power, the Republican led Congress outstayed its welcome and was kicked out on its ear. The result was a Democrat takeover of Congress. They didn't do anything any better. I would not be surprised to see Huckabee or Obama get elected, but I will say that if either does, they will not have any coattails that you typically see in a Presidential election.

Obama doesn't concern Republicans. We need a good candidate to run and we don't have one.

I wonder if it is too late for someone (Newt?) to jump into the race? There is a lot of GOP money still on the sideline. If someone can come in with a credible chance to win, then perhaps s/he could catch fire and end up taking the nomination at the last minute.

Newt? Uh, he should probably be thinking about getting a decent haircut first. I think it's too much money to just jump in now, right? Not sure.

Anyway, McCain seems to be surging a bit, he might be the dark horse to grab the nomination, but the Presidency is clearly a fight between Obama and Hillary. Of course, Hillary looks like she's about to self-destruct as I watch her crying on ABC.

The Republicans could put Ronald Reagan up as their nominee this year and they'd still lose. Obama has a 10% lead in NH according to the RCP average and I expect him to beat Hillary for the Democratic nomination and defeat whoever the Republican nominee is by a comfortable margin. Hillary's next best chance to win a state is in Nevada, but can she stop Obama's momentum? The establishment will rally around McCain over Huckabee and push him to the nomination as I think McCain is their best chance against Obama. They can tout his experience and ability to get independents. McCain said the other day that the U.S. would be in Iraq for 100 years. With the majority of the country against the Iraq war, Obama will coast to a victory. Hillary is bitter and scared right now. She'll try anything, including crying to get sympathy.

Give me a break... I watched that clip. She had an emotional moment. It happens to folks when they're tired. Bitter and scared? Crying to manipulate?

Blow it out your collective asses.

Jeeze Louise...

Dutch, do you think you're writing for the AP all of sudden or something?

I really don't think that this election will be a slam dunk for the Democrats like so many think. I actually think that Romney would be the best bet for the Republicans. The big thing that they could do is tie Obama to Congress. Congress doesn't exactly have the highest approval rating and Obama is apart of that. He hasn't been able to get people there to buy into his vision, why will he do any better as President?

If the Republicans take that approach, they stand a chance. If they run a normal campaign and attack the candidate, they lose.

I don't know about Romney. Silly as it all is, I really think him being a Mormon is a complete non-starter for a lot of the religious right. I could be wrong about this, but that's the impression I have.

100% right. The more I think about it, he is the only candidate that I think can really run effectively against Obama. In an environment where the electorate wants change, McCain is the last candidate the Republicans should run. The only real thing he can say is that he was ultimately right on Iraq.

Watching Brit Hume on FOX News Sunday, it was strange to watch him get such a passionate, almost angry reaction to Juan Williams insistence that Americans are frustrated, concerned about the economy and all of that. Hume pointed to all of the polls saying the economy is great, that economic indicators are all pointing up and that he didn't really believe that Americans were as frustrated as the (liberal) media was reporting.

This election will let us know whether that's the case or not, honestly.

I think there is a factor to the Congressional approval rating that you're missing, and that is that the polls I've seen rate the congressional Republicans lower than the Democrats, suggesting that people are aware of the stall tactics being used by the Republicans in Congress. Also, many folks on the left are very unhappy with what they see as the continued capitulation of Pelosi and Reed to the filibuster/veto threats. I think there will be coattails for the Dems this time around, but who knows, I've certainly been wrong before.

He doesn't concern Republicans? A Democratic candidate that draws from independents and moderate Reps? I think we'll disagree there.

Though we will certainly agree that the Republicans do not have a good candidate at this point.

Obama worries the GOP because they want to somehow stop his surge before they swept up into the tide. Obama is no Kerry and so 2004 bears no resemblance to this race at all. Even all of the talk about him being all talk and no substance just isn't true. The guy is wonkish and has more than an affinity for spending too much time in the minutia of boring issues that don't fit well into soundbites.

From a straight policy perspective...I have a hard time getting behind the guy, because he's just too populist for me in his rhetoric and his desire to "change lives" using government. That's just too much overstepping and too any good intentions that could lead us to a host of New Deal-esque policy decisions that my generation will have to pay for the rest of our working lives.

As it turns out, the Republicans have done a terrible job of marketing themselves as people who really could appeal to all Americans. Hell, I can't even see that they can appeal to a broad base of moderate right-of-centre people.

I would hope that Obama's surge would induce moderate, freedom loving right-of-centre people to consider running for Congress and the Senate, to rise above the polarization and silliness that have dominated the political debate.

As for Hil's crying "moment"..it's bull. It was a staged question and she handled it flawlessly. But the fact that she's so robotic that her attempting to cry is newsworthy, shows that the wheels are coming off of that freight truck a lot faster than conventional wisdom.

The real question going way further and assuming Obama would win the nomination, who would he pick as his running mate to diffuse the debate about him being "inexperienced."

Hmmm.

Just to touch on the race thing for a second. Politically active blacks I've talked to or communities online that I frequent are taking a huge wait and see attitude. I think Iowa surprised a lot of folks and if he wins tomorrow, that it will be interesting to see how much of a boost he gets down south as a result. A lot of (black) folks that I've seen are just not convinced that he'll get elected because of the race issue, beyond any of the other stuff.

But his lack of a "traditional" campaign in that regard is making him so intriguing and that his base of support goes beyond liberals, beyond blacks, beyond moderates even..that he's really doing something we haven't seen in a long time by a candidate.

I hear the Kennedy comparisons more and more and yet, I feel as if none of that stuff really speaks to the complexity of this race to some degree.

I think the real issue here is, this is such an unknown thing to so many people that the entire complexion of this race is overwhelming the pundits who can't quite be sure what to make of it.

My sense is, a lot of people -- young and old -- seem exasperated with the "business as usual" sort of activity politics has become. Obama's ascendancy has a lot more to do with the lack of upstarts and change agents who have a seat at the table and I think they feel like he represents a 'new day' in American politics.

I'm glad that David Gergen just said on CNN that Hilary's crying thing earlier is showing a woman who is "frustrated and feels like it's her turn and this young guy Barack Obama has come from nowhere to take it from her."

And that, to me, is the problem. It's not a coronation, it's supposed to an election and just because we "know her" already, doesn't mean that she doesn't have a responsibility to tell folks why she'd work and "experience" just doesn't cut it.

Dark Cloud, as much as I can understand the appeal of Obama because his name is not Hillary Clinton, do you think he will run as a moderate, esp. when he has to support the traditional Democratic platform? He will be forced to answer the race issue unless he wants to keep a noticeable percentage of voters at home. Also, I have said frequently that McCain will be the safe choice for the GOP but Obama, in today's poll, show him even with him despite the wave (he is well ahead against the other candidates, which is no surprise). Finally, I just saw that Hillary will likely win Michigan (they're saying 85% chance) - that might erase IA and NH.

One other thing. Every generation gets on board with a new politician in thinking that he will be the one to finally change things in Washington DC. Obama is certainly charismatic enough to run a good campaign and while I know this has been beaten to death, experience does count for something, esp. in foreign policy nowadays.

I would hope that Hillary would win Michigan considering that Obama, Edwards, and Richardson won't even be on the ballot! LOL! It'd be hilarious if Obama supporters came out in mass and voted for Dennis Kucinich or Mike Gravel instead! That would really sink Hillary! Even if she wins, Michigan had its delegates stripped! She needs to win Nevada to stop the momentum.

Ok, I'm not really up on th is primary stuff.

Why the heck would Obama, Edwards, and Richardson not be on the ballot?

Obama is now polling at 50% in SC and is tied with Hillary nationally.

I believe that's a fat lady singing.

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll...DATE/801040426

It says here that they're "fulfilling a pledge not to compete in Michigan as punishment for the state's breaking primary scheduling rules." Michigan was stripped of all of its delegates. Florida too.

Forgot about that.

Interesting.

Is there any thought that this would make people in Michigan bitter and hold it against them in the General Election?

He'll back the GOP platform as much as Bush did to the GOP platform. I don't think the people backing his surge care about platforms. They care about getting behind a candidate they can "believe in". GWB has really alienated a lot of otherwise normal, rational folks and they're tired of being ignored by politicians who will cry on demand and do whatever is politically expedient. Obama would do the same thing, but they don't seem him as they see the others. That's the difference.

Is he a liberal? Sure. But I think that when you query people who've worked with him whether in the Illinois Senate or in the U.S. Senate, they've found him to be really good at consensus building and working across the aisle. It's actually the reason that the liberal blogosphere that support Edwards and the fringe are really not liking him. Because he's not their guy. He's too into working together and the netroots folks want to have the same sort of revolution that the Christian Right had with Bush.

Or at least, that level of influence to be pandered to.


What race issue? He brings it up in almost every speech. We know he's black, your name wouldn't allow you to indicate otherwise. His base of voters are mainstream, college-educated and independent white people. For a black mainstream candidate it's unprecedented. Middle America won't be offended by him and one of the most notable things about his "race" to the U.S. Senate was how well he did in areas like Southern Illinois that are really conservative. He's also well-liked in populist areas that are moribund right now like Western Illinois because of the number of industrial jobs that have been exported. He's amazing adept at reaching out to a cross-section of people.


To touch my point above, the most difficult thing about watching this race for me as it shaped up..was I felt like the GOP didn't have an answer for this guy, if he found a way to make it out of the primaries. It's still a long way to go, but...the fact that he's on the rise and that Hillary is basically flopping and we all know Edwards is a loser whose only chance was to face off against Hillary when Obama flopped early...says that if he comes out of this he's not just formidable, he's unstoppable.

You really think you can keep black voters home an in election year when a black candidate manages to win a nomination? Seriously? Not gonna happen. He's already registering new voters -- young folks and independents -- in huge waves and that's not going to stop. This is the same thing that started with Dean, but he wasn't anyone anybody wanted to rally around. He was just different and he was an outsider. But he blew that and fell off the map.

Obama doesn't have that problem and if you want to throw dirt on 'em, just get one of his books and regurgitate the same stuff people have known (and don't care about) for years.

I touched on it before, but the whole thing with him is simple. Baby boomers want to dominate everything. They want an entire generation to essentially ignore their turn in line to run this country, while they continue to do the shit they want to do..because they feel like they're more important than the rest of us.

The fact of the matter us, a lot of independents and young folks; moderate minded people too, are tired of the divisiveness. It goes beyond the same monochromatic debates about black and white race relations. Who the hell cares about that with the immigration we're seeing from Asia and Latin America? Those folks are ascending and want a seat at the table. Poor people are tired of being taken for granted, for being pimped by people who don't care about them and feel like this guy is someone that will speak for their cause in a way that every other well-heeled mainstream candidate won't.

What GOPer is going to attract Democrats? McCain eight years maybe, but now? Not gonna happen. Romney is a slimeball. Rudy couldn't win an election in New York this November, let alone America. Huckabee? He's a country-fried Bill Clinton wanna-be, but there's no Arsenio Hall to play his guitar on and Leno ain't gonna cut it.

The Dems offer retreads and has-beens at every turn too.

It's not really just about Obama being a black candidate and yet...that's really a poignant statement about his message to some degree. Because I said it before..but we're in a world where so many people feel like we truly can all succeed if we just try and that to have a guy like this -- someone who was theoretically impossible to all of us a decade ago when we thought (if we did) about an idea of the "first black president" -- just "show up" and do all of this, really makes me believe that it's bigger than politics.

I think that in the grand scheme of things, his politics are no more nutty than any of the other candidates who have flawed visions of what works and what doesn't. Hillary might be experienced, but she's like the Cosby Show on CBS. A show we've seen and whose golden years have come and gone.

This election -- regardless of the outcome -- speaks to a frustration that so many of us have about the way things work in this country and that the calls for folks calling for the "same ol' same ol'" are really operating under the veneer of their vaunted experience that's gotten us in a lot of the quandaries we are in.

Experience is ducky, but it doesn't do squat if the people involved aren't committed to the notion of change. The fact that so many folks are making a mockery of this theme of "change"; as if it's some sort of caricature really underscores the point that I think Obama is trying to make.

It's almost that, change isn't just a buzzword that looks good on a poster. It's a thing that requires us to dig deeper, to retire the old faces, promote new ones and rely on the experiences on the past -- and those people to some degree -- to collaborate and create a new day for America and for our partners around the world.

Because if we don't, our democracy and its standing in the world are far more in jeopardy than people probably want to believe.

And with all of that stuff, I still say that I'm not inclined to vote for Obama because I don't support his stances on issues that are key to me, I'm far from a modern liberal and that I'd prefer a candidate to surface that not just articulates my views to some degree..but having someone up there who I feel like truly cares about the people from all walks of life in this country and their situations.

The modern politician have truly ignored those folks who America possible and while I'd support no ponzi schemes aimed at taking my hard earned dollars to
"give" them a piece of the pie.

I do believe that there need to be a host of creative solutions -- from the local level, but agitated from the bully pulpit of the White House -- for America to create a new dawn for people and to revive the idea of the American Dream for people; especially native born folks, who have simply been left hung out to dry....and who we've left behind under the guise of "if they wanted it bad enough, they'd work as hard as I do."

I hate the one-sized fits all answer for every political issue out there and it comes largely from those of us on the right. At least left wingers will cavort among the poor, we're too busy hanging out in churches and advocating "private solutions" while endowing people who already have tons of cash to do even more under the false idea that "it will eventually trickle down."

That's an overly simplified view of things...but I've already gone on too long with this thing and that wasn't my intent.

Bullshit. No more waiting. No more patience. Stuff needs to happen and not just talking about. It needs to happen now and so, whoever is willing to roll up their sleeves and do it..and engage people in a meaningful way are the ones that I would support.

But haven't discovered that person yet for me. But I find the whole turn of events in this year's early going fascinating.

Obama is riding a wave to the Dem nomination, then that wave is going to roll right over the GOP nominee in the general election. A strong GOP candidate could stop it. But there are no strong GOP candidates. Seriously, look at those jokers. Are you kidding me?

Nice post (#151), Dark Cloud.


If stuff like this doesn't get people to question Faux News' connection to reality, then I'm not sure what will. I wonder if he knows that the price of a gallon of milk is these days.


Yes, but.... He's also pretty good at soundbites and impressive speeches. I think you'll see more of this if he's the nominee.


Flippant Answer: I'd rather pay for those kind of things than a trillion dollars to invade & "rebuild" Iraq & tax cuts for the rich.

Serious Answer: On the other hand, Obama's shown a propensity, especially as a community organizer, to take this kind of money and make sure something gets done with it. I get the impression from him that when he chooses to advocate funding for programs, he's also very interested in what the results are going to be and how those results are going to be measured. I like that approach.


That would be nice, but unless those people have their own money, they'll always be operating from behind the curve.


The past 8 years have certainly proven that.

Somebody needs to tell Richardson that when you have a giant, fat turkey neck, a turtleneck is not for you. He looks like a choking iguana.

I don't really get into most of the political debates on this forum as unlike most of you all, I definitly don't have all of the correct answers :)

I will say though, that I feel I am the type of voter that most of the candidates are trying to go for, and it is my vote (and others like me) that will decide the election. As a moderate independant that does not vote along any party line, this election has been pretty interesting so far. I do realize that voting in Massachusetts my vote actually doesn't really do alot (for the same reason as when I lived in Texas), this state has a strong party allegience and it usually is not in question..

That said, this election has been more about who I won't vote for rather than who I want to vote for. I don't know if that is a good or bad thing, but it feels weird for me. As I watch the various candidates campaign, and listen to their stance on issues, I don't have one that jumps out at me that says they are the one I want to back. Instead it is about people turning me off to them and causing me to just not want to vote for them.

I've already decided I absolutely won't vote Huckabee or Romney, I also won't be voting Clinton for any reason what so ever. So if it ends up Huckabee vs Clinton, I likely won't even place a vote for president between those two. Right now if I had to vote, it would be for Obama, but I could also go for Guilliani or Mccain as well. I wonder if the Obama surge that is being seen is alot of others who have similar moderate leanings as I do. The only difference is that I don't view myself as belonging to either party, so I don't vote in primary elections.

Dark Cloud, that was a good response and I'll respond more when I get home. To quickly clarify, what I meant by the race issue is pandering to the Jesse Jackson wing of the party. I would suspect that there are more of those than there are moderate black voters, but haven't seen any numbers. So far Obama has kept that wing at arm's length but somewhere down the line, he's going have to confront that (i.e., giving into the long-stated black-only demands that Jackson and his ilk keep bringing up). So far, Jesse has called Obama out for being "too white" (in reference to Jena 6). You and I both alluded to the same thing: the trade-off where you alienate some in order to gain others. McCain can do the same thing, as oppose to Guiliani who alienates everyone or Huck who is being alienated by his party.

It is Obama's to lose now. Even after Hillary played what my wife and I called the "tears card" last night. Maybe she was honestly choked up at a tender moment after months of grueling campaigning. Or maybe it was a well-calculated political ploy to pander to women. I know what my money's on with Hillary. I just really hope she doesn't win the nomination so I don't have to vote for her.

The thing is, where else are they going to go? Jesse can't stop people from supporting Obama and Obama's already recently been out with Al Sharpton and it looked to me like they were having a good time. I think that the bottom line is, those guys just want to be recognized for having been on the ground floor "of the struggle" and that so long as he's willing to pander to them in even token ways...they'll relent and realize that it's not their time anymore.

In the grand scheme of things, it's like I said before. No way that black voters will be the stumbling block to his ascendancy. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Jesse's comments were intentional and that they were attempting to use the idea that the media seizes about black on black divisiveness as a way to make (white) people think "gee, if they don't like this guy..maybe he's onto something. We ought to check him out."

I don't think this is like what the GOP candidates or other candidates face, because Obama's base isn't the black community, never has been and never has to be. He knows that and they know it. And that's what's so special about this race in terms of him being a post-Civil Rights black candidate.

Damn, this cynical view pisses me off. I am not a huge fan of Hillary's, but I just don't see the "well-calculated political ploy" angle of this thing. She's not Meryl Streep. The moment seemed quite genuine and what she said there was pretty much the most moving and compelling thing I have heard from any candidate to date.

The fact that she welled up when discussing the state of this country is in makes me like her even more.

Given the hatred Clinton inspires she can't win. I even remember when folks thought that whole hostage situation at one of her campaign headquarters was a "well-calculated political ploy". Come on, people, get it together.

I think I made the political ploy joke about the hostage thing. I was joking what the right would have to say about this.

I did say I think it could be genuine. But it was headline news on all the Evening News shows last night. I was just saying what I thought. Sorry to piss you off.

You are right that she can't win, though. I really think the tide has turned against her in terms of viewing her as "electable". Maybe it's too bad... maybe not. We'll probably never know. She still has her Senate seat to fall back on.

With 9% of precincts reporting, Obama and Clinton are in a tie with 37%. McCain is up by 9% over Romney on the Republican side with 37%. Democrat voters are outnumbering Republicans by 2-1 so far, same as Iowa.

With 12% of the vote in, John McCain is the projected Republican New Hampshire primary winner. Democrat race too close to call.

13% reporting. Hillary has a 4% lead.

23% reporting. Hillary's lead has expanded to 6% and about 3500 votes.

40% reporting and Hillary maintains a 2700 vote lead. If she wins this she will have defied all of the polls, will be crowned the comeback kid, and will go on to win Nevada, South Carolina, and the Democratic nomination.

None of the major college towns have reported yet. It's too early to say. But agree that if she wins here, she comes back and changes the tide.

:confused::confused:

John Titor...is that you?

46% reporting. Hillarys lead up to 4300 votes.

I still think that Obama is going to end up with a narrow win tonight for the Dems, but I just don't think the Clinton camp has quit in them. Really, a big issue is what Edwards does -- right now, his line is that he's staying around all the way to the convention, and if he does so, he probably will continue to drag 5-12% in most states, even without money and organization. My guess is that 2/3 or more of those Edwards voters, were they released by him dropping out, would vote for the leading non-Hillary candidate, and that's clearly Obama. I think he will continue to siphon votes from Obama as long as he continues to register in the polls.

It might turn into a battle where Obama can win states with fairly "open" primaries by pulling in independents, while Clinton will win most of the closed voting among party members only. If that is true, this has the greatest potential to meaningfully carry on all the way to the convention of any primary campaign in a few decades. (With this year's GOP primaries shaping up as another contender for the same label)

Also interesting that Schneider is dancing around speculation that the "crying" incident might be responsible for Clinton's strong showing among women voters (she is beating Obama by 13% among women as of the exit polling they have in hand).

I like how he avoided that too or even to speculate why she managed to get more women votes.

They are irritating with their buzzword, "the best political team on television."

Oh look, a Ralph Reed sighting.

It's official. Hillary Clinton has won the New Hampshire Primary. She is the comeback kid and there's no stopping her now.

you know...i've noticed...you are prone to hyperbole

edit:

and CNN.com still hasn't called it and shows it only 6k votes apart

Jas really does get excited rather quickly, eh?

I do get too excited and I'll try to stop. MSNBC did call it though.

hey it's okay...just be yourself man. Don't let me razzing you for it on a internet messageboard change who you are. It's not worth it.

I think you just have to understand that maybe that's why people can be somewhat...irritated by you sometimes. But as long as you're somewhat thick-skinned...shit...just ignore it.

dola

cnn.com has called it for billary too

I think it will be very interesting to hear a breakdown of what the experts thing happened here. Polling has been very reliable in measuring the actual votes in recent elections, but here the last few days projected an Obama win by something like 6 to 10% over Clinton. There are always last-minute decisions, and I'm guessing that maybe the two things that Obama had going for him (the swoon factor, and the fact that he is not Hillary Clinton) probably had attracted all the people that they were going to, and so the last wave of undecideds eventually mostly went for the more "established" candidate.

The one I've heard that makes the most sense is that a lot of Independents that planned on voting for Obama decided to vote in the Republican primary (likely for McCain) because all the polls showed Obama up by so much.

While I wouldn't go so far as the win Nevada, SC and the Dem nom (I think she'll win Nevada, the Dem nom, but may lose SC), it figures that a Clinton would be counted out for dead and then storm back and take victory from the jaws of defeat. Her husband was a master at it.

I agree. I admit that I was wrong and you were exactly right. Hillary was not done and she defied all of the polls which said that Obama had an 8% lead before the NH primary. Obama is going to try and rally the troops in S.C. with "Yes we can" but I don't know if it'll be enough to stop Hillary who has just began her trail of tears.

I have (deliberately) not been following things too closely during this cycle. I am not a swing voter (I will almost certainly vote for whomever the Democrats nominate, unless it is Edwards--in which case, I may not vote for president). I do, however, enjoy the history and geography of elections, so I will begin following more closely in the following months.

With that in mind, does anyone want to take a stab at picking out which states, that Gore and Kerry did not win, that Obama or Clinton would win? I am not as confident as others that the Dems will "steamroll" the Republican nominee. The best scenario that I can foresee is that Obama or Clinton pick Richardson as their VP candidate AND McCain does not win the Rep. nomination, then Richardson could help swing New Mexican/Arizona/Nevada/Colorado. Does anyone actually see the Dems chipping away any Southern States (Florida? Arkansas?) or somewhere like Iowa or Missouri?

I buy that in general (that he will have trouble in states where McCain has a strong presence) but I would expect that to have shown up in polling. I would presume that most of these polls ask people in what primary they intend to vote -- so you'd expect that independents who knew they were going to vote for McCain would indicate so in advance, and we would have seen that in pre-primary polling.

It's a whole different game trying to decide which candidates will do well in a state based on demographics, local issues, D/R splits, and so forth... as compared just to basing it on polling data, especially that done very near the actual vote. The latter, finding major differences between multiple polls and the actual vote, is often pretty mysterious.

Ohio. The Republican Party is an absolute mess in Ohio right now.

Iowa. Democrats in Iowa outnumbered Republicans 2-1 at the caucus. Our recent vote for Governor went to Democrat Chet Culver by a very comfortable margin. Iowa will go to Obama for sure in the general election and probably Hillary. They will pick up that state and its 7 electoral college votes for sure.

I think you are misunderstanding the premise slightly. I'm saying that independent voters that have Obama as their number 1 choice saw how far ahead he was and decided that their vote could be better spent in the tighter Republican race. So in the polls leading up to the election they showed as Obama voters, and on voting day they went out and voted for McCain or whatever other Republican. Obama does have strong support among independents as does McCain, so it'd make a lot of sense from that perspective.

well so much for the various news channels blowing Obama's horn all day saying how big a lead he had and now having to eat their words since Clinton's won. Had to turn it off because I couldn't stomach it anymore. They need to stop putting so much importance on early polls-their coverage today especially was what will happen when Obama wins New Hampshire and how the others will respond to it. No one (that I listened to at least) said anything about Clinton winning.

There are a lot of independents and last-minute decisions over who to vote for so far in this campaign, and they need to recognize that and stop using the early polls as the guide for their coverage. Because the "best political team on TV" sure didn't look like it after the results came in.

I think the conventional wisdom is that the overall temperature of the election determines which are the swing states. If the popular vote is looking close, then you likely have a similar list of "up for grabs" states as last time.

If, like some believe (not me, really) the Dems are going to come into this general election with a lot of swing voters in their pocket, then you might see a few states like Ohio or Nevada actually start out as fairly comfortably blue, and the swing states will shift slightly to the right. If that unfolds, then the electoral calculus can turn into a tough one for the GOP, where they would have to end up winning every one of the newly-defined swing states.

Another major wild card issue is immigration, which plays pretty differently in the southwest than in other parts of the country. If it plays a major role in the general election (as I suspect it will) then you could see some movement among specific states that doesn't simply track the national D/R split over issues like Iraq or economic policy.

My guess is that the Dems only take a true deep south state if they win handily and it's really an electoral landslide. It's possible they pick off Louisiana (for regional reasons) or I guess Arkansas (since it's traditionally pretty close), but by and large I don't think they win anything in the south unless they are winning the country pretty easily. I also suspect that a Dem victory in some of the states with a heavy military presence (I'm thinking Missouri here especially) are less likely, even though the votes were close last go-round.

That sort of thing really doesn't matter. It's all about PR and expectations. Indeps voting in the Rep primary instead (whether or not that actually happened) doesn't fit into the framework of Obama supposedly trouncing Clinton and Clinton miracualously winning.

It's all about framing the story.

Again, I am familiar with the general concept that the two may have been battling for some of the same potential votes.

The trouble with that theory is that lead-up polling showed a pretty comfortable lead for McCain as well as Obama. It's not like there was some clear indication that McCain really "needed" the I votes, and Obama didn't. McCain was pretty clearly going to win, and he did, by pretty much the margins that the polls suggested.

Given the sheer numbers of voters on each side (plenty more D than R voted today), for Obama to have lost 8-10% of the actual D turnout compared to poll data to McCain would have meant something like a 15-20% bump in McCain's numbers compared to poll data, and it just wasn't there. Yes, McCain outperformed his poll numbers a bit... but that swing (winning by 8-9% instead of 4-5%, or thereabouts) not enough to support the idea that there was a simple give-take with Obama voters.

In whatever happened between the latest polls and the actual voting, Obama didn't lose all his votes to McCain. He lost a lot of votes to Clinton, plain and simple.

Good point. I do still buy that it was potentially a significant factor, but there was certainly more going on than just that.

Given that this was the first secret ballot it's quite possible that we saw the first indications of whites not actually pulling the lever for Obama.

Of course all of the polls announced over the past few days had a very high percentage of undecideds, so maybe it was just a case of the famous late deciding New Hampshirites falling for Clinton.

This, though, goes to show how stupid the whole primary process is. Neither NH or IA mean shit in the delegate count. It's time for both parties to come up with a more representative primary system.

Didn't even think of that. Iowa has open voting, I totally forgot!

Interesting, despite "Winning" new Hampshire, Clinton got the same amount of delegates as Obama

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/

Delegates won in NH tonight

Republican
McCain 7
Romney 4
Huckabee 1

Democrats
Clinton 9
Obama 9
Edwards 4

Some guy on MSNBC made this point too. That the private voting could have made a difference from the open voting in Iowa or the polls beforehand.

He pointed out some double digit poll leads resulting in losses or very close victories in elections involving some african american candidates in the past. Not all of them, but some.

So Obama lost because white people were afraid to vote for a black man? And instead they voted in large numbers for Hillary Clinton over John Edwards? Doesn't make much sense. I would hope that NH voted for Hillary because they thought she was the best candidate. If the people of Iowa wanted to support Hillary or Edwards over Obama, they would have. What would it matter if the voting was open or closed? I don't think race was an issue here.

According to the exit polls, Obama won in the 41% of the white male category who voted 38% to Hillary's 30%. But Hillary crushed Obama in the 54% of the white women category 46% to 33%. I think it was more gender than race that propelled Hillary to victory.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/pri...html#val=NHDEM

It's funny, with the tidal wave of Obamamania we saw after Iowa, and the polls showing big leads for him, that NH essentially reverted to what polls were showing in the state last month, though with Obama picking up some of Edwards' support. It was said by the media quite often that NH is often momentum-proof from the Iowa win, and the voters there proved it.

That's what I thought as well. Another thing to consider is the New Hampshire Democratic Machine. Hillary had all of the machine on her staff in N.H. this time around. And they never fail to disappoint.

So the debate is here is weather Obama lost because he's black, or if Clinton won because she's a woman.

Between that, the media treating Hillary having an emotional moment on TV as news that may sway votes, the media's obsession with Obama and zero corresponding discussion about why he may or may not be a good president (except for the fact that he'll apparently bring "change" (I guess because he's black and we haven't had a black president yet), this has been the most irritating presidential election ever. I'm going to do my best to stop paying attention or caring. PM me when we have a president.