Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Clinton Wins in a Stunning Upset

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) has won the New Hampshire Democratic primary, one of the most stunning comeback victories in modern American politics.

You can read more here and we'll have far more on The Fix tomorrow.

But before we leave the Fix community for the night, a few quick thoughts:

* Something happened over the past 24 hours that proved all the polling wrong? What was it? Clinton's emotional moment at the close of a diner stop yesterday? Something else? Theories abound; answers are few.

* Clinton's vaunted organization in New Hampshire deserves a massive amount of credit. State director Nick Clemons, national political and field director Guy Cecil, who all but moved to the Granite State over the last months should be bronzed by the Clinton campaign.

* Clinton's victory ensures that the race is on to the 20+ states who will vote on Feb. 5. Sen. Barack Obama starts in those states with an organizational and financial edge, although Clinton should be able to make up considerable ground based on the momentum gained in New Hampshire tonight.

* Former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) may well be done. His campaign depended heavily on turning this race into a two-person affair between himself and Obama. Clinton's win obliterates that strategy. And, how can he possible find the money to carry on?

By Chris Cillizza  |  January 8, 2008; 11:10 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Defying Polls, Clinton Continues to Lead
Next: Obama Looks Ahead

Comments

High school is over dave. follow you party to the irrelevance you've earned the last 8 years

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 10, 2008 5:00 PM | Report abuse

"That is democracy. That is the constitution. President Bush is accountable to the people just like every other president has been. Because the american people have not held him accoutable like you want does not change this. With your "us" vs "them" attitude, how successful do you think Obama (or anyone else for that matter) would be in uniting the country?"


"I know you are but what am I"


"your either with us, or against us"

George W. Bush

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 10, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

JKrishnamurti - "you people hate blindly all those not like you. I have valid reasons for my hatred of bush/fox/rush. And my opposition to clinton. They are real vaid policy reasons. Can you peopel say the same. Talk to me after the elcetion."

I have valid reasons why I dislike many politicians. I simply loath the last three Democratic presidents but they were still my presidents. If Obama, Hillary, Edwards, Gavel, Kucinich or any R is elected, they will be my president. I may not like them or their policies, but my recourse is to get people to vote them out of office and sway my congressmen/Senators. That is democracy. That is the constitution. President Bush is accountable to the people just like every other president has been. Because the american people have not held him accoutable like you want does not change this. With your "us" vs "them" attitude, how successful do you think Obama (or anyone else for that matter) would be in uniting the country? It's seems, according to you, it's your way or the highway (again, much like my three year old). You talk, sincerely I believe, about the divisions in this country and yet you are contributing to them with your my way or the highway attitude.

Posted by: dave | January 10, 2008 2:31 PM | Report abuse

There is something with Hillary. Have you seen the video when they were talking about her childhood to going to college and those sort. Hillary is always doing something as the first female student to deliver a speech something like that. She was the first First Lady to become a Senator. Now she will soon to be the first woman president of the United States. Her comback in New Hmapshire, this was said...."one of the most stunning comeback victories in modern American politics". There is really something in Hillary. That's why there is no question about her when it comes to her determination and conviction to win. Hillary has anyway the best qualities that a president should have.

Posted by: lianette_steele | January 10, 2008 12:50 PM | Report abuse

Pamela -- the next president will appoint, at a minimum, two Justices in their first term. And they're likely to replace Stevens and another left-leaning Justice. Likely Ginsburg or Souter, if I was guessing. So if that's a concern of yours, a McCain adminstration would be problematic.

Posted by: _Colin | January 10, 2008 11:38 AM | Report abuse

And dave. Talk to me again if obama is elected president. Let's hear the fascist racist repblcians then talk about how or who is not their president. This before he ever makes a decision. There is the differance. you people hate blindly all those not like you. I have valid reasons for my hatred of bush/fox/rush. And my opposition to clinton. They are real vaid policy reasons. Can you peopel say the same. Talk to me after the elcetion. I can't wait to hear you people then.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 10, 2008 10:54 AM | Report abuse

What is stunning is that there is one person who calls this "stunning" or even a comeback, at all. She was leading in nearly every NH poll up until Iowa. Obama got a boost and the attention of the nation.

What HC and company needed was a way to draw attention to her temporary injury and engineer an alleged comeback. So they went out to the media glumly and noted that she was down, acknowledging that the writing was on the wall. It was a classic rope-a-dope, and most media bought into it hook, line and sinker. Thus, another Comeback Kid is born, even if it is phony.

Don't forget NH doesn't get it right all that often and the folks there have a lot of fun telling pollsters false information. The Clintons are among the best precinct vote counters ever. She never was out of the lead and the campaign knew it.

Posted by: rcmacdonough | January 10, 2008 10:53 AM | Report abuse

"Do you not believe in the constitution? Have you no faith in democracy or rule of law? This is the "I lost the game so I'm not playing anymore" philosophy of my three year old.

Posted by: dave | January 9, 2008 09:13 PM

"
You highlight dave. DO YOU AND YOUR PARTY? Read your post to me again. The nerve of you people. We have no constitution thanks to you people. We have no law and order thanks to you people. You people have no faith in democracy as YOUR PRESIDENT IS NOT ACCOUNTABLE TO THE PEOPLE.

But it's must easier to point out and blame the messanger than to look at teh facts.

I got a suggestion for you. Represent all americans, then come talk to me. Nopt just republcains, and democrats or indy's are traitors. That's what you said right? We are traitors that do not have the right to free speech, correct?

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 10, 2008 10:50 AM | Report abuse

JKrishnamurti - "But bush is not my president. His choice, and your parties, not mine. That is the differance. My movement wants to represent american and be your president as well as mine. your party does not want to serve all americans interests, therefore he is not teh presidentof all."

I feel sorry for you. The number of things that are seriously wrong about this statement is mindboggling. How can one person be so close minded? How are you so sure that "your" president would serve or even want to serve my interests? I doubt that would be the case (although they would still be my president). If your choice for president does not make it, your choice is to not consider the person elected your president. Do you not believe in the constitution? Have you no faith in democracy or rule of law? This is the "I lost the game so I'm not playing anymore" philosophy of my three year old.

Posted by: dave | January 9, 2008 9:13 PM | Report abuse

'In my opinion, a President that will talk with countries like Iran & Venezuela to find common ground is far preferrable to one that will cut them off - which is a tactic that plain doesn't work.'

Yes, clearly. Very clearly. That is something I advocate.

'Presuming you included me in your [misspelled] label, even though I did express reasons for why I oppose Hillary, I thank you, indeed, for you have added one other idea to my growing list [at 3:13 PM].

'Like Bush-Cheney, who labels anyone who rationally opposes his politics as "unpatriotic" or "anti-America" [or, at the least, as a "Bush-basher"], Hillary [or Hillary supporters] label anyone who opposes her politics as a "Hillary Hater" or a "Clinton-basher", or sometimes even more foolishly as a "misogynist."

Don't presume, I didn't. I'm not talking about people who oppose Hilary for rational reasons -- of which there are many. I'm talking about people who oppose her because of reasons which don't exist.

Posted by: drindl | January 9, 2008 7:44 PM | Report abuse

First i will need to educate all of barack hussein obama supporters. mr obama is not african-american. his father was from kenya, and he was raised in indonesia. He has no relatives in the united states that were under slavery.His mother was the only american blood he had.
And the color of his skin doesnt matter. What matters is who is going to be able to lead from day one. He has no plan, he just repeats the same old speech over and over. Let him walk in the shoes of a true american slave, then he can claim he is an african american.Obama has alot of questions to answer. His record proves it. and for the most part he sided with the republicans on bills.

Posted by: melodymg | January 9, 2008 7:36 PM | Report abuse

-pamela - "So how long can Justices Stevens and Ginsberg hang on?"

There are many that would argue that they have been dead for years...

Posted by: dave | January 9, 2008 7:01 PM | Report abuse

jimd52,
Headline from the AP (finally!) - "GOP, Democratic races wide open"

Posted by: dave | January 9, 2008 7:00 PM | Report abuse

colin, there's something to be said for good and decent. I agree, McCain, NOW, would be a more competent iteration of the Bush Iraq policy. (That might actually be a plus - I think we have a moral responsibility, having toppled the government, not to walk away and hope the Iraqi government also becomes competent.) And maybe I'm naive, but I don't see him as someone who would start another misadventure like this one. So how long can Justices Stevens and Ginsberg hang on?

Posted by: -pamela | January 9, 2008 6:48 PM | Report abuse

Your falling into the sexism game AdrickHenry. Could it possibly be she is goerge bush in a pant suit?

Could it be she has followed bush in all his war stances? could it be her playing gop games agaisnt her party (obama)? could it be she will run the same servialance state bush has tried to employ?

Could it be she will continue the yale plan?

Don't be so quick to characterize. Like with obama, the old rules don't apply. The 60's are over. This is the battle waging, in the dem party. the old people and old wars, agaisnt youth and the future.

Don't be so quick to call the sexism card, as obama supporters shoul dnot be quick to pul the racism card. Look at teh facts and issues. To play that game accompliches nothing.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 9, 2008 6:06 PM | Report abuse

AdrickHenry: What you say is true, no doubt, that many men hate Hillary because she is a strong woman and they are afraid of her in some way. Fear is behind most hatred.

But what you say is true in many contexts. Many may oppose Hillary simply because she is a woman, but many oppose Obama simply because he is a black American, and many Richardson because he is Hispanic, and many did Lieberman because he is a Jew, or Giuliani because he is a Catholic, etc. etc. Stupid, irrational people such as these are not going to change, and it is irrational in itself to try to argue with irrational people. It's like getting angry at an appliance.

Your reasoning that sooner or later some woman has to become POTUS is quite true [and desirable!], and that that woman, whoever she may be, will sustain much abuse from the irrational anti-woman-POTUS group is, I feel sadly, also very true. But if you are implying or suggesting that we might as well elect Hillary now and "get it over with", then I would suggest that you are dreadfully wrong.

There are millions of us who oppose Hillary because she is, in our estimation, the wrong--if not the worst--candidate for being POTUS. It is not too hard to understand that we are opposed to her for what she is, regardless of her gender, race, or religion. We put America first, and not merely one party or one person.

Your Jackie Robinson example was good in itself, but not apt in relation to Hillary. The more one knows about JR, the more one is in admiration of him. Above all, he had an enormously ethical quality of CHARACTER, taking incredible personal abuse for the good of a higher goal than himself.

It is precisely that quality of character, that millions of us who have had to endure Hillary [and Bill] since their "two-for-the-price-of-one" show in 1992, find so dreadfully lacking in Hillary--and similarly, in my view, in Giuliani as well. They lie and prevaricate and deceive with an artistry that does parallel the incredible artistry of JR in baseball. In their respective talents, they are "naturals"--but their talents are on opposite ends of the ethical spectrum.

Ignore the irrational haters. Ask yourself which candidate will be best for America. And then ask yourself, Why?

Posted by: radicalpatriot | January 9, 2008 6:02 PM | Report abuse

our resident drug dealer is on a roll today Proudto be gop. it's that all your going to talk about. clinton won this round. Nothing to do with the general.

Many agree about that assessment as much as you are trying to propogate today. Lay off the vic's

He played the roll of a political stollie. He sacraficed his men for bush's legacy. Choosing and outside influcne over our country IS treason. Look up the definition of the word if you have a problem with the dfinition.

Should we talk about the phoney soldiers rush statement again

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 9, 2008 6:00 PM | Report abuse

""after what your presdent has done"

He's your President too Rufus.

It really bothered me when Hillary Clinton went off on how this is "George Bush's war".

No it's not.

Even if you don't agree with it, it's America's war.

This is OUR country, we WE have a SHARED destiny.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | January 9, 2008 05:14 PM
"

No he is not. Bush as well as teh gop, chooses nto to represent all americans. i didn't make that choice, your party did for me. The gop is a monarchy. Bush is the king. But only to his loyal subjects (gop). He serves you and you serve the leadership. Leadership throws you bones.

But bush is not my president. His choice, and your parties, not mine. That is the differance. My movement wants to represent american and be your president as well as mine. your party does not want to serve all americans interests, therefore he is not teh presidentof all.

Now you see why Obama has the support he does. ANd edwards. And Paul. We have not been represented in america. Why? Is it my fault? No. If your party wants to represent me, by all means. We are on the opposite ends of the spectrum, and your party has shown this is what matters.

Typical gop. Make the rules then cry and whine when people hold you do them. Be the president of one one party, not the american people, then blame the people for not supporting you.

you and your party get's no sympathy from me usmc. You've made your fascist bed. Sleep time is coming for the gop. for a generation. Not my fault. I wish you did represent me, so me and my family were re-united. Repulbicans are clones.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 9, 2008 5:55 PM | Report abuse

bsimon:
Q: "In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?"

BHO: "I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous. Now, Ronald Reagan and Democratic presidents like JFK constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil empire. And the reason is because they understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward."

Reagan did not just hop on AF1 in 1980 and go meet with the Soviet leader. There were years of low level meetings, high level meetings and personal letters between presidents before Reagan ever had reason to meet with Gorby. Also note that Reagan (or Carter or Bush or Clinton) did NOT meet ever with Castro, Quadaffi, Khomeni and numerous other enemies. Obama A) does not know his recent history and B) fails to recognize the importance and power of POTUS in the rhelm of diplomacy tools. To say that the president running feverishly around talking to every little two-bit dictator is following the Reagan or Kennedy model is reason enough to doubt his foreign policy.

Posted by: dave | January 9, 2008 5:55 PM | Report abuse

Pamela -- John McCain is a very decent man, but his foreign policy ideas would constitute a more competent iteration of GWB's policies. Also, you are right to fear McCain judial appointments unless you've been a fan of the folks GWB has put on the court. Again, McCain's picks will be more of the same. Obviously, you should vote for whoever you feel is best for the job -- and I genuinely do understand McCain's appeal. But I respectfully would suggest that the country can't afford another 4 years of the neoconservative agenda.

Posted by: _Colin | January 9, 2008 5:41 PM | Report abuse

Proud -- So, first you made wild accusations about the Clinton administration explicitly disrespecting the military that you had to back off of. Then, you said that Clinton called General Petraeus a liar to his face, before having to back off that accusation. Now, you say that she accused him of treason b/c she refused to condemn an admittedly stupid and in poor tast ad?

Honestly, I think your recent posts today are a good example of the irrational hatred folks have for the Clintons. Should I write my congressman and suggest he sponsor a resolution condemning Michael Savage's daily hate speech? Or how about Michele Malkin's? Rush Limbaugh's ridiculous statements?

Again, there are plenty of reasons to dislike Hillary and Bill. I'm not a fan myself. But try and at least be rational about things. Sheesh.

Posted by: _Colin | January 9, 2008 5:38 PM | Report abuse

bsimon, I agree. With Biden out, I've been looking at BHO's web site, and I do like what I see. If he had a bit more experience, or if we'd never gotten into this misadventure in Iraq, this would be a no-brainer for me - because I do believe Obama has the skills to bring the country together. (And b/c then we'd be focusing on domestic issues and his position on health care, which I know something about, is the most reasonable and practical.) However, I think McCain, for all his faults, would also work "across the aisle."

Posted by: -pamela | January 9, 2008 5:21 PM | Report abuse

I'm going to go out on a limb here...

There are many men (not posters on this board, of course) out there who do not like Hillary simply because they are threatened by her.

It all started, of course, when she was 1st Lady. We were used to the Nancy Reagan, or Barbara Bush, or even the Roselyn Carter, type. Find a "safe" issue and pursue it quietly along the sidelines. Stay away from the boys and the real stuff.

...along comes Hillary: strong, highly intelligent and (oh my gosh!) ambitious.

In some males this really got the testosterone a bubblin' and the stones a shakin'.

What does it take to be president? ...or even to run for president? I mean, what kind of qualities?

It takes intelligence, strength and enormous ambition.

ANY female exhibiting these traits will be hated by some men. Not all. But a portion of the voting population will despise such a strong woman.

So... do we suck it up and let Hillary be the one to break through that glass ceiling? Or, we do we destroy her because we fear her -- only to have to wait until the next "Hillary" comes along? Which she inevitably will. Mark my words, she, too, will be greatly depsised -- that is, until someone, some woman, finally makes the break through.

Think of how reviled Jackie Robinson was. The stuff he had to put up with is -- by today's standards -- unbelievable.

But if it weren't Jackie Robinson, it would have been Larry Doby or Roy Campanella, or whomever the 1st African American pro ball player turned out to be. The point is, someone had to break through.

I admire Hillary greatly. Personally, I prefer Obama. But if we are truly honest with ourselves as AMERICANS, don't we see that many men hate Hillary just because they are threatened by a strong, highly intelligent and (oh my gosh!) ambitious woman?

Posted by: AdrickHenry | January 9, 2008 5:18 PM | Report abuse

Colin, Clinton stood by silently as an accomplice to the charge of deceit and treason made by one of her largest supporters.

The imputation of treachery to Gen Petraeus, a distinguished American warrior, was a new low for the left, but also a moment of clarity that Dems and their allies will have trouble avoiding in the upcoming months.

To allow such an imputation of dishonor to go unrebuked is to abet it. This was not some foaming blogger posting crazy squeals at Daily Kos in the hopes of attracting attention to an otherwise largely unnoticed existence, or a professional extremist like Greenwald or Olbermann whose job in life is to provide the far reaches of the left with assurance that they too have representatives with bylines no matter how lunatic the position defended.

This is MoveOn.org, the first and largest of the hard left's aggregation machines, and a conveyor belt of money and volunteers to the Democratic Party.

It is all but an official affiliate of the DNC and Team Hillary, and when it calls America's commander of forces in Iraq a treasonous dissembler, all but the worst political cowards in the U.S. Senate ought to react immediately with a sharp and unconditional rebuke of the nutters who fear U.S. victory in Iraq far more than they do its defeat.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | January 9, 2008 5:17 PM | Report abuse

"after what your presdent has done"

He's your President too Rufus.

It really bothered me when Hillary Clinton went off on how this is "George Bush's war".

No it's not.

Even if you don't agree with it, it's America's war.

This is OUR country, we WE have a SHARED destiny.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | January 9, 2008 5:14 PM | Report abuse

"drindl, You wanna talk about disdain?...She called Gen Petraeus a traitor right to his face on Capital Hill! Her sarcastic tone while talking down to him said it all. She could barely conceal her contempt for one of the best generals this country has ever had, all for political gain.

I'm not about to let anyone forget so quickly, and the revisionists like Bill Clinton and DeeDee Myers are out in full force these days.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | January 9, 2008 04:19 PM
"

come on proud. We have good dialogue going on here for once. Don't bring it down with your spin and propoganda. I have as anti-hillary as anyone. But come on. Join rality for a change. Get out of rush's head and think for yourself for a change

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 9, 2008 5:11 PM | Report abuse

"ProudtobeGOP - Gee, I wonder if Bush, Cheney, Obama, McCain, etc. have ever used the word "f*ck?" See, it's a double standard that it's OK for men to say the word f*ck because it's manly; but for a woman to be tough and say f*uck is unladylike. HRC's running for President. I'd rather hear her say f*uck rather than fiddlesticks!

Posted by: yellowtail3465 | January 9, 2008 03:51 PM

"


HAHAHHA. Fiddlesticks. :)

These IS an example of sexism by our resident drug dealer proudtobegop. Well said yellow. who gives a sh*T. She can talk like a sailor for all I care. How does she do her job. Frickin republcains. the nerve. To talk about this trival nonsense and bj, after what your presdent has done and the blood on his hands.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 9, 2008 5:04 PM | Report abuse

pamela writes
"I was supporting Biden and am now leaning toward McCain, although the possibility of his judicial appointments makes me uneasy"

I admit to a knee-jerk reaction against HRC when you criticized BHO's foreign policy creds. The better point, that I didn't make, is that Sen Obama comes from the same school of thought - as far as I can tell - as Sen Biden. While Sen Obama clearly doesn't have the experience of Biden in that department, my perception of his decision making process & performance in the early debates indicates he'd be an effective President with regards to foreign policy. It was a very telling moment when he talked about diplomacy with our enemies, when HRC tried to score points calling him 'naive' for that position. In my opinion, a President that will talk with countries like Iran & Venezuela to find common ground is far preferrable to one that will cut them off - which is a tactic that plain doesn't work.

Posted by: bsimon | January 9, 2008 5:03 PM | Report abuse

jbentley4 is dead on, it isn't a matter of Clinton hating. I to loved Bill... but have been disgusted by his personal behavior this past week. His behavior has seriously been unpresidential, whereas Obama has taken the higher road. They should NOT go negative on Obama. It is like attacking a saint... and making statements such as: "giving Americans false hope" is really just a blow to her own personal agenda. She should be elated by the prospect that Obama is pulling support from Republicans, Dems, and Independents alike... but she is not. It shows her own self interest and really makes her less likable (if at all possible). To mock the younger generations of voters and make accusations to our "false hopes" makes her appear more conniving and cunning than the steriotype. I am not oppossed to a woman president, just not throwing a vote behind Hillary -because she is a woman running for president. She is way to polarizing a figure to bring our country together at a time when we need strong- bipartisan leadership. She does not offer the leadership we need- because of this divisiveness. Thus; the nomination of H. Clinton would be a sure loss for the democratic party in a general election. We cannot afford to have a republican line up with her, it is what they [republicans]want the democratic party to do- because they know that they have a shot at winning the election if she is the nominee. Consider this... seriously consider it. The country cannot afford to take that type of risk, we know it, the republicans know it, and that is why she is so contraversial. Not because I am a "Hillary Hater" as some have suggested. We have to rise above this gender issue and consider this. Obama does not wear his race on his sleeve and has not even made it an issue. He is just a better- more electable candidate who has the republicans freaking because if he recieved the nomination... they would not stand a chance in 08. We have to consider we are at war and the republican candidates would love nothing more than a continuation of war.. we need to be focusing on other more serious threats and focusing on the larger issues here at home.

Posted by: Kristenmcullen | January 9, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse

dave

I believe the Democratic nomination will be decided before the convention. I was referring to the Republican nomination going to the convention for a decision.

Posted by: jimd52 | January 9, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse

Let's not argue. Hillary's respect for the Military and McCain's are not comparable.

I'm just stating the 'FACTS' as I 'KNOW' them ;)

Posted by: USMC_Mike | January 9, 2008 4:41 PM | Report abuse

claudialong: "It's surprising that any of you Hllary Haters has any time for anything else, you are so obssesed by it."

Presuming you included me in your [misspelled] label, even though I did express reasons for why I oppose Hillary, I thank you, indeed, for you have added one other idea to my growing list [at 3:13 PM].

Like Bush-Cheney, who labels anyone who rationally opposes his politics as "unpatriotic" or "anti-America" [or, at the least, as a "Bush-basher"], Hillary [or Hillary supporters] label anyone who opposes her politics as a "Hillary Hater" or a "Clinton-basher", or sometimes even more foolishly as a "misogynist."

Thank you, claudialong, for contributing one more reason for why with the same old Clinton, America will be getting the same old Bush. All future contributions will be equally appreciated.

Posted by: radicalpatriot | January 9, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

"So I assume you are voting for ex-diplomat Bill Richardson then. Former First Lady HRC certainly took part in photo-ops with various international first ladies, but as far as I know, she's never negotiated a treaty or a trade deal."

bsimon, I was supporting Biden and am now leaning toward McCain, although the possibility of his judicial appointments makes me uneasy. Luckily, I don't have to decide today. But the constant Hillary bashing is making me take another look :-)

Posted by: -pamela | January 9, 2008 4:37 PM | Report abuse

Proud -- Do I take it from your last response that you concede your previous examples of "disdain" for the military were false? If not, please provide examples. As far as General Petraeus goes, please provide a quote and link of Hillary calling him a traitor. That would be quite instructive for me. Largely because it never happened.

Oh, and just for the record I don't like Hillary at all. I will be HUGELY disappointed if she wins the Democratic nomination. That being said, the stuff you just cited is garbage without any basis in reality. Dislike Hillary for her political philosophy and her policy positions -- that's fair game. Impugning her patriotism based upon made-up slurs and propaganda is not.

Posted by: _Colin | January 9, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

jimd52,
I think it is down realistically to the two but I am not sure it will be decided before the convention. I can foresee either winning the convention and even a rancorous decision being made there for the D's. And the reason is that the party has the divides I mentioned earlier - my reading is that the two camps and their supporters are seriously at odds with one another. If one reads the blogs here, you can see the staunch HRC-BHO divide. You can call it pro/anti Hillary, experience vs change, male vs female, whatever, but I believe it exists. Prior to yesterday's results (when I predicted a huge Obama win), I said that the D nomination would be determined based on when Edwards quit. If it was early, it would favor Obama, later would favor Clinton. Two things about yesterday make me change my opinion. Edwards, despite a horrible showing, continues to run allowing Clinton more time to regroup. And a surprise Clinton win that keeps her as a co-frontrunner and makes me think she is stronger than I thought a few days back. Edwards will probably drop out eventually and most of his support will go to the other change candidate - Obama. But Obama, while he did lose, did not lose by much. Add in the Edwards support and you have a very close and competitive race - wide open for either candidate to win.

Posted by: dave | January 9, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

drindl, You wanna talk about disdain?...She called Gen Petraeus a traitor right to his face on Capital Hill! Her sarcastic tone while talking down to him said it all. She could barely conceal her contempt for one of the best generals this country has ever had, all for political gain.

I'm not about to let anyone forget so quickly, and the revisionists like Bill Clinton and DeeDee Myers are out in full force these days.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | January 9, 2008 4:19 PM | Report abuse

While the media pretends that this is the biggest upset since David slew Goliath, I think a few things need to be pointed out:

1. Hillary was ahead in New Hampshire last week, last month and last year.

2. Barack Obama, a freshman African-American senator with a funny name from the South Side of Chicago wiped the floor with Hillary in Iowa, a rural state with exactly 2 black people in it, even though Hillary has been one of the most recognizable and popular figures in Democratic politics for more than 15 years and enjoyed massive institutional and Establishment support.

3. Hillary Clinton beat Barack Obama by only three points in New Hampshire, a small New England state with exactly one black person, where the Clinton machine has built a massive political apparatus over more than 17 years. One year ago, probably less than 10 people in New Hampshire even knew who Barack Obama was. The fact that the race was even this close should be a credit to him, not to her. Of course the media will not play it as such.

4. Unlike Hillary, Barack Obama didn't go crying (literally) and whining to the media and didn't go negative. The fact that she did (even playing the disgusting Karl Rove card of trying to scare the electorate by invoking terrorist attacks) and won is to me, quite depressing. Barack's campaign, on the other had, has been a model of class.

5. Barack Obama doesn't have a spouse who was President of the United States for 8 years. Frankly Bill's antics and whining over the past week have been embarrassing, and as a lifelong Democrat and a big Clinton supporter over the years, I found them depressing and revolting. On the other hand, as I said, Barack's campaign (as evidenced by his concession speech last night) has been nothing less than entirely gracious and classy.

6. I'm afraid that if Hillary wins the nomination, we will go down the path of John Kerry. Republicans salivate over the thought of her nomination and she has shown absolutely zero ability to build support outside of the Democratic base.

Posted by: jbentley4 | January 9, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

'yellowtail, The point is not her frequebnt use of curse words, it is her well documented utter disdain for the military'

Cite something from a repuutable source, not a propganda character assasination and I will beleive it. Otherwise, it's just hearsay and cheap gossip.

Posted by: drindl | January 9, 2008 4:10 PM | Report abuse

proud:

never mind -- didn't see your 4:01 post. Disregard.

Posted by: AdrickHenry | January 9, 2008 4:10 PM | Report abuse

proud

The "well-documented" disdain for the military is virtually all urban legend. Check out the fact check and urban legend websites - they are full of these anti-military stories and debunk them.

Posted by: jimd52 | January 9, 2008 4:09 PM | Report abuse

It's surprising that any of you Hllary Haters has any time for anything else, you are so obssesed by it.

Posted by: drindl | January 9, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

proudtobeGOP:

So... do you like Hillary, or not?

I mean, I guess her language is not quite as foul as Richard Nixon's, but from what you claim, it sounds like she aspires to his level of vulgarity.

So, where you complimenting her, or putting her down?

Posted by: AdrickHenry | January 9, 2008 4:07 PM | Report abuse

dave

Do you really think there is any chance that someone other than Obama or Clinton will win the Democratic nomination? I certainly don't and, in my mind, that means the race is not wide open. I can foresee several of the Republicans winning the nomination and I can even see the decision being made at the convention.

Posted by: jimd52 | January 9, 2008 4:02 PM | Report abuse

yellowtail, The point is not her frequebnt use of curse words, it is her well documented utter disdain for the military. It takes willing suspension of disbelief to condsider her Commander in Chief material.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | January 9, 2008 4:01 PM | Report abuse

Radical, I have the Bush twins penciled in after we dig up another Clinton. I figured they could just run as a ticket. That should take us about two thirds of the way through the century.

By then, we might just be able to start cloning Clintons and Bushes. And we won't have to worry about the resistance to cloning lobby because whatever Clinton or Bush is in charge will do whatever is the most politically expedient to promote future dynastic advancement.

Clinton Clone 2068!

Posted by: jeff.cronin | January 9, 2008 3:58 PM | Report abuse

proud

I never said she didn't have a temper and the 4 letter word outbursts are fairly common knowledge. The Urban Legends website casts a lot of doubt on the Secret Service stories though. I knew people on White House duty during the Clinton administration and they wore their uniforms.

Posted by: jimd52 | January 9, 2008 3:57 PM | Report abuse

dave, on the McC thread I wrote:

"But I still see four survivors, and maybe MDH having the slight delegate lead, going into the RN Convention."

I want McC, as everyone here knows, but RG will surely carry NY and NJ, and Romney may pile up some more "silvers", and McC will probably be "competitive" everywhere and so will MDH, even on a budget.

IF WMR were George's reincarnation 40 years later, I would be thrilled. But he isn't.
--------------------------------
Among the Ds, I suspect that JRE's support may not hang tough, even if he does. Where do they go, on their own? I think they split, slightly in BHO's favor. I think the union members will lean to HRC and the non-union types will lean to BHO.
-----------------------------------------
I am now prepared to bet on BHO among the Ds, at even money. First time I have thought a candidate had better than a 50-50 shot at either nomination. It's the upside thing.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 9, 2008 3:55 PM | Report abuse

lylepink: Right you are, if you think you are.

I wouldn't be one of whatever you are for all the world.

Posted by: radicalpatriot | January 9, 2008 3:54 PM | Report abuse

jeff.cronin: Your Swiftian "modest proposal" is right on--indeed, I made the same proposal a couple of times back in the early spring. Only, after the reign of the House of Clinton with Queen Chelsea, just so we are not all accused of being misogynists, of course, we will have to go back to the House of Bush with one of the two twin girls--if either one of them is sobered up by then.

And after that, when it's the House of Clinton's fair turn again?--well, maybe some claimant to hot pants Bill's genes will emerge by then. After all, it is in the good old Royalist tradition [which so many Americans seem to hanker after] that the illegitimate son of the male aristocrat can gain certain status in society, regardless of the mother. But don't worry. By then, the office of the Presidency of the United States won't matter anyway.

Posted by: radicalpatriot | January 9, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

bsimon - I think that Hillary has a view and perspective of what it takes to be a President, whereas Obama does not.

ProudtobeGOP - Gee, I wonder if Bush, Cheney, Obama, McCain, etc. have ever used the word "f*ck?" See, it's a double standard that it's OK for men to say the word f*ck because it's manly; but for a woman to be tough and say f*uck is unladylike. HRC's running for President. I'd rather hear her say f*uck rather than fiddlesticks!

Posted by: yellowtail3465 | January 9, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

radicalpatroit: I see you are another one of the self described "FOOLS".

Posted by: lylepink | January 9, 2008 3:49 PM | Report abuse

She wasn't even good at first spouse. Bill had to go elsewhere to someone "more experienced"

Posted by: Kristenmcullen | January 9, 2008 3:45 PM | Report abuse

jimd, Maybe it was debunked, maybe not. IMO the jury's still out and there's plently of substantiated reports over the years of how Mrs Clinton was reviled by those who worked under them.

Here's some of Hillary's finest:

Where is the G-d f*ing flag? I want the G-d f*ing flag up every f*ing morning at f*ing sunrise."
(From the book "Inside The White House" by Ronald Kessler, p. 244 - Hillary to the staff at the Arkansas Governor's mansion on Labor Day, 1991)

"You sold out, you mother f*er! You sold out!"
From the book "Inside" by Joseph Califano, p. 213 - Hillary yelling at Democrat lawyer.

F*** off! It's enough that I have to see you s**t-kickers every day, I'm not going to talk to you too!! Just do your G**d*** job and keep your mouth shut."
(From the book "American Evita" by Christopher Anderson, p. 90 - Hillary to her State Trooper bodyguards after one of them greeted her with "Good morning."

"You f**ing idiot."
(From the book "Crossfire" p. 84 - Hillary to a State Trooper who was driving her to an event.)

"If you want to remain on this detail, get your f**ing a** over here and grab those bags!"
(From the book "The First Partner" p. 259 - Hillary to a Secret Service Agent who was reluctant to carry her luggage because he wanted to keep his hands free in case of an incident.)

"Get f***ed! Get the f*** out of my way!!! Get out of my face!!!"(From the book "Hillary's Scheme" p. 89 - Hillary's various comments to her Secret Service detail agents.)

"Stay the f*** back, stay the f*** away from me! Don't come within ten yards of me, or else! Just f**ing do as I say, Okay!!!?"
(From the book "Unlimited Access", by Clinton FBI Agent in Charge, Gary Aldrige, p. 139 - Hillary screaming at her Secret Service detail.)

And my personal favorite:

"Many of you are well enough off that [President Bush's] tax cuts may have helped you. We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to have to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
(Hillary grandstanding at a fund raising speech in San Francisco; SFGate.com 6/28/2004.)

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | January 9, 2008 3:42 PM | Report abuse

yellowtail3465 writes
"So Hillary is not experienced, but Obama is? HRC has close to 7 years in the Senate - Obama has 3."

Prior to the US Senate, Obama was in the IL Senate. Sure, its not the same thing as being in the US Senate; the more relevant question is how it stacks up against experience as 'first spouse'.

Posted by: bsimon | January 9, 2008 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Voter fraud?? Just because Hillary won, there must be voter fraud? The people of NH voted for whom they wanted to vote for. The polls are only guesses.

So Hillary is not experienced, but Obama is? HRC has close to 7 years in the Senate - Obama has 3. A rousing speech at the last Democratic convention doesn't make Obama Presidential material. It just makes him a good talker.

Now, I'm probably walking on glass here, but I've noticed the absence of major names in the black community surrounding him - only Oprah has been visible as far as I can tell. I don't think that this is because the black leaders don't want to support him, I think it's because Obama doesn't want the black contingency surrounding him. I think he's kept them at arm's length. JMO, but it is an observation I've pondered on quite a bit.

Posted by: yellowtail3465 | January 9, 2008 3:31 PM | Report abuse

"Heck, even people like Mitt Romney are running around now promoting themselves as "agents of change." "

I thought McCain, at one of the debates, had the perfect rejoinder for Romney, when Romney was touting "change".

Said McCain, "You certainly are the change candidate".

Posted by: AdrickHenry | January 9, 2008 3:30 PM | Report abuse

jeff.cronin,
I am not voluteering for the Chelsea duty...

Posted by: dave | January 9, 2008 3:30 PM | Report abuse

LMAO! Jeff you are so dead on! The Bush-Clinton dynasty... and Nero burned Rome.

Props to radicalpatriot as well.. I couldn't have said it better myself.

Posted by: Kristenmcullen | January 9, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse

jimd52 - "The Democratic race is between Obama and Clinton - I don't consider a two person race wide open."

I'd be more inclined to agree with you if there weren't such strong feelings for and against the two. The fact that they are both frontrunners and that the voting block for each is partitioned (experience vs change / male vs female, insider vs outsider, etc) looks a lot to me like a version of the R's problems (social vs fiscal vs Nat Sec).

Posted by: dave | January 9, 2008 3:28 PM | Report abuse

drindl, George was stil Gov. in 1968, when he was the front runner for the GOP nomination.
Until he got derailed by his comment that he had been brainwashed about 'Nam and was ready to pull the plug. He was also Gov. in '64 when he led a walkout of moderates at the RN Convention because they wanted a strong civil rights plank.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 9, 2008 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Why stop now folks? I mean, we might go: Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton, but is that really sufficient?

I propose a groundswell for Jeb Bush in 20016, then Chelsea Clinton in 2024, and George P. Bush in 2032. However, this does pose a bit of a dilemma--we are going to run out of Clintons. Therefore, we need to either push Chelsea into popping out a new presidential candidate or cryongenically freezing Bill in hopes of having him available in 2040.

Who's with me?

Posted by: jeff.cronin | January 9, 2008 3:19 PM | Report abuse

'And, in a moment of incredible weakness, I confided that I thought Hillary might not be all that bad once you get to know her - that she might even be kind of funny.'

Mike, sounds to me like you and Mrs. USMC have a nice thing going. I congratulate you.

Mark, or aybody -- do you know how long ago Mitt's dad was governor of MI? I see he's tied with Huckabee now, which I think is a show of strength for Huck. Seems to me if Mitt doesn't take MI, after spending all this money, he's in pretty bad shape.

Posted by: drindl | January 9, 2008 3:14 PM | Report abuse

NH clearly showed that if Hillary were not her sham husband's sham wife, and if she were not campaigning after seven years of idiocy and disaster under President Bush-Cheney, then she would never have a chance at the presidency

I welcome contributions from all of you to my ever-growing list of reasons why Hillary is of the same character and the same mentality as the Current Occupant, whom I presume all of you Hillary lovers also love equally as well.

Like Bush-Cheney, Hillary is the same nasty, polarizing, and divisive person, to the citizens at large as well as to non-Democrats, and even to innumerable Democrats.

Like Bush-Cheney, Hillary has a proven record of secrecy, lies, and prevarication. Such deceit is natural to their characters, stemming from their constant need to put personal/partisan needs above all else, certainly above the needs of America.

Like Bush-Cheney, Hillary is totally in the pockets of Corporate America, lobbyists, and special interest groups, more than any other candidate.

Like Bush-Cheney, Hillary has no ethic of fiscal responsibility, being utterly cavalier and irresponsible at spending OPM [other people's money, especially the US taxpayer's].

Like Bush-Cheney, Hillary has an unethical character [see the above two points] that is not trustworthy. In poll after poll, even those who support her express this lack of trust in her character. [see "sheridan1" at 2:06 above, for example] This trait can be seen, in Bush-Cheney as well as in Hillary, even in something as common as their constantly using "plants" in public or press audiences in order for the plants to give them preselected questions or to stage prearranged events that will make them appear to be what they are not.

Like Bush-Cheney, Hillary [and Bill] have consistently shown an imperious disregard for the law, never concerned about bending it, reinterpreting it, or disregarding it altogether if it does not suit their own personal needs.

Like Bush-Cheney, Hillary [like Giuliani] uses the despicable "politics of fear" in attempting to gain support from the American voters.

Hillary's claim of "experience" is even phonier than she is. Actually, there is little "job training" available for killer job of being president. The most crucial of qualifications are the quality of one's intelligence [beyond mere political cunning] and the quality of one's character [dare I even mention the fuddy-duddy old-fashioned word "virtue"?]. Hillary's White House days as first lady were not a qualifying experience to be president. For those who can remember, and think, they were eight years of proof for why she should not be.

It is bizarrely amusing and breathtakingly dishonest that she can even mention the word "change" in reference to herself. Hillary is, above all, the same old same old.

Posted by: radicalpatriot | January 9, 2008 3:13 PM | Report abuse

dave

I don't necessarily think all of them will survive but any it could happen. If Huckabee grabs off a few Southern states, Giuliani wins a couple of big states and McCain can maintain his success and Romney's money keeps him in contention - yes it could. I do seriously doubt it will be a two person race going into Tsunami Tuesday.

Wide open to me means several major candidates with no clear front-runner which accurately describes the Republican race. The Democratic race is between Obama and Clinton - I don't consider a two person race wide open.

Posted by: jimd52 | January 9, 2008 3:09 PM | Report abuse

I can hardly fathom that the Democrats are about to drive of the cliff again. God Bless you, but the Democrats need to rename their party the "Wile E. Coyote Party;" and maybe, instead of the donkey, the mascot could become a puff of smoke--because that is exactly what happened to your chances in November if this match-up becomes Clinton v. McCain.

The most amusing aspect of the Clinton campaign is the co-opting of the "change" mantle. Heck, even people like Mitt Romney are running around now promoting themselves as "agents of change." But, they don't even fundamentally understand what kind of change that the electorate seeks [certainly not the kind that I am seeking].

It's not a change from a person with an "R" to a person with a "D" next to their name. It isn't fundamentally even a policy change [although a policy change is desperately needed]. Rather, it's a change in this endless lowest common denominator politics that attempts to capitalize on exploiting fears that have dominated the Bush Presidency and, yes, the previous Clinton Presidency.

It's the idea that it is OK to do ANYTHING that gets you elected. It's the kind of politics that has George W. Bush in 2000 running to Bob Jones University and leaving "McCain has a black baby" fliers under car windshields in South Carolina. And yes, it's the kind of politics that has candidate Bill Clinton fly back to Arkansas in the middle of the 1992 campaign to execute a mentally retarded man because he wants to co-opt the Republican Party's "I'm a tough guy when it comes to crime" mantra.
It's the kind of politics that had Ronald Reagan kick off his 1980 campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi, and candidate Bill Clinton bash Sistah Soulja in front of the NAACP.

All of these examples have a single over-arching and unifying theme: they attempt to pray on our fears and worst instincts. And if you vote for the practitioners of these politics, you receive exactly what you deserve.

Posted by: jeff.cronin | January 9, 2008 3:04 PM | Report abuse

I refute this ideology that Barack has no experience! Barack has dedicated his entire life to helping people. He is a self made man.

He worked his way through law school and graduated at the top of his class (Magna Cum Laude) at Harvard. He could have come out and done anything... go to WalStreet and proceed to make millions.

Instead, he chose to work in Harlem and the south side of Chicago and help communities! He worked as a civil rights attorney for discrimination cases and taught constitutional law. Barack has dedicated his entire life to the less fortunate- all the while making no money for doing so. He works on his convictions and does not sell out.

He also worked in the Il state legislature, working with local government for many years. He then ran for Il State Senate..

This ideology that he has no experience is a tired one. He has the BEST experience in my opinion. He has real- life experience helping communities in need and has dedicated his life to causes greater than himself. He may not have washington insider experience... you that kind of experience that has not corrupted his integrity... that experience of the washington politics that we can all agree is in need of major reform.

Barack exceeds in life experience- real experience. Remember- no one was more experienced than Carl R. and Dick C.

Barack has a certian integrity and selflessness that rallies hope in his supporters. His life qualifications and ideology are refreshing in a political figure, a person that maintains personal attributes that even the most synical mind is moved by.

That is the reason people are moved by Barack. It is not not blind optimism... it is being moved by an extraordinary individual, an exceptional person- who sacrificed his personal wealth to help bring broken communities together and is in the process of bringing together a broken nation- moving a nation towards the great things he believes us able to accomplish. Experience is subjective to others opinions- however; his personal integrity and drive is unquestionably objective. He has lived his life in undisputed service to others and this country.

Posted by: Kristenmcullen | January 9, 2008 3:04 PM | Report abuse

proud

You know I am no Hillary Clinton fan, but the uniform banning story is false. It has been debunked many times.

Posted by: jimd52 | January 9, 2008 2:54 PM | Report abuse

jimd52 - "Romney, Huckabee, Giuliani and McCain all have reasonable chances of surviving Tsunami Tuesday."

Are you saying that all four could survive TT? I think that is unlikely (although certainly possible). I think it is more plausible that 2 might make it past there (which two those might be is a question), making it much like the Dems which would probably still have HRC/BHO. My point was that at this point in time (after Iowa/NH), wide open to me means no clear front runner and strong preferances for/against the various candidates and that describes both parties today. "More wide open" might be applicable for R's only since there are more possible candidates at the moment. If all 4 R's survive TT, then the news lines of "wide open" would and should be expected.

Posted by: dave | January 9, 2008 2:51 PM | Report abuse

USMC Mike: Sounds like the Mrs. is a pretty astute woman. Get her around your computer when we have our little chats, and as an apparently very smart woman, I may be able to get her on the side of Hillary, at least a little bit.

Posted by: lylepink | January 9, 2008 2:51 PM | Report abuse

So she is where she should be then. Why not replace the (d) with an (r)? then run. i would have no problem with that at all. What I do have a problem with, and I will hold this agaisnt the democrats if obama should lose (I'm and indy after all), is the democrats sabotaging their party every single time. And this time specifically. By the democrats ignoring youth and the tidal wve of support by obama. To nominate clinton is to throw away the progress of the last half decade. The dem's can do that. but their are consequneces. The gop is done long term already. Until the people forget they are fascists. Nominating clinton and the d's follow the r's down the rabbit hole. If that's the case get ready for a third party. And teh calls on compromise and unity will be much differant next time. You people want to fight the youth and the future or america? We are saying cahnge now? What about next time? Think about the future. Why the dem's would saboatge themselves i can't understand.

This is the biggest turnout in histroy. Why? for hillary clinton and more of the same? Now you know why the youth doesn't vote.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 9, 2008 2:45 PM | Report abuse

"in a moment of incredible weakness, I confided that I thought Hillary might not be all that bad once you get to know her"

Get a hold of yourself Mike! This is the same person who wouldn't allow serving military members to make eye contact with her, and her edict banning the wearing of military uniforms in the Whitehouse. In the grand scheme of things, it was a drop in the bucket in the Clinton's overall disdain for the military.

Those who served during Clinton's tenure as First lady have a first hand experience with her 'sense of humor'. Guess what? There is none. She is, however, a serial liar just like her husband. That much we can be sure of.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | January 9, 2008 2:43 PM | Report abuse

Proud: I detect a little bit of the "Envy/Jealous" Factor I mention quite frequently. Oh!!! How Sweet IT IS.

Posted by: lylepink | January 9, 2008 2:41 PM | Report abuse

jeff.cronin

Very eloquent and I agree totally.

Posted by: jimd52 | January 9, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

in a follow-up about HRC's tears...

Mrs. USMC and I were watching Fox this morning (sorry Rufus) and they interviewed the Senator.

And, in a moment of incredible weakness, I confided that I thought Hillary might not be all that bad once you get to know her - that she might even be kind of funny.

Mrs. USMC had been thinking the same thing but didn't want to say it.

It was a good interview (for her).

Posted by: USMC_Mike | January 9, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

pamela writes
"I might have voted for Kennedy b/c he was inspirational - but with the confidence that he had some foreign policy credentials. As much as I agree with bsimon and others that we need to change the direction of politics in this country, my vote for Obama would all be based on hope."

So I assume you are voting for ex-diplomat Bill Richardson then. Former First Lady HRC certainly took part in photo-ops with various international first ladies, but as far as I know, she's never negotiated a treaty or a trade deal. Am I mistaken? Or are you just 'hoping' that she picked up some foreign policy creds while smiling for the cameras?

Posted by: bsimon | January 9, 2008 2:29 PM | Report abuse

It is amusing how everyone interprets the IA and NH results in such a positive detailed way in favor of the candidate of their choice, when for the Democrats [unlike the Republicans] we merely have a "wash" between the top two and everything is still essentially a dead heat.

America will get what it deserves because of how voters think and vote, or because of what voters cannot get off their fat, lazy American butts to get out and vote. We all got exactly what we deserved in electing President Bush-Cheney twice! (or at least by electing him in 2004)

If America elects Hillary and Billary again, you will get what you deserve! If you elect Giuliani, you will likewise get what you deserve.

Have you been a conscious political observer during the last 16 years? What do you think America really deserves?

Posted by: radicalpatriot | January 9, 2008 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Kristen: I could only refer you to a previous comment of mine about a "FOOL". HoneyPie, Snookims, Lambchop or whatever, seems to fit you to a "T".

Posted by: lylepink | January 9, 2008 2:26 PM | Report abuse

sheridan writes "I saw that moment (Hillary's)- I am a staunch Obama supporter and I had a visceral response. I even mentioned to a friend that I thought she was sincere and felt bad for her."

Me too, but only for a millisecond, and then I remembered who we're dealing with. In all likelihood, her campaign probably planted the question. The timing of it is just way too perfect.

I think she was absolutely exhausted, beat down a little by the loss in Iowa, and was able to tap into that emotion rather than any real "passion for the country" b.s. that came out of her mouth. Her only passion has always been to strive for power in any way possible. Naked ambition, dampened by defeat, was what we witnessed. Nothing more.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | January 9, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

Clinton supporters. She cannot win. Edwards maybe can win, but only if he is up agaisnt clinton. If this continues to be a clinton obama race, she can win that. But without what obama and edwards is gererating why would any democrat want that.

What is mroe important clinton supporters? Clinton getting the domination or a democrat winning the elcetion? think long and hard on that. If you are not gop sabotuers supporting clinton I would think you would want a dem in the WH. What does clinton bring , other than her sex, that is not brought by the republicans, or in terms of heathcare obama or edwards.

She brings nothing but baggage. Like bag of bricks. PUT THE BAG DOWN. We do not need it.

If clinton supporters continue to sabotage the future then they make their choice. But don't complain at the results. Why you would want four more years to fight these same battles, when we can end them now is beyond me. I want to end the bush presidency and what he represnted. Why do the clinton people want to continue down that path. Is it greed or pride? Over the good of the coutnry?

Enlighten me clinton supporters. Or don't. But realize, to nominate clinton is to throw the election. I think clinton supporters are really republcians. I'm starting to think edwards is just in there to take Obama's votes, as he only changed when obama'a momentum picked up. Where was he when he was in senate?

Sad day in america. If the republcains win again, You can keep this coutnry. I'm outta here. I can't take this any more. I want to go to a country where we work together for common good. America is dead. unless we save it. The media and election results from nh do not give me confidence we can fix the damage done. To many people in to sabotage. To much fear of change. To many people are chained to the past to move forward.

I guess we must wait for another 20 years until we are the old people. If the election goes south, I may be forced to take a vacation from america. Come back when it's fixed. I can't do this forever. Neither can my children

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 9, 2008 2:24 PM | Report abuse

Mark (and others): It seemed to me McCain blew his 5 free minutes of airtime.

Proud: A true [and humorous] observation; Mrs. USMC is more personality oriented than policy.

She supported JE in '04 because she thought "the country needed someone like him". She's all about unity, pride, reconciliation.

She hates RG and HRC - the polarizing ones.

Unfortunately, Mrs. USMC is a hair left of center, so she'll probably go with BO over MH (if that's the match-up, as I think it will be).

I suspect many women are like her. It doesn't matter that BO has no experience whatsoever - but his personality appeals to them. Not saying it's bad - just doesn't suit me.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | January 9, 2008 2:18 PM | Report abuse

rpy1: Ron had common sense, although most Repubs refer to him as some sort of GOD, the TRUTH is he was not that good at promoting any new ideas of his own. Most of the Legislation passed was already in the works when he took office, and the massive debt incurred was by the same tactic that Repubs have used for decades, "FEAR". Most folks don't think of the massive debt that was incurred during his Administration and Bush1, and when I mentioned Bubba having only four years to fix the mess of Bush1, I was being charitable to a fairly decent man.

Posted by: lylepink | January 9, 2008 2:15 PM | Report abuse

The level of toxicity of the Clinton campaign in the past few days: the LBJ comparisons; the MLK denigrations; the assassination referenced introductions; and, the Bill Clinton self-pitying finger wagging, has reached a previously unimagined low in my opinion.

I am a registered independent that could not previously conceive of ANY scenario whereby I would choose the Republican nominee over the Democratic nominee. However, it just happened. If John McCain wins the Republican nomination and Hillary Clinton the Democratic nomination I will cast my vote for John McCain.

I will not countenance another George W. Bush-style divide and conquer version of divisive politics. I am neither naive not cynical, but the Clinton strategy of merely co-opting "change" and making the "talker v. doer" argument is nothing more than a cheap imitation of George W. Bush's "Reformer with Results" strategy to co-opt McCain's message in 2000. We all know how well that one worked out.

There is simply NOTHING that the Clinton's will not do to be elected. Despite policies that had this country moving in the right direction in the 1990's, the Clinton have carved a swath of destruction that has effected everyone in their wake.

I would greatly enjoy casting my vote for the first female to be elected president, but that person will not be Hillary Clinton. Congratulations Democrats--you might be choosing the ONLY candidate that could lose the general election.

Posted by: jeff.cronin | January 9, 2008 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Disregrad becuase there WERE paper ballots. I pasted on that move on email, because I skimmed it. I don't think it was voter fraud. If so we WILL find out. Edwards and obama supporters will not allow a fraudulant election.

The differance is the democrats genrally do not suppress votes. Or cheat the system. It doesn't happen. I can detail your party and what you do. your party must cheat. It's their only chance to compeate. In terms of the dem's it about the will of the people speaking. Not win at all costs. If you politicains thought steroids would help them, they'd be all over it. :)

My mistake on that email. I shoul dhave known moveon would not say clinton cheated. Wishful thinking I think :)

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 9, 2008 2:12 PM | Report abuse

JKrishnamurti - "There were paper ballots in nh. Desregard" And that means that what...that fraud could not happen? You have heard of Chicago and Mayor Daley right? Besides, I thought MoveOn the rest of the lib establishment only cared about voting fraud if Repubicans beat a Democrat.

Posted by: dave | January 9, 2008 2:08 PM | Report abuse

Claudialong - I have read your posts many times in the past and think you are one smart woman. But this concerns me:
"i am still amazed, though, the import that people attribute to her choking up. in the scheme of things, so f*cking what?"

I saw that moment - I am a staunch Obama supporter and I had a visceral response. I even mentioned to a friend that I thought she was sincere and felt bad for her. I could relate - I am a woman who has punched my way through several glass ceilings too - I relate to her frustration. SO it is no wonder to me that women who might not have turned out did. I would have.

Then I watched "Primary Colors" again. Remember who the Clintons are. They win at any cost. If she is the nominee, my fear is that we actually COULD lose to a Republican - although I have no idea which one could pull it off.

My vote will go to Hillary if she is the nominee but I will never trust her.

Obama is a man of tremendous substance and authenticity.

Elect Obama 2008!

Posted by: sheridan1 | January 9, 2008 2:06 PM | Report abuse

Slightly OT, but...

Beyond the soaring rhetoric and a couple of firsts (first Catholic president, potential first black president) I miss the Obama/Kennedy comparisons. Kennedy was in the navy in WWII and served in the House, plus a full term in the Senate before he was elected.

IMHO, this is a huge difference. This week, NPR is running a series of stories on Iraq one year after the surge. Today's topic was about the completely dysfunctional Maliki government and the powerless of the US to alter that dynamic.

I might have voted for Kennedy b/c he was inspirational - but with the confidence that he had some foreign policy credentials. As much as I agree with bsimon and others that we need to change the direction of politics in this country, my vote for Obama would all be based on hope.

Posted by: -pamela | January 9, 2008 2:04 PM | Report abuse

dave

The R race is more wide open. The D's have only two candidates with a plausible path to the nomination. The R's have 4 major candidates (I discount Thompson) with no clear front-runner. I always thought the D race would come down to Hillary and the anti-Hillary. Romney, Huckabee, Giuliani and McCain all have reasonable chances of surviving Tsunami Tuesday.

Posted by: jimd52 | January 9, 2008 2:03 PM | Report abuse

Tricky hillary supporters. There were paper ballots in nh. Desregard

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 9, 2008 1:58 PM | Report abuse

"Dear MoveOn Member,

Imagine if yesterday's New Hampshire primary had been decided by insecure electronic voting machines instead of paper ballots. With polls saying one thing and ballots another--and a thin margin deciding the winner--the results could be forever in doubt.

And that could still happen in dozens of key states in November unless we act quickly. More than 180,000 of us have signed already.

Can you forward the electronic voting machine petition below to 3 more friends and family today? We'll deliver the signatures to local election officials as well as Congress, so every signature from your neighborhood makes a big difference.

Your friends can sign by clicking here:

http://pol.moveon.org/paper2008/?id=11876-8018415-Fhxy8M&t=1

Thanks for all you do.

-Noah, Jennifer, Laura, Carrie, and the MoveOn.org Political Action Team
Wednesday, January 9th, 2008

P.S. Below is the original e-mail you can forward along.
"

And moveon is a hillary site. Made to moveon past the bj. I really hope thi si snot true. The people of nh will find out, it's their vote after all. this is not over yet. I give it a week. Rightfully so, this must be investigated. Waht with no paper ballots, and the polls what they were. This story is not over yet. you cannot trust the vote supressing gop (clinton included) I pray she won on her own accord. If not we will find out. To many people want her out for this to NOt be looked into.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 9, 2008 1:56 PM | Report abuse

That is sad... they should give IQ tests to people as a requirment before allowing them to vote. That is what is wrong with this country. The masses of seculars and
ignorant thinking they are helping us out by: "goin' on out and votin today... becawse that is what Ameriecans dew"

As far as women voting based solely on gender...

Tucker Carlson said it best:
Voting for a woman- because she is a woman..."is what stupid people do"

Posted by: Kristenmcullen | January 9, 2008 1:54 PM | Report abuse

proudtobeGOP
Seems like, more than ever, "liking the candidate" has become an issue unto itself. Rather than focusing on the issues, people are voting based solely on personality and race/gender. Personally, I can think of nothing worse in the selection of the next leader of the free world.

My sentiments also.

Posted by: RedRose1 | January 9, 2008 1:49 PM | Report abuse

proudtobeGOP,
Race and gender are bad reasons. Personality on the other hand, perhaps not. As you state, we are electing the LEADER of the free world. While there are many things that make up a great leader, personality is certainly on that list.

Posted by: dave | January 9, 2008 1:49 PM | Report abuse

proudtobeGOP writes
"Seems like, more than ever, "liking the candidate" has become an issue unto itself. Rather than focusing on the issues, people are voting based solely on personality and race/gender."

I'm not convinced. "I like McCain" can be shorthand for "I agree with McCain's practical stances on Iraq, where promoting a political solution combined with a military surge is sound policy & I agree that its impossible to round up & deport 12 million illegal immigrants and we can find a better solution to the immigration problem."

Posted by: bsimon | January 9, 2008 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Mike writes about Mrs.USMC: "She's not a HRC supporter by any stretch of the imagination. She supports BHO, MR, MH, JE."

Wow, that's a panoply of candidates! I'm not sure how one could support Romney, Huckabee and Edwards all at the same time, but ok.

It reminds me of an interview I heard this morning on the radio with several women in NH. They all decided to vote for Hillary based solely on her gender. One self-described feminist said she liked all of the D candidates, so why shouldn't she vote for the woman after so many years of the glass ceiling.

Seems like, more than ever, "liking the candidate" has become an issue unto itself. Rather than focusing on the issues, people are voting based solely on personality and race/gender. Personally, I can think of nothing worse in the selection of the next leader of the free world.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | January 9, 2008 1:37 PM | Report abuse

"


Subject:

Back in the Race
Question:

Do you think Hillary's emotional outburst contributed to her victory in N.H.?
Answers:

Yes
(72 %)

No
(28 %)

"

What politics in america has come to, I guess. Our childrens future down to this. No wonder the gop likes to run actors. What a joke, this process is. time to change it to refelct modern times, I think.

Having said everything I did here today. If this was all planned. If hillary supporters said they were voting for obama then changed. If the crying was intentional with her campaign downplaying her chances. It was brilliant if that was the case. I don't think so, but trying to give credit were it's due.

If it was an attempt to take momentum, genuis. I don't think they are that smart though :). The big mo is with her now. We'll see how navada votes. Up north where I am will go for clinton, that is a given. This place is liberals hell. 90% conservative so clinton will win. What will happen in Las Veagas and with the unions down there wil tell the stroy. I can jsut do me and vote. May the people's will be done. Whatever the case may be.

I hope you don't take my statements as attacks pink. Change cannot come without conflict. We can disagree and still be americans. PAt TIllman. Remember that name. That is what San jose,a dn the bay area represents. for all you california and bay area haters out there: )

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 9, 2008 1:35 PM | Report abuse

CC, I think you are spot on with the "one of the most stunning comeback victories in modern American politics" comment. Polls two months or two weeks ago are not relevant to this discussion. The general thoughts on this blog prior to Iowa was that the "frontrunner" and "inevitable" descriptions of HRC were iffy at best and probably incorrect. Almost everyone on this blog agreed after Iowa that there had been a fundamental shift, momentum was with Obama and Hillary was in trouble (excluding, of course, lylepink). Pundits, bloggers, pollsters and the campaigns themselves were looking for a substantial Obama win in NH. To call HRC's 3 point victory anything less than stunning is to change the definition of "stunning".

Mark_in_Austin, i'd like to think you are correct with the gender gap reason for the polling. I think that makes logical sense.

My other issue is that I still keep seeing headlines and analysis on how undecided and wide open the R race is (AP today - Analysis: GOP race gets more scrambled). How is it that much more scrambled than the D's? In the D race, you have two legitimate front runners and a pseudo third party candidate that won't quit in Edwards. Is this not scrambled and wide open also?

Posted by: dave | January 9, 2008 1:34 PM | Report abuse

Stunning upset!
Back from the political dead!
The biggest upset in political history!
So says the media because it's the only way they can cover up their dismal reporting and dependence on polls. Polls are meaningless. There is no way anyone can truly say how a state or this country will vote by calling a few hundred people. The media is really performing a disservice to this country and their fellow citizens by trying to sway this election with their opinions. I don't care what their opinion is; I just want to know what the candidate's opinions are on all the issues we have, and that means ALL the candidates, not just their favorites. I'm tired of busswords, slogans, polls, and pundits, and their overblown egos. They have turned this campaign into a political circus. I'm tired of the childish fighting between states because they think they should be first in caucuses and primaries. I want a national primary for all states instead of this nonsense. I'm tired of the media overplaying the importance of these two states as if the whole election is decided by them. If change is what people want, New Hampshire certainly dispelled that idea last night. I'm tired of the media deciding for me what states and candidates are important and which ones they feel are not worth covering.

As a woman, I find it offensive that women would give Hillary a sympathy vote. This is the presidency for goodness sake. I read some comments about how Chris Matthews hates her, and it has seemed that way until the imtimate Hillary/ Chris moment. He touched her cheek;she touched his cheek; they gazed into each others eyes, and as they came together in an embrace, I almost thought they were going to kiss each other. It was disgusting political theater. It just showed how shallow he is and how he craves attention from influential politicians.
Since he is touted as a political expert, it was funny to see hin and Keith so upset about the polls last night considering they live and breath them. They were given some very good advice by Tom Brokaw, as posted by jkrishnamurti

"Wednesday January 9, 2008 06:27 EST
Chris Matthews is right
(updated below - Update II)

If there's a more revealing (though unsurprising) illustration of our modern press corps than this exchange last night between Chris Matthews and Tom Brokaw, I don't know what it is:

MATTHEWS: Tom, we're going to have to go back and figure out the methodology, I think, on some of these [polls].

BROKAW: You know what I think we're going to have to do?

MATTHEWS: Yes sir?

BROKAW: Wait for the voters to make their judgment.

MATTHEWS: Well what do we do then in the days before the ballot? We must stay home, I guess.

BROKAW: No, no we don't stay home. There are reasons to analyze what they're saying. We know from how the people voted today, what moved them to vote. You can take a look at that. There are a lot of issues that have not been fully explored during all this.

But we don't have to get in the business of making judgments before the polls have closed. And trying to stampede in effect the process.

Look, I'm not just picking on us, it's part of the culture in which we live these days. I think that the people out there are going to begin to make judgments about us if we don't begin to temper that temptation to constantly try to get ahead of what the voters are deciding.

Posted by: RedRose1 | January 9, 2008 1:31 PM | Report abuse

Common guys... we are talking about Hillary.. a Rodham. Born with a silver spoon in her mouth and knowing nothing of the American people. I don't know why women are so drawn to her candidacy? She's not going to represent some long held ambition for the gender... or by that means their "struggles".

I am a women (the last I checked) and would NEVER vote for HER! Why?

(1) I have a brain...
(2) I can see through the BS and the "tears" and acknowledge that she is what is wrong with Washington. Her polarizing positions could never unite this country and bring about the "Change" we need!
(3) She is distorting Baracks positions on issues- issues she herself voted for... you know like funding for our soldiers!
(4) They have had thier 8 years in the WH...but that is not enough... she believes we want her back for another term.

What is this dynasty we call POTUS?
BUSH- CLINTON- CLINTON- BUSH- BUSH- ...Clinotn? Sorry! We have to understand the implications of such a nomination... for the love of GOD... what will we have after that? JEB???

Posted by: Kristenmcullen | January 9, 2008 1:30 PM | Report abuse

Hillary's tears jerked the voters out of their Obama-induced slumber of "change" and showed them who was supposed to be the inevitable candidate. They just wanted back to the status quo.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: parkerfl | January 9, 2008 1:24 PM | Report abuse

We keep hearing about how Bill Clinton is either a loose cannon or the highest level adviser in their bunker. Either way, his performance the last couple of days was certainly not presidential. No matter how well qualified Hillary is to be president, I shudder to think how he'll be mixed up in everything she's trying to accomplish, helpless to refrain himself. Will it be a presidency, or a soap opera?

Posted by: optimyst | January 9, 2008 1:21 PM | Report abuse

USMC_Mike:

I cringed while watching McCain make his victory speech.

That was a golden opportunity to give his "straight talk" to a national audience. What a blown opportunity.

Posted by: AdrickHenry | January 9, 2008 1:19 PM | Report abuse

"The differance is Obama supporters are the same and after teh media love. What is the gop with their propogandists. We can exist wouldout the media. obama did beofre iowa and will have to now after this defeat. We don't change. But what is the gop (hillary included) without THEIR propoganda stations? Nothing. Paper machet

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 9, 2008 01:14 PM
"

That did not go right at all.

The differance is Obama supporters are the same before and after the media love. What is the gop with their propogandists? We can exist without the media. obama did beofre iowa and will have to now after this defeat. We don't change. But what is the gop (hillary included) without THEIR propoganda stations? Nothing. Paper machet

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 9, 2008 1:16 PM | Report abuse

The differance is Obama supporters are the same and after teh media love. What is the gop with their propogandists. We can exist wouldout the media. obama did beofre iowa and will have to now after this defeat. We don't change. But what is the gop (hillary included) without THEIR propoganda stations? Nothing. Paper machet

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 9, 2008 1:14 PM | Report abuse

goodwater6 writes
"how is the Senate race in MN looking? It has been a long time since we have heard anything about this. Will there be a primary?"

The recent news is in the money race. Franken is outraising Coleman, but outspending as well; Coleman has more cash on hand. There are 3 or 4 DFLers competing for the party endorsement, which precedes the primary. Ciresi & Franken are early favorites, but you never know what will come out of the party endorsement, a dark horse could surprise the field (though its unlikely). Usually the major candidates abide by the endorsement & drop out of the primary. It is unclear if Ciresi & Franken will 'abide' or ignore. Odds are if a dark horse gets the endorsement, the two big names ignore it & run in the primary. If the endorsement goes to Franken or Ciresi, expect the losers to abide & the primary will be a walk. I don't recall when the primary will take place.

Posted by: bsimon | January 9, 2008 1:10 PM | Report abuse

What I love most is that the punditocracy and the press got the start of their comeuppance last night. They need to stop "framing" the debate for the Democrats and let the candidates run! And Obama has many questions to answer. Getting on TV and whining about Bill Clinton twisting his words is not gonna cut it. If you're gonna play in the big leagues, learn how to play in the big leagues!

Posted by: jkstiles | January 9, 2008 1:09 PM | Report abuse

If people are surprised by the victory for Hillary in N.H. that is only because people depend heavily on polls. This is just a reminder that polls are done by people who have their own agenda. Nobody goes back and questions the people who conduct these polls, they can make up what ever they want. But when an ex-president twists things to get his wife an advantage that falls into the creepiness zone. Neither Bill nor Hillary questioned Obama when he kept on saying I was against the war from day 1.
We have had enough lies from Bill while he was in office. Now he is getting creepier by the day.

Posted by: ChunkyMonkey1 | January 9, 2008 1:08 PM | Report abuse

"All of the points Brokaw made would have been just as valid even if their Wicked Witch had been crushed last night by 15 points, just as they were all hoping, predicting, and (therefore) trying to bring about. The endless attempts to predict the future and thus determine the outcome of the elections -- to the exclusion of anything meaningful -- is a completely inappropriate role for journalists to play, independent of the fact that they are chronically wrong, ill-informed, and humiliated when they do it. It would all be just as inappropriate and corrupt even if they knew what they were talking about, even if they were able to convert their wishes into outcomes.

But Matthews' response to Brokaw is perfect in several ways. The very idea of discussing issues, examining the candidates' positions, or even analyzing voter preferences does not and cannot even occur to Chris Matthews. That -- the most elementary nuts and bolts of standard, healthy journalism -- is way, way beyond the scope of what our media stars are able to do or want to do.

Petty personality-based gossip and speculative, worthless chatter is all they know. Drudge, after all, rules their world. He's their Walter Cronkite. And they wallow exclusively in the Matt Drudge currency, what two of their most revered members -- Mark Halperin and John Harris -- described as their fixation with the "attacked-based, personality-obsessed politics" pioneered by their Ruler. Can one find more compelling proof of all of this than their juvenile, sadistic, lynch-mob savaging of Hillary Clinton over the last several days based on the pettiest and most fact-free assaults and their long-harbored desire to see her crushed?
"

Glen greenwald

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

r

"YES WE CAN"

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 9, 2008 1:08 PM | Report abuse

And even matthews. Get all the propogandists off the air. That is the only way. GEt journailist and Newsmen/women back on the air. The propogandists have stolen our poltiical process. Rather than the candidates selling out to this monster, they would be well served fighting it. Not likely. But I would stand up with that candidate, hopefully Obama. I feel into that since iowa. I thought since the monster was now fighting for me, it was fine. It's so fickle. when you give them your power you lose it.

After second thought, pull them all. Real news. in a self government we need all the real news we cna get, and as little propoganda spin lies and discrediting. Even if it is on your side. Although this is new for obama. The press only backed him after iowa. I was for it as so much was agaisnt us. I feel you not fox watchers. So scared the past is over that you will give anything and do anything to keep it. I feel you know.

Let's move forward. We do not need to be slaves to the propogandists. I would agree I, and those like me, never were. We jsut welcomed the help. Is there a differance between what fox/rush/hannity/savae/malkin do every day of the year or decades, and the media after obama won iowa?

I think so. Fox is blind willful ignorance and propoganda. The media following the obama win was riding a wave. Big differance. At what point does th people's will come into play. Cnn and msnbc was on clinton's jock before iowa. I think they felt they were not giving obama his due and THEN and only then switched they tune. I see the huge differance. Does anyone else? Or am I way off base?

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 9, 2008 1:05 PM | Report abuse

Hello DieBold! I have to get in here and agree with rimbaud1 and WILLIAM-HENRY...DEMAND A RECOUNT!! I am stunned to think- that all the polling was wrong?!?

DieBold Rigging or NH ignorance- both let me know that NH has just let down America, given thier "live free or die" mentality... you would think that they would vote against the establishment candidates. JHC! McCain and Clinton?!

NH WHAT ARE YOU THINKING?!!!!!

McCain is Jerassic... we will be fortunate if he even lives to see November... "grrr... I will- uhhh- follow bin laden to the gates of hell...gerr".

Clinton sucks (to put it lightly).... so does the niativity of her supporters!

I can't help but think of the Christmas Story sound bite:
"CRY BABY-CRRRRYYYYY"

LOL
Laughs are in order in times like this. NH does NOT speak for America!

Posted by: Kristenmcullen | January 9, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Mark in Austin writes
"if WMR wins "silvers" all the way to St. Paul, he will be the nominee."

true, but it still sounded good as a one-liner.

"I still think my guy, McC, is navigating a mine field, not traveling on an interstate highway."

Seems like his biggest challenge will be to raise enough money to get his message out for Feb 5. Not to mention the MI, NV, SC hurdles between now & Feb 5. 'Minefield' is apt.

Posted by: bsimon | January 9, 2008 1:03 PM | Report abuse

'MDH is such a good natural pol, and so likeable, that as I listen to him I forget, for a moment, that he does not believe in evolution, wants a constitutional amendment to ban all abortions, and favors a national sales tax in lieu of the income tax.'

yeah, and that's not even the scariest part, mark. there's the dominionism/reconstructionism. but do you have a link to polls which show him leading?

I was quite puzzled with McCain's behavior too. Why a script?

Posted by: drindl | January 9, 2008 1:02 PM | Report abuse

bsimon:

This is off-topic, but how is the Senate race in MN looking? It has been a long time since we have heard anything about this. Will there be a primary?

Posted by: goodwater6 | January 9, 2008 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Mike, McC sounded good on the radio. But visuals tell a different story, and if you SAW irritation from him where I HEARD polite pauses, that surely will not help the fighter pilot down the line.

I have become more aware of this differential between sight and sound than I have been since 1960. I am one of those who HEARD the first debate and thought RMN won. Everyone who saw it thought JFK won.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 9, 2008 1:00 PM | Report abuse

darrren12000 - I'm just reporting the news.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | January 9, 2008 12:58 PM | Report abuse

"Wednesday January 9, 2008 06:27 EST
Chris Matthews is right
(updated below - Update II)

If there's a more revealing (though unsurprising) illustration of our modern press corps than this exchange last night between Chris Matthews and Tom Brokaw, I don't know what it is:

MATTHEWS: Tom, we're going to have to go back and figure out the methodology, I think, on some of these [polls].

BROKAW: You know what I think we're going to have to do?

MATTHEWS: Yes sir?

BROKAW: Wait for the voters to make their judgment.

MATTHEWS: Well what do we do then in the days before the ballot? We must stay home, I guess.

BROKAW: No, no we don't stay home. There are reasons to analyze what they're saying. We know from how the people voted today, what moved them to vote. You can take a look at that. There are a lot of issues that have not been fully explored during all this.

But we don't have to get in the business of making judgments before the polls have closed. And trying to stampede in effect the process.

Look, I'm not just picking on us, it's part of the culture in which we live these days. I think that the people out there are going to begin to make judgments about us if we don't begin to temper that temptation to constantly try to get ahead of what the voters are deciding.

All of the points Brokaw made would have been just as valid even if their Wicked Witch had been crushed last night by 15 points, just as they were all hoping, predicting, and (therefore) trying to bring about."

Greenwald.

down with Fox and Rush. Free the eldery of their masters.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 9, 2008 12:57 PM | Report abuse

usmc - i cant believe you fell for what your wife said

Posted by: darrren12000 | January 9, 2008 12:57 PM | Report abuse

Oh, and was I the only one who wished that HRC's victory speech had been shorter?

Posted by: judgeccrater | January 9, 2008 12:56 PM | Report abuse

Agree with Boko in that Edwards needs to but out. He's just using up airtime and has no strategy to win. If he doesn't do better than bronze (again) in SC he should definitely get the heck out. The anti-Hillary vote deserves to have a single candidate that they can coalesce behind.

Richardson is hanging on for the NV vote and we'll see what happens afterwards. Hopefully he'll be honest enough to give it up if he comes in 4th or higher. He might beat Edwards but I can't see him doing better than that.

Posted by: judgeccrater | January 9, 2008 12:54 PM | Report abuse

" I've said here, when speaking of the gop, anyone who chooses party over outside influeces (money sex race) is a traitors. The coutnry must always come first. The clintons are equivalant to the gop. The the gop democrats, dinos.
"

Oops. Anyone who chooses party OR outside influences over their coutnry is a traitors. Sabotage is sabotage. BRibery is bribery.

r

u

f

u

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 9, 2008 12:50 PM | Report abuse

Nevadaandy - For all of this talk about "change" why all the references to Kennedy? He is so yesterday, dead before I was born. Couldn't help but to be as snide as some of the Hillary-Haters on here. Anyway, I want change too - a powerful woman in the White House who has an excellent career in both public service and private practice. I am a black man with a great degree of respect for both candidates. But I continue to lean Clinton.

Posted by: darrren12000 | January 9, 2008 12:48 PM | Report abuse

My wife's initial reaction to HRC's 'stunning' victory was:

"It's just because she cried".

"I can't believe women fell for that".

She's not a HRC supporter by any stretch of the imagination. She supports BHO, MR, MH, JE.


Question: Why couldn't John McCain give a coherent, extemporaneous victory speech rather than reading from a podium and becomming obviously annoyed with his interrupting supporters?

This bothered us both very much last night. So Huckabee is used to speaking. I got that. But even Romney seemed comfortable with just a mic.

Tell us what's on your mind, John. Don't squint at small font and stumble over written words. It makes you look old and dishonest.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | January 9, 2008 12:47 PM | Report abuse

The witch ain't dead, and Chris Matthews is a ding-dong
The glee with which Matthews and other angry male pundits prematurely danced on Hillary's grave made me -- for one night only -- a Clinton supporter.

By Rebecca Traister

Pages 1 2 3 Share
Email
Digg
Facebook
Del.icio.us
Reddit
My Yahoo
Print RSS Font: S / S+ / S++

Illustration by Zach Trenholm

Jan. 9, 2008 | "I'm not a Hillary supporter, but ..." has been an oft-heard preamble in the five days since the New York senator's Iowa defeat, usually followed by a description of how aghast the speaker is at the treatment Clinton received from a media anxious to throw a hoedown on her political coffin. To my surprise, it's a phrase I've heard myself uttering, before launching a tirade about the premature death certificate signed by pundits for a candidate I have never really wanted to win.

As it turns out, my sudden, almost primal defensiveness about Hillary Clinton may not have been unique, but part of a larger wave of sentiment that swept her to a surprise victory in New Hampshire on Tuesday night. Others like me, who were "not Hillary supporters, but ...," were downright mortified by the eagerness with which cable news networks, the New York Times, the Boston Globe and even her opponents felt free to declare Clinton yesterday's news. Their dismay and disgust may have been just the boost she needed to pole-vault to today's triumphant headlines, as not liking Hillary took a back seat to hating those who would summarily eject her from a race even more. On Tuesday, New Hampshire voters served up a major "Fuk you" -- not to Barack Obama, whose numbers were terrific, and who gave a great concession speech -- but to those who revealed their pent-up resentment of Hillary and showed her the door way, way too soon.
"

I'll buy that diagnosis. it's nto Obama's fault people do not make their own decisions. It's not to Hillary's credit, or obama's detriment that people look to outside influces to make their choices.

I just wish people woul dmake up their own minds. Scew Matthews. Scew Rush. Scew Fox. Scew o'reilly. MAke up your own mind. This process is insane. We deserve whoever we get.

But make no mistake pink and others here voting. To gloat at thwarting the future, what does that say about you and her supporters? What does it say about the anti-unity group of people, whom clinton leads. If they are not for this country then who. I've said here, when speaking of the gop, anyone who chooses party over outside influeces (money sex race) is a traitors. The coutnry must always come first. The clintons are equivalant to the gop. The the gop democrats, dinos.

Gloat Pink. But who is your enemy? Reality? The future? Don't you need those things. With the future of the democratic party, what do you have. Enjoy it now. just know the "new" people are not democrats. If you want to keep this tidal wave of youth, you must respect us.

Or not. Make your bed. Just don't cry if what you are fighting for destroys not only political discourse and unity, but everyting this coutnry was founded on. She wins and we continue down the bush path to destruction. If that is you goal. Congradulations. Just know WE are still here. unafraid. You can sabotage the coutnry and party for only so long. What will you be left with? Clinton loyalists? How long will that last? Good luck. Your goign to need it.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 9, 2008 12:46 PM | Report abuse

Um, lyle, are you forgetting Reagan? I know that doesn't fit within the storyline of the epic Bush vs. Clinton struggle, but Reagan was pretty bad.

Posted by: rpy1 | January 9, 2008 12:44 PM | Report abuse

1st, I still believe that Obama possesses real Leadership gifts. He is the genuine article. His speech last night was forward-looking and motivational even into the teeth of defeat.

2nd, I think HRC's victory is good for the Dems. It will allow the dialog to continue and the competition is healthy for both the Obama and Clinton campaigns.

Though I like Edwards, I can't see him plausibly winning (anything). I like that he stays in the race, though, because he is helping to shape the discussion.

3rd, I think Hillary's "turnaround" started before the choking-up at the diner. It started at the debate: 1) when she used humor to deflect the they-don't-like-you charge (paraphrasing, "It hurts my feelings... but I'll go on"); and 2) when she showed real anger and passion over being the true change candidate. Her eyes lit up.

At the debate, then again at the diner, Hillary gave us a glimpse behind the steel curtain. It appears, she cares, she REALLY does care...

Also, I was happy to see McCain hand Romney his ass. I like McCain, the man, though I disagree with him on Iraq and health care. Romney would be more of the same of the last 7 years -- he is dangerous.

Huckabee is OK with me, 'cause if he got the nod, he'd be landslided in the general election by either Hillary or Obama.

I simply cannot understand why Thompson and Guiliani are still in the race.

So, on it goes. Let's hear more of what Hillary and Obama have got... this is good for America.

Posted by: AdrickHenry | January 9, 2008 12:44 PM | Report abuse

Blarg & Boko: Hillary will have a much tougher job than Bubba when he took office. Bubba only had to fix the mess of four years of Bush1, and Hillary will have a much tougher job cleaning up the horrendous mess of the eight years of Bush2.

Posted by: lylepink | January 9, 2008 12:39 PM | Report abuse

Are you coming out for the cacues nevadaandy? We could use you. I'll be the one screaming "YES WE CAN". :)

We need all the people we can get. Hopefully Most americans are stronger than NH voters.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 9, 2008 12:33 PM | Report abuse

my turn to punditize this "upset". mayhaps the voters have brains and a gut and make decisions based on some consideration? amazing thought.

the media is just now coming to grips with caring Persons actually VOTING rather than being the ones who get to crown someone more to their liking.

the media being wrong yet again is not as bad as you think, since iraq convinced some of us that the media is not an independent source of information, so count on having to parse everything out when you read a newspaper, listen to radio, watch the news or even read a favorite blog--you have to decode EVERYTHING. anything that gets "pushed" has an agenda, voter People know this better than you.

Posted by: jett1 | January 9, 2008 12:32 PM | Report abuse

MDH is the apparent national leader on the R side.

bsimon, if WMR wins "silvers" all the way to St. Paul, he will be the nominee.

I still think my guy, McC, is navigating a mine field, not traveling on an interstate highway.

MDH is such a good natural pol, and so likeable, that as I listen to him I forget, for a moment, that he does not believe in evolution, wants a constitutional amendment to ban all abortions, and favors a national sales tax in lieu of the income tax.

I would bet the field against MDH, but I think he is the likely leader at the RN Convention. Good grief, he was the most gracious of all to HRC about her "moment".

----------------------------------------
I read the reports out of Norman, and they were quite subdued. Boko, TX has a large indie vote, but it leans R more than it leans D. Call this state 39R, 29D, 32I.

In an HRC v. RG race, a Bloomberg-Hagel ticket might score a plurality. Or it might lose, 39-32. Depends on the anti RG vote. Rick Noriega has a chance against John Cornyn if HRC is not on the ticket.

I met my first WMR supporter last week. Likes the way the guy "looks" and
his "fine looking family". What a great country we live in!

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 9, 2008 12:31 PM | Report abuse

wOD IS BORN BOKO. Hillary needs our votes. We don't need her's.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 9, 2008 12:31 PM | Report abuse

This is still a horse race and the race has only just begun. Going into the stretch it will be two horses - Hillary and Obama and it is not often that a filly crosses the finish line first (granted one did win a big race last year).

We have to remember that we are voting for a leader - somemone with good judgement, intelligence, vision, communication skills, and is a strategic thinker. Intelligence that does not result in wise decision does not make for a good leader. Hillary is intelligent but she has not demonstrated ability to make wise decisions. She voted for the war. She says she wants to stop America from slipping backwards. Why has is taken her so long to see that we're going backwards? She's been in office for 8 years and what has she done to stop the slippage? Why does she bring that up now? She is not the right person to lead American at this critical time in history.

Obama's real life experiences have given him an in depth and real perspective on the problems facing many Americans who are raising children in single parent homes or by grandparents forced to raise their grandchildren because their parents are in jail or on drugs; by newly graduated college students struggling to repay student loans; by those in low income communities. He has lived in those circumstances and has worked with people in those circumstances. Hillary cannot lay claim to this type of experience.

Obama could have gone to work for any of the top law firms in the country when he graduated from Harvard Law School. He did not. Hillary did.

Remember Kennedy challenged us in a way that Obama is challenging us. Kennedy challenged us to strive to put a man on the moon, and we did. Obama is challenging us to make the changes needed to sustain the standing of America in the world and to sustain our economic growth and social and moral welfare. Let's tell him that as Americans YES WE CAN bring about change with him at the helm.

Posted by: Nevadaandy | January 9, 2008 12:31 PM | Report abuse

Lyle, gloating does not become you. I would assume that you remember that even if your candidate IS nominated, she will need the votes of Obama supporters if she is to win. And Bill should really butt out - his ego is showing.

Posted by: bokonon13 | January 9, 2008 12:27 PM | Report abuse

There is no way the "Hillary Haters" are going to give up on their outrageous attacks. This has been going on for years and I fully expect it to continue. I recall something about thinking someone was a fool, and all they had to do to prove it was to open their mouth and speak.

Posted by: lylepink | January 9, 2008 12:22 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is the steak; Obama the sizzle.

What Sen. Clinton needs to do now is resume her general election campaign, but instead of selling herself, she should make the case for the nutritional value to America in the steak of Democratic policies. Doing so, she will have become the indispensable pre-convention candidate, whether she wins or loses the nomination.

Posted by: shinebob | January 9, 2008 12:18 PM | Report abuse

Blarg, whatever works.

Posted by: bokonon13 | January 9, 2008 12:15 PM | Report abuse

"My 2 cents worth.... assuming there was no voter fraud..."

Truth Hunter, you know what happens when you "ass u me." Sorry - I had to say that. I don't realistically believe there was fraud at the ballot box... I do suspect Hilary's choking up, and I do believe that Bill Clinton was less than a gentleman.

Posted by: bokonon13 | January 9, 2008 12:13 PM | Report abuse

"And I agree with you on that. I hope we can. But turn on Limbaugh or Hannity sometime, listen for a minute while they savagely attack all Democrats, and realize how huge their audience is, and that there's nothing like this on the left. There has been for years a huge pileup on democrats, including by this administration. I would really like that to stop. I would really like our next president to represent the whole country. I guess we'll see whether that happens.

Posted by: claudialong | January 9, 2008 12:01 PM
"

you illustrate the problem drindl. We can fix this country. Who is dividing us? Who is sabotaging that? The liberals? As you say we have nothing like their hate merchants and their "dittoheads". Help to break the chains. Without what you mentioned, the dittoheads will be forced to think for themselves. When confronted with reality, without the rush hannity fox prism , they will join us.

Like I've been saying here since I started. That is the only way. It may seem like the bottom up, but that should be the goal. Conflict of interests is what it is. Fascist propoganda is not free speech. I pay for it. you do. Everyone NOT a dittohead fascist pays for what they say. Either we reverse the game or remove them. But the only way to reunite this coutnry, is to point out or marginalize those that would divide us for peersonal profit. That used to be called treason. I guess they have better paid lawyers now

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 9, 2008 12:11 PM | Report abuse

Boko, I thought you meant that Lyle would annoy Nevada voters into supporting Obama.

Posted by: Blarg | January 9, 2008 12:11 PM | Report abuse

The more I watch this campaign unfold, the more I see that America really isn't as bad off as we say we are. Voting for tired ole' McCain and haggard Hillary only means that change isn't really what some folks want. As for the argument that Edwards should bow out, he's exactly what we need to keep both of the frontrunners focussed. When Kerry drew off in 2004, he lost his competetive edge. Both Clinton and Obama have to prove they can withstand the long haul and Edwards provides that with his 3rd player option within the party. And Romney isn't to be written of neither. His numbers across the board are better than Huckabee or McCain. And finally, so much for media punditry eh?

Posted by: Gharza | January 9, 2008 12:09 PM | Report abuse

Whoops, I goofed. In my 11:41 post -

"*I haven't given up on Obama. If the Nev. union does endorse him, and SC blacks do not lose faith, February 5 will still be a race. Lyle buddy, we need you out there in Nevada."

Of course, I meant 'Rufus,' not 'Lyle.' Late night last night. Rufus, do what you can.

Posted by: bokonon13 | January 9, 2008 12:07 PM | Report abuse

My 2 cents worth.... assuming there was no voter fraud, the polls must have been wrong because the voters lied about being willing to vote for a black man. A primary vote is a secret process, while a caucus is open. PC may have publicly answered the pollsters in NH, but behind the curtain.....

Obama got carried away by his press clippings and went to the level of making history instead of making a cogent rationale for the vote.

Hillary showed her softer side and even Bill's hamfisted "help" garnered some sympathy vote from women.

So all in all, the perfect-storm loss never happened. That is... assuming there was no vote fraud.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth_Hunter | January 9, 2008 12:06 PM | Report abuse

let me clarify claudia. I don't mind hillary crying. That was fine. No preceived weakness from me. What I do have a problem with is using that women card for votes. i have a problem with crying equalling votes. Understand. I like her as a person. i don't think they are being unfair at all. this is the presidency. So much at stake. She continues to whine cry and conplain about this.

I hope the rest of america is stronger than NH.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 9, 2008 12:04 PM | Report abuse

'When you focus on the religious nuts or the warmongers on the right, you're ignoring the majority in the middle.'

I am hoping that you are right about this, that the majority is in the middle. But the republican congress of the last few years has certailnly not represented the middle.

'This country should be better than that. In my opinion, our political leadership has failed in that they not only continue but seem to encourage such tactics. We can do better.'

And I agree with you on that. I hope we can. But turn on Limbaugh or Hannity sometime, listen for a minute while they savagely attack all Democrats, and realize how huge their audience is, and that there's nothing like this on the left. There has been for years a huge pileup on democrats, including by this administration. I would really like that to stop. I would really like our next president to represent the whole country. I guess we'll see whether that happens.

Posted by: drindl | January 9, 2008 12:01 PM | Report abuse

And of course the most apt comparison for Hillary '08 is GWB '00: the rescue of the country from the despised interloper and the restoration of the glorious ancien regime.

Posted by: novamatt | January 9, 2008 12:00 PM | Report abuse

this election is not about mlk or the past. Mlk did not fight for the past. He fought for what Barack Obama represents. MLK fought for his God.

To rally against obama because of hillary winning, is moot. Why? Was it something Obama did that led to this, or clinton? What did obama do wrong? Talk about mlk? you people are a lost cause. Gop (clinton supporters included) will say anything to justify racism/fascism.

Do your thing. Gloat. Laugh. mock. you are laughing at your country. You are mocking the future. Do that at your own peril. The future is now .Embrace the future or be a slave to the past. Either way this is nto a joke. I pray there is an inquery to this vote. I smell a rat. Even clinton thought they were losing by double digits. I smell a yale plan, rat

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 9, 2008 11:59 AM | Report abuse

Several comments after skimming the comments:

This may have seemed like an upset, but only because the polls were inaccurate and the news media repeatedly told us Obama would win by double digits. As it turns out, he didn't even win by a single digit. He lost. Come on folks, this is NH. They are notorious for confounding the media on what they are really thinking. Live, free or die and all that.

I have to say that Hillary didn't cry. Her eyes may have misted a bit and her voice may have been a little shaky, but she spoke from her heart, with sincerity. I agree with her. The country has slipped enough in the last 7 years. I don't want to see it slip any further.

Someone mentioned Gloria Steinam. Yah? So what. Obama had Oprah stumping for him. Huckabee has Chuck Norris, and Edwards has the guy from Desperate Housewives. I'm not voting for any of the celebrities, I'm voting for a candidate for President.

Someone else made the comment that Hillary would never beat John McCain? Really? How many folks on the under side of 50 are going to vote for a man who's 71 and will be 75 by the end of four years? He's a good man, but too old for the job. Before anyone says it, Reagan was too old for the job. You could see the beginnings of his Alzheimer's disease before he even left office.

Obama is an extremely inspirational speaker. He roused the convention goers at the last Democratic convention, and is trying to ride his own coat tails into the Presidency. He says he's going to make "change," but mostly it's all happy talk with no substance. I think many voters recognized that fact when they voted yesterday.

From my observations, Hillary is an exceptionally intelligent woman who isn't theatrical as Obama is, but who I think demonstrates she can stand up to the rigors of the Presidency. She's seen it from the inside. She knows what it takes.

Posted by: yellowtail3465 | January 9, 2008 11:58 AM | Report abuse

"does anyone else think it's completely unreasonable to compare Obama (in 2008) with Bush (in 2000), as Clinton has been recently?"


A more apt comparison would be to whats-his-name from 1992. But I don't think we'll see that from the Clinton campaign.

Posted by: bsimon | January 9, 2008 11:55 AM | Report abuse

bokonon writes
" now that Romney has lost the 2 states he was counting on to establish momentum which would carry him the rest of the way, can he sit down + shut up already?"

I hear he's going to keep collecting silver medals all the way to the convention in St Paul. Should have quite a blinding collection by then.

Posted by: bsimon | January 9, 2008 11:52 AM | Report abuse

"But the more assholish her detractors behave, the more you help her. The way she was treated the past few days in New Hampshire was a disgrace, and likely a large reason for her surprise victory. So keep attacking her for bullsh*t reasons, and you'll be generating more and more sympathy votes for her. Obama's "you're likable enough" was likely worth 2-3 points all by its lonesome self.'

the obama ref I was talking about, colin. above post was written by markos molitsas -- of Daily Kos fame.

Posted by: claudialong | January 9, 2008 10:39 AM
"

I saw that drindl. Do you agree? If so what has politics in this country feel to? One line? Or is it a woman thing? Imagine my frustration today. And the nonsense that allowed this to happen. What country is this?

I think many old folks might play these games. The youth is not buying. We want real issues and policies. We don't care about one-liners or crying. Choose wisely old people. You will not be around forever. You can only hold up progress for so long. Better to work with the future. than to reject us forever. The future is now

r

u

f

u

s

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 9, 2008 11:50 AM | Report abuse

claudia, its pointless to bicker about who has misunderstood whom, but when you write "there are huge differences between left and right and nothing is going to change that anytime soon," you are offering a perfect example of the problem I'm talking about. You cite the most extreme positions held by the right and seem to discount that its an extreme view that is not held by a majority of Americans. The so-called undeclared / independent voters are growing in this country, which says to me that more people are interested in finding real solutions and comprommise than are interested in imposing extreme views from one side or the other. When you focus on the religious nuts or the warmongers on the right, you're ignoring the majority in the middle. That is a strategic and tactical mistake. As I said earlier in this thread, I think the party that nominates the candidate most appealing to the swing voters will walk away with this election. If they nominate candidates that focuses on the extreme views of the other side, and try to characterize all the party members or supporters as sharing those views, we're going to be in for another ugly election. This country should be better than that. In my opinion, our political leadership has failed in that they not only continue but seem to encourage such tactics. We can do better.

Posted by: bsimon | January 9, 2008 11:49 AM | Report abuse

Somebody on this blog mentioned targeted phone calls re: Obama's "choice" position.

I was at an event last night where I heard similar remarks. _Colin's post also mentioned the change of female voters from the earlier polss.
Hopefully some media person will look into it. It may be sour grapes, it may be inside baseball, it may be info taken out of context, but it wouldn't suprise me of last minute special interest group involvement either "For Hillary" or "Against Barack."

Posted by: rpinNH | January 9, 2008 11:46 AM | Report abuse

Adding to questions about the tone of the debate -- does anyone else think it's completely unreasonable to compare Obama (in 2008) with Bush (in 2000), as Clinton has been recently?

Comparing a silver spoon kid who had everything handed to him on a platter with Obama seems completely out of bounds to me. Is there any chance this could rebound on Clinton?

Posted by: rpy1 | January 9, 2008 11:42 AM | Report abuse

Again, Colin, I didn't see the video of Obama's remark and read only some reactions to it. But it's strange how seeing something, hearing, and reading about it can form completely different reactions. As you said about the media,

'The president is tremendously sentimental. Forget about putting his parents anywhere near him. At his inauguration he purposely kept them out of his line of sight so he could stay as dry-eyed as possible. He has learned not to brush the tears away.'

From Newsweek. it's so different when a man cries, you know. It's 'poignant'I according to the media. But if a woman cries, why, she's 'weak' or 'calculating, or she's 'mentally unstable,'... Imagine if a woman politiician cried every time she saw her parents... but the media found it charming that bush does.

'The media's excoriation and mocking of Clinton contrast with their treatment of prominent conservative politicians who have cried in the past. Their tears, according to these pundits, are "genuine," "poignant," and "extraordinary":'

here's a compilation of all the attacks on Clinton over a tear.:

http://thinkprogress.org/?tag=Media

Posted by: drindl | January 9, 2008 11:41 AM | Report abuse

Hi y'all.

*At this point, Edwards is on an ego trip. He should get out, as there is no realistic possibility of his winning. So should Richardson... the fat lady has been singing for him since before Iowa.

*Congrats to Hillary; also to Lyle. I still don't like her and will not vote for her unless she is the nominee AND Bloomberg doesn't run. Mark, what do you think of a Bloomberg/Hagel ticket? I imagine that would not win in Texas?

*Bill Clinton's stock has plummeted with me over the past several days. At this point (for Bill), the campaign is easily as much about him as it is about her. He should get back to philanthropy and hanging out with GHWB.

*So, now that Romney has lost the 2 states he was counting on to establish momentum which would carry him the rest of the way, can he sit down + shut up already? What a pompous bag of air he is, and I'm glad that so far, voters seem to agree.

*I am glad that McCain won - I don't agree with him about much (except campaign finance reform) but think he's a straight shooter and relatively decent man. There's not much chance I would vote for him, but as long as there is a D congressional majority, I would not rule it out.

*I haven't given up on Obama. If the Nev. union does endorse him, and SC blacks do not lose faith, February 5 will still be a race. Lyle buddy, we need you out there in Nevada.

Finally, I am disappointed that following its adoption by each candidate of both parties, 'change' now means nothing more than "my ideas, not anyone else's." After 8 years of poor governance, the country is in real need of the real thing.

Posted by: bokonon13 | January 9, 2008 11:41 AM | Report abuse

yes, McCain stands on conviction so strongly that he has completely changed his views on immigration because he lusts after the GOP nomination.

Posted by: Spectator2 | January 9, 2008 11:41 AM | Report abuse

EXCELLANT POST sw7104 . tHAT IS THE GAME.

our only hope is the american people can convince john edwards to step down. If hillary continues srying, I don't know how we can beat her ;)

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 9, 2008 11:37 AM | Report abuse

Drindl -- the Obama comment you cited was made during the debate, before the "breakdown, and was in response to Senator clinton herself joking about how people purportedly "don't like her." Obama's comment was lighthearted, as was hers, and they both resulted in the crowd laughing. If you want to call that a personal attack you're entitled to do so, but I think that's just silly. I do agree with you, however, that much of the media's reaction to Clinton showing some emotion was sexist and unfair. That's not Obama's fault, however.

Mark -- the math is hard to figure out on this one. I suspect HRC did pick up more of JRE's supporters than we thought. BUt ultimately, something -- and who knows what it really was -- seems to have shifted women into the HRC column at the last minute. According to an anonymous Obama staffer, they had him dead even with women in NH the day before yesterday. In reality, she swamped him by double digits. That's a pretty huge shift in a short period of time. Candidly, I'm at a loss to explain it.

Posted by: _Colin | January 9, 2008 11:30 AM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton is "mentally unstable" because she "had a nervous breakdown" during the campaign. That's some impressive spin, bryant_flier. When asked about the difficulties of campaigning, Hillary teared up a little bit. Lock her up in the mental hospital; she's nuts!

Of course, the rest of your post goes on to prove just how biased you are, and how willing you are to parrot nonsensical Republican smears. I think it's clear who's mentally unstable here.

Posted by: Blarg | January 9, 2008 11:27 AM | Report abuse

'The Republicans cast votes last night for a man who stands on conviction & a war veteran, while the Democrats choose someone who clearly is mentally unstable. Why do I say that? Because Hillary Clinton clearly can't take the rigors of a Presidential campaign. I mean, the woman broke into tears over a campaign'

since all human beings cry at some point or another, aparently we're all 'clearly mentally unstable.'

Posted by: drindl | January 9, 2008 11:26 AM | Report abuse

A couple of points.

First, the media and Democrats have been *easy* on Hillary compared to what's ahead if she's the D nominee. If the purpose of primary season is to test candidates, then she and every other candidate should welcome and respond appropriately to reasonable scrutiny and criticism. Whining about the unfairness of it all may pick up a few sympathetic votes here and there, but it's an absolute disaster in the long term.

Also, suzanngale, Hillary is heading into the second year of her second term as senator, and those eight years comprise all of her elective office experience. That makes her pretty inexperienced too, and no, being married to someone with experience doesn't count. Bill's not going to be co-president.

bsimon, thanks for your comments, but I need to explain my point better. All of the D candidates have detailed policy proposals about the hot button issues like health care. Edwards has the narrative frame of the "two Americas" and he has concrete examples to make his policies understandable to voters. It hasn't worked because American voters (even D voters) tend to identify more with the America they aspire to rather than the America they live in.

Clinton, on the other hand, is almost pure policy. What narrative framework she has is "I really want this job bad and I know all the players," which seems like an awful argument to me but apparently appeals to a segment of NH voters. Maybe after 7 years of idiocy, mere humdrum nose-to-the-ground competence looks really attractive.

Obama has soaring oratory and basically the same proposals as Hillary and Edwards, but I don't really see the connection between the poetry and the prose. The reason why the "empty suit"/"mere rhetoric" charge resonates for some voters isn't that Obama is lacking in serious policy proposals, but because Obama isn't connecting his long vision with something more tangible. The beauty of a Big Idea (and he only needs one, although Medium Ideas are always good) is that it provides that link. Something like, "The politics of division have failed us -- just look around at this country. A politics of hope and change, of people and politicians working together for once, will bring us 3 million new good jobs all over this country and an end to high energy prices and help slow down global warming. That's what we'll do together if you elect me President." That's not abstract, but neither is it vision-less number-crunching.

Posted by: novamatt | January 9, 2008 11:25 AM | Report abuse

' I look forward to the day when people focus more on finding common principles on which we can agree & improve our country, rather than focusing on our differences and refusing to admit that sometimes the other side has good ideas.'

Don't you think most of us do? But you are intent on misunderstanding what I am saying, so I give up.

Posted by: drindl | January 9, 2008 11:22 AM | Report abuse

The Republicans cast votes last night for a man who stands on conviction & a war veteran, while the Democrats choose someone who clearly is mentally unstable. Why do I say that? Because Hillary Clinton clearly can't take the rigors of a Presidential campaign. I mean, the woman broke into tears over a campaign.

It goes back to the question: is she ready to be Commander-in-cheif? Based on what we have saw thus far, hell no! Hillary Clinton about has a nervous breakdown during an election, how the Hell can she handle a war? My guess is she would go all the way to the asylum. She would "feel" the pain of every man, woman & child that the war has an effect on, so what would she do? Should she hold up the Koran in appeasement to extremists & acknowledge the Sharia Law? No way! That would be standing for something without feeling everyone's else's emotions, and God knows, she couldn't do that. The Clinton's are dirty politicians, but Hillary has been shown to be weak. Not a leader we want to keep our nation safe.

The Democratic liberals have 2 fine choices. A mentally unstable woman unfitting of serving as commander and chief vs. an pacifist appeaser with family ties to Muslim Radical groups.

Posted by: bryant_flier2006 | January 9, 2008 11:20 AM | Report abuse

This is a great election cycle - because it is very revealing about the media bigots.
Ohg.
http://thefiresidepost.com/2008/01/09/clinton-and-obama-expose-media-bigots/

Posted by: glclark4750 | January 9, 2008 11:18 AM | Report abuse

About the southern accent on Obama. yeah I noticed it myself yesterday. His cadence and inflection in his speeches is obviously trying to emulate Dr. King. The accent on someone from Hawaii would definately be going to far. HE may ust be using voice techniques to save his vocal chords as physicians have advised him not to speak at all.

Interesting point though is that he has compared himself to Dr. King, which I think would be a dngerous game for anyone, but for a man with no history of slavery who was raised white and affluent in Hawaii, very dangerous indeed.

I think the numbers in SC may reflect an offense to him comparing himself to Dr. King, and JFK for that matter.

When other people do it its a dangerous standard to hold yourself to. When you do it yourself certainly it can only be seen as arrogant in the extreme.

We'll see if the southern accent continues, but it was definately there last night. I would ditch it if i were him at any costs, even to my vocal chords.

Posted by: slbk | January 9, 2008 11:15 AM | Report abuse

The media in its analysis of the NH primary is conveniently failing to mention the last minute dirty trick of the Clinton campaign staff when thousands of NH voters received phone calls distorting Barack Obama's pro choice record. Lying about a fellow Democrat just to be able to claim to be the "comeback kid" is NOT acceptable.

Posted by: lavinsr | January 9, 2008 11:12 AM | Report abuse

rpinNH writes
"Kudos to the Clinton folks who mobilized Dem voters in the "big" towns of Manchester, Nashua and Dover. They were the difference makers."

That is an important point. As the primary season moves forward, it will be interesting to see if Sen Clinton does as well in states where her campaign doesn't have the same machine they have in NH. At this point it would appear that the firewall strategy has worked, in at least stopping the fire's growth. It is not yet out, however.

A big question is whether Edwards's supporters are in the Anyone But Clinton camp, or if they would consider supporting her should Johnny drop out.

Posted by: bsimon | January 9, 2008 11:11 AM | Report abuse

I like how after Iowa, and the Iowa bounce, Obama supporters prematurely claimed victory in NH and predicted the end of Clinton's campaign. The polls consistently showed Obama surging well beyond Clinton in NH. Now, when she wins, it's not a stunning victory. LOL. It's not stunning, perhaps, because you are still in denial. Let's move on guys.

Posted by: darrren12000 | January 9, 2008 11:10 AM | Report abuse

evERY OBAMA SUPPORTER HERE. PLEASE CONTACT John edwards. Write him letters detailing why he must drop out of the race for the good of the nation. He is sucking up obama votes, heck I almost went to him. We need those votes to beat clinton. bEFORE SHE CRIES HER WAY TO GETTING MORE GOP WOMEN VOTERS.

After all this. the whole process. All the people involved. It now seems the entire elctoral process falls on one man's shoulders. One white man from the south. One Man. John Edwards. You got to love america. Please step down Senator edwards. For yoru countries sake. The stakes are huge.


r

And yes I am bitter. After all my people have fought for. to be derailed by water works. Or false ballots. She is alienating teh democratic base. IF she is not a democrat, what is she? Is she is not for this country,w hat country?

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 9, 2008 11:07 AM | Report abuse

The Democratic race is historical by all perspectives. I think Hillary will edge out Obama in the long run but they are both great people who have taken great risk and made huge personal sacrifices to serve our country.
Kudos to all the candidates...

Posted by: hhkeller | January 9, 2008 11:05 AM | Report abuse

claudia writes
"bsmin, you are mischaracterizing everything I said."

then she writes
"if you think tht throwing down your weapon in the middle of a knife fight is going to induce your opponent to throw down his, i suggest you stay away from knife fights."

Wow. Talk about mischaracterizations.

You said anyone who thinks a compelling leader will be able to overcome partisanship in this country should essentially let the dream die. Though your exact words were the sarcastic couplet "dream on". Then you go on to demonstrate the exact kind of partisanship that is tearing this country apart, in characterizing political differences as a 'knife fight'. I look forward to the day when people focus more on finding common principles on which we can agree & improve our country, rather than focusing on our differences and refusing to admit that sometimes the other side has good ideas.

Posted by: bsimon | January 9, 2008 11:04 AM | Report abuse

The college towns also went big for Obama. He crushed her in Plymouth and Hanover, and would've had a huge win in Durham, but nobody was there for the new semester yet.

Posted by: cam8 | January 9, 2008 11:01 AM | Report abuse

rfpiktor: your 04:28AM post was Great, Thanks. BTW, it is nice to discuss our differences in a civilized manner.

Posted by: lylepink | January 9, 2008 11:00 AM | Report abuse

to mark in austin: i got my exit poll data from cnn.

Posted by: darrren12000 | January 9, 2008 10:59 AM | Report abuse

Chris I disagree. Clinton did not defy the polls. As I tried to explain yesterday on your blog, the numbers clearly showed Obama trending downwards and Clinton upwards. This happened over three days, starting Saturday night after the debates.

This is not remarkable. In fact, it is completely standard for a bounce to come down. It always has. It always will.

I predicted a 2% win by Obama yesterday based on hype carrying the day, but qualified it and said Clinton could win if youth and independents dont turn out in record numbers, which they didn't.

At least two polls only showed a 1% obama lead on the eve of the race. Look at Rasmussen
Sat 14% lead Obama
Sun 6% lead obama
Mon 1% lead. obama rolling average 7% lead

Extrapolate Tuesday 4% Clinton win, which is exactly what happened. The question is why didn't reputable polsters throw out the data from Saturday and just do a reliable one day poll?

Ther question you need to ask is why didn't the MSM see the clear trend (with the exception of Zogby)

In fact its even clearer in South Carolina had anyone bothered to look (and even I didn't, but I could have used these numbers yesterday to demonstrate the downward trend)

South CArolina's numbers from Real Clear Politics.

04-06 obama 20% lead
06-06 obama 12% lead
07-07 obama 7% lead

NOw you do the math. If the vote had been in SC yesterday, would Obama have won by 13% the average or would the trend prevail with a close race and possibly a Clinton victory, with standard turnout demographics and a more solid base of support?

The number were clear. The trend was clear. MSM chose to ignore it and the polsters decided to include Saturday in rolling averages enthough a bounce coming down is standard not rocket science. Zogby probably modified its sample to reflect Iowa turnout of youth and independents, bad idea.

I think there was a masssive bias against Clinton by you ,and basically everyone else, who didn't take the time to look at the trends, which are always more important than the rolling numbers themselves.

It's not American Idol, its the Presidency
of the United States of America. Try to be a little more neutral, add critical tough questioning of all candidates, and leave the high school idolization at the door in future please.

Posted by: slbk | January 9, 2008 10:58 AM | Report abuse

jca:

That makes sense - thanks for the correction. More than anything, it sounds like there were a lot of folks that had been undecided in NH who swung for Clinton. Based on the exit polls, she won big in the group of folks that had decided that day on who they would vote for.

Posted by: rpy1 | January 9, 2008 10:58 AM | Report abuse

Despite his insistence to the contrary, I see Edwards out after SC. He's going to take a beating in NV, and finish third in SC. At that point, it should be fairly clear to him that he's no longer in the race, as he will have finished no better than second anywhere, and no closer than the 8 points he lost by in Iowa.

Posted by: cam8 | January 9, 2008 10:56 AM | Report abuse

I think it was a "suprising upset" not a stunning upset based on the past 5 days here in NH.

Kudos to the Clinton folks who mobilized Dem voters in the "big" towns of Manchester, Nashua and Dover. They were the difference makers.

I can't "blame the pollsters." Living in NH, there was a sense of something huge that is hard to explain. If we had voted Monday, I think the totals would have been different.

I think HRC did a good job of humanizing herself on the final days. Both Obama and CLinton campaigns did excellent grassroots.

Early on, it appeared Clinton would win big (she was leading the polls by 10-15% in December)and then on Sunday, it appeared Obama was running away. At the end of the day, it was an extremely close race and the results could have turned either way.

I was door knocking and doing visibility yesterday on the Seacoast. I heard a lot of Republicans being intrigued with Obama (particularly Romney and McCain supporters). Looking at the town votes, it appears that towns that are traditionally Democratic (Manchester, Dover, Hampton) had substantial Clinton margins, while towns that are a bit more Republican leaning towns (Stratham, North Hampton, Rye, New Castle)voted for Obama.

Posted by: rpinNH | January 9, 2008 10:53 AM | Report abuse

rpy1 and others - Edwards did not drop off significantly from the RCP average going in (18.3 RCP average vs 17 actual). Hard to say he was hurt directly by whatever he said. Indirectly, he was hurt to the extent he helped Hillary galvanize her vote and botched his (longshot) hope for a 1 on 1 vs. Obama.

Posted by: jca-CrystalCity | January 9, 2008 10:51 AM | Report abuse

Get a clue. Republicans don't "fear" Hillary. Did we "fear" Newt Gingrich? Hell no. We used him mercilessly to beat Republicans. Now they are prepping to do the same using Hillary. They fear Obama! He might actually make govmt work!

Posted by: sw7104 | January 9, 2008 10:49 AM | Report abuse

'The more she's attacked on personal grounds, the more sympathy that real person will generate, the more votes she'll win from people sending a message to the media and her critics that they've gone way over the line of common decency. You underestimate that sympathy at your own peril. If I found myself half-rooting for her given the crap that was being flung at her, is it any wonder that women turned out in droves to send a message that sexist double-standards were unacceptable? Sure, it took one look at Terry McAuliffe's mug to bring me back down to earth, but most people don't know or care who McAuliffe is. They see people beating the sh*t out of Clinton for the wrong reasons, they get angry, and they lash back the only way they can -- by voting for her.'

I think he's right. bsmin, you are mischaracterizing everything I said. Nobody is talking about 'giving up on a better America'. I siad I still support Obama over her. BUT

' those of us who grew up after the culture wars are largely uninterested in fighting those battles in perpetuity'

yeah, i wish they over too. but they aren't. the religous right is more insistent than ever about forcing 'biblical' values on the rest of us. the lobbyists and contractors still want all our taxpayer dollars. the rich still don't want to pay their fair share. there are huge differences between left and right and nothing is going to change that anytime soon.

if you think tht throwing down your weapon in the middle of a knife fight is going to induce your opponent to throw down his, i suggest you stay away from knife fights.

Posted by: drindl | January 9, 2008 10:49 AM | Report abuse

looks like gop women have a soft side. Look what crying did for clinton. Congradulations pink and other supporters. Cry more. Many you will win more elections. I saw the gop crying highlight reel last night. It works with old folks I guess. i wouldn't know anything about the effects of crying. I don't factor that in. Some people care about issues and the future in this country.

On Cacus night I'll be the one in reno in line chanting "Yes we CAn"

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 9, 2008 10:48 AM | Report abuse

Ive just returned from a DR. visit and reading y'alls comments, makes me feel a little better. I can try and answer each of you on an individual basis, so I'll do my best. bsimon and jimd52: I have no doubt Hillary will indeed be our next POTUS, as I have said so many times. Maybe, just maybe, the folks got the message of the Repub strategy of supporting Obama to knock of Hilary because she is the only Dem they "FEAR", her in that they pretty well KNOW they can't beat her in the General.

Posted by: lylepink | January 9, 2008 10:44 AM | Report abuse

'Hillary is my least favorite of the viable candidates on substantive grounds, and I'll be voting for Barack Obama here pretty soon here in California via absentee ballot. The second-to-last thing I want is Mark Penn and Terry McAluiffe anywhere near the White House. (The last thing? Another Republican administration.)

But the more assholish her detractors behave, the more you help her. The way she was treated the past few days in New Hampshire was a disgrace, and likely a large reason for her surprise victory. So keep attacking her for bullsh*t reasons, and you'll be generating more and more sympathy votes for her. Obama's "you're likable enough" was likely worth 2-3 points all by its lonesome self.'

the obama ref I was talking about, colin. above post was written by markos molitsas -- of Daily Kos fame.

Posted by: drindl | January 9, 2008 10:39 AM | Report abuse

Well now! This certainly makes Feb. 5 more interesting.

But, more interesting than that, is the upcoming endorsement by the Culinary Workers' Union in Nevada (11pm PT today).

If they endorse Obama, he picks up the support of the largest labor union in NV, and combines it with his endorsement from the NV SEIU.

If Obama wins NV and SC, with at least a strong showing in FL, I think that he'll still come out ahead on Super Tuesday. Remember, MI doesn't seat any delegates, and it won't be that hard to spin a Hillary victory there. After all, she's the only one on the ballot.

Also, it's idiocy for the media to be reporting the number of superdelegates that have pledged support to a candidate. Those delegates can change their minds any time they want.

Report the reality on the ground: that Obama and Clinton are neck-and-neck.

Posted by: cam8 | January 9, 2008 10:39 AM | Report abuse

This "stunning upset" line is just more nonsense from pundits that don't know what they're talking about. The polls they rely on are more nonsense. I don't know a single person who is "stunned" this morning. Mostly, people are saying: "BFD. It's only the second contest. Plenty of time for Clinton, Obama or even Edwards to make a move." So people, stop listening to know-nothing bloviators and vote for who you believe in.

Posted by: rrno62 | January 9, 2008 10:36 AM | Report abuse

claudia writes
"i have to say, to those who think that electing obam is going to stop the partisanship in this country-- dream on"

With all due respect, those of us who grew up after the culture wars are largely uninterested in fighting those battles in perpetuity. I don't dispute that ongoing bitter partisanship is more likely than not; but I'm also not going to give up on the goal of a better America because the cynics say it can't be done. Remember back in the day, when the youth was revolting against The Man? How does it feel to be part of The Man now?

Posted by: bsimon | January 9, 2008 10:36 AM | Report abuse

i meant 'we' should not be occupying iraq -- oops.

Posted by: drindl | January 9, 2008 10:31 AM | Report abuse

Wake up Democrats! Hillary is the Newt Gingrich of the Democratic Party -- she will absolutely energize Republicans to continue the gridlock.

Remember Bill's "tiny triumphs" in the 90s, b/c he couldn't get anything past angry, contrary, **unified** Republicans? Here we go again.

I too want to see a woman in the White House, but is that really more important than sliding into the abyss of global climate change, a disastrous, multi-billion dollar war, nuclear-political instability, continued energy dependence, a brutal recession that might turn into a depression? Get real.

We are in a mess. A huge mess. It's getting worse, not better. So, the Republicans are, finally, fragmented, weakened, and unhappy with their choices.

And so what are we going to do?

We're going to solve all their problems and deepen America's and the world's problems, by offering up the one candidate who can unify and energize the Republicans to halt progress on solving any of these problems.

I was speaking yesterday to colleague who is very conservative, a Limbaugh conservative. Buys the whole Bush Iraq War propaganda line; anti-immigration; anti-government; anti-taxes; "global-warming isn't real" etc. We know the type.

So guess who he wants to win the Presidency (not the Democratic nomination), and who he most fears will win? He wants Clinton to win the Presidency. He fears Obama.

These Right Wing Nuts want gridlock! Their biggest fear is that government "will succeed". That it will work...against their interests. They don't like their Republican candidates (each one has at least one huge flaw), so what they want is President Hillary Clinton, the lightening rod who will energize Republicans to oppose everything Democrats try to get done. Goodbye Democratic Majority in Congress.

Remember when we all said that attacking Iraq would NOT weaken Al-Qaeda, but the reverse -- it would actually strengthen it?

Hello! We're "attacking" the Republicans by sending up Hillary, and we're going to end up strengthening them!

Posted by: sw7104 | January 9, 2008 10:29 AM | Report abuse

'Drindl -- Gotta say, I'm surprised to hear you criticize Obama's response to Hillary choking up a bit. In point of fact, he was quite gracious when asked about it and said the process was a grind for all of them.'

I was misinformed about that, colin. I had heard that he said something else. i am still amazed, though, the import that people attribute to her choking up. in the scheme of things, so f*cking what? rudy guiliani, after all, admitted that he chokes up sometimes too -- at 9/11 memorials.

i would probably still vote for obama over her, but i think she's tough and capable and if she's the nom i will go door to door and man the phonebanks for her. as i said, I like McCain, but I don't think she should be occupying Iraq for the next 50 years 'the korea policy' as he is advocating.

and i have to say, to those who think that electing obam is going to stop the partisanship in this country-- dream on. anyone who has watched the neoconservative movement in this country over the last 30 years knows that they are not going to turn into bipartisan lambs--they are just going to dig in and get meaner.

Posted by: drindl | January 9, 2008 10:28 AM | Report abuse

lyle

Congratulations on your candidate's remarkable win. However, I will not be coming over to support her for the same reasons bsimon outlined. If it's McCain vs. Clinton, I vote for McCain. If it's Clinton versus another R, I am voting I (Save us Mike Bloomberg).

As for the posters claiming the racial gap in polling - you are all citing ancient history. Harold Ford's Tennessee Senate bid showed the polls accurately predicting his losing vote total. I heard a group of pollsters on POTUS-08 XM radio channel discussing recent studies that confirm that the racial polling gap has disappeared over the last few election cycles. I see that no one has cited an example later than 1993. Given the fluidity of the New Hampshire situation, I would wait until another few primaries before blaming the discrepancy on the racial polling gap.

Posted by: jimd52 | January 9, 2008 10:18 AM | Report abuse

First off, congrats to lyle and the rest of the Clinton supporters.

Mark was asking earlier about the Edwards drop off between polls and election results -- I would argue that the response from Edwards to Clinton's emotional display was pretty bad, and much more likely than Obama's to lead to folks ditching him.

Of course, looking at the exit polls, Clinton supporters feel that Obama has run the most unfair campaign (this is from CNN). I have a really hard time seeing that, but maybe we shouldn't put too much stock in the exit polls for this race.

Posted by: rpy1 | January 9, 2008 10:08 AM | Report abuse

I agree with the first poster, and I'm glad the debate will continue. I'm a die-hard Obama supporter (though not a Hillary-hater), and I was a little worried about this being seen as a coronation for Obama. As much as I think he can win, should win, and represents the brightest future for this country, I'd rather have him get a little bruised early on in the game to toughen him up for the big fight. Because if he gets the nomination, which I sincerely hope that he will, he will face a fight. Better to have him come to that fight as a battle-tested warrior than to have him coast to the nomination and then get blindsided in the general election.

I admit, last night was a disappointment for me, but when I thought about it a little more, this was the conclusion I reached.

YES WE CAN! GO OBAMA!

Posted by: ASinMoCo | January 9, 2008 10:08 AM | Report abuse

lylepink:

I know you have been a supporter of Hillary's for a long time, but I have to agree with prjonp on the assertion that nominating Clinton will be a guaranteed win for McCain (I also happen to agree that he will be the Republican candidate and he will win). There are many factors as to why, the dynasty thing being one, but then add on the female thing, and she will be terribly embarrassed in the general election. I would support her, but reluctantly. The important thing is for a Democrat to win, not for Hillary to win. I am not sure why you are so rabidly pro-Hillary instead of pro-Democrat.

The only good thing about a McCain presidency is that it is almost guaranteed to be a one-term presidency due to age and most likely even more increased Republican fatigue.

Posted by: cellings | January 9, 2008 10:03 AM | Report abuse

"Tim Russert said the same thing"


How do you know when Tim Russert is practicing hyperbole?

He's talking.

.

Posted by: bsimon | January 9, 2008 9:59 AM | Report abuse

novamatt writes
"Obama needs a Big Idea, a concrete, tangible proposal that cuts through ossified policy wonkery and cuts across interest group and generational divides. The "Hope" and "Change" themes are fine, but voters need a better sense of what sort of change they're hoping for."

Matt, I don't disagree with your suggestions, but... I think he has the big idea, the question is whether voters get it or not. NPR had him on this morning and asked for a concrete answer on an issue like healthcare. His response made sense to me, but I think a lot of people would find it mushy, particularly given the fallacious claims by the other campaigns that he's a talker, not a doer. I'll try to recap:

NPR: "whats your detailed policy proposal, say, on healthcare"

BHO: "We don't lack for proposals on healthcare; I've published one, lots of people have made proposals. what we lack is coalition-building. I will build coalitions so we can solve this problem."

There was more, but the point is that the Clinton/Edwards/VRWC campaigns will point to it and say: "See, he's all wishy-washy, with soaring rhetoric, but no detailed positions." But the reality is that he makes a good point. What we need in this country is a leader that can convince a majority that working together is better for all of us than dividing and fighting it out. He's proven an ability to do this; an op-ed article last week cited the example of how he introduced legislation in IL to videotape all police interviews of suspects. The cops didn't want it, the Repubs didn't want it, other Dems didn't want it, the Gov didn't want it. But BHO was able to convince people that it was a good idea. He got some other stuff passed for the cops so they'd go along with the video bill. He convinced other Ds they wouldn't be viewed as 'soft on crime' and he built a coalition such that the bill passed 35-0 in the IL Senate. THAT is the kind of tenacity and leadership that we need in a President.

Posted by: bsimon | January 9, 2008 9:57 AM | Report abuse

cdlutz,

Expect this race to have undetectable vibes that only women pick up and make pundits look like industrial-strength idiots.

Such is the power of the female.

Posted by: rfpiktor | January 9, 2008 9:40 AM | Report abuse

bsimon, according to the Media Notes column, Tim Russert said the same thing: "One of the greatest political upsets in American political history".

Let's review. As of a few months ago, Hillary was the "inevitable" winner, the unstoppable juggernaut. Her poll numbers gradually declined, but the media was still ready to coronate her. As of a week ago, she still held a polling lead in most early primary states, including New Hampshire, and in national polls. There was about a 2-day period in which it looked like she'd lose NH.

And after all that, she won a narrow plurality of votes in the first primary. How is that an upset or a comeback? If no polls had been taken in the last week, Hillary's victory would have been portrayed as the expected result, more proof that she's the inevitable nominee. But because of a quick drop in the polls after Iowa, suddenly she's making a comeback against incredible odds to achieve victory. Sometimes I really hate the media in this country.

Posted by: Blarg | January 9, 2008 9:37 AM | Report abuse

lylepink writes
"I had hopes for you and other Biden supporters to come over and support Hillary. Drindl, JimD, bsimon, and Truth Hunter to name a few of you that i can recall off hand. I am more convinced now, after tonight, that Hillary will be the Dem nominee after the 5 Feb"

Lyle, I can't speak for others, but for me, it ain't gonna happen. Here's why. In a nutshell, HRC isn't what we need in a President. I freely admit she might make a fine President, without a doubt, she would be a better President than what we have right now. But that's not what I'm looking for. I'm looking for someone who will repair, or at least rise above, the partisan bickering that has been polarizing this country for the last dozen or so years. I don't blame Senator Clinton for such problems - if anything she's been an undeserving victim of partisan hacks - but I am certain that her candidacy (and Presidency, should it come about) would not solve the problem, but exacerbate it. If the Dems nominate Obama, I will vote for him. If the Repubs nominate McCain (and Obama's not in it) I will vote for him. If both parties choose other candidates, I don't know what I'll do; probably vote 3rd party again.

On a larger scale, I think the party that chooses the candidate that has the most appeal to independent voters will walk away with the general election. At this point, those two candidates are clearly Obama & McCain. Other matchups will likely be much closer, along the lines of the 1992, 1996, 2000 & 2004 elections. A good crossover candidate will produce results like 1980 & 1984. If you're trying to improve America, which kind of President would you rather have - one that wins by the skin of his/her teeth, or one that wins a real mandate with a convincing electoral & popular vote majority?

Posted by: bsimon | January 9, 2008 9:36 AM | Report abuse

First, congratulations to Hillary and her supporters. This stings a bit for us Obama supporters, but our democracy is strengthened when the voters speak. Now, many more voters from around the country will get to weigh in. As a result we'll have a more battle-tested nominee.

In trying to explain the discrepancy between the polls and the outcome, I reject the racial theory.

I do think there were three interlinked causes that played a big role.

First, the slim 5 days between Iowa and NH did not allow enough time for reflection by the voters. How could pollers know what the voters would do if they hadn't really made up their minds yet.

Second, the emotional Hillary moment got saturation coverage. I got depressed every time I saw it. It made her human and was undoubtedly real. It was much easier to dismiss her before.

Third, the polls gave voters on the fence to rationalize that Obama didn't need their vote. He was cruising to victory. When you combine the sympathy Hillary engendered in her "moment" with the fierce independent streak of NH voters who don't wish to be taken for granted, I think Hillary benefited greatly from that dynamic.

Let us savor the twists and turns of this deepening plot.

Posted by: optimyst | January 9, 2008 9:36 AM | Report abuse

I'm surprised that no pundits have cited the "IRON MY SHIRTS" incident as a contributing factor to Hillary's win. It was a direct attack based on nothing other than the fact that she is a woman and thereby, if indirectly, an attack on all women. I'm not a Clinton supporter (or a woman for that matter) but I found myself feeling that she did not deserve that kind of treatment. It had to have made her a more sympathetic figure to female voters. Am I the only one who sees it this way?

Posted by: cdlutz | January 9, 2008 9:33 AM | Report abuse

Colin, what do you think of the arithmetic that would tend to show BHO did not lose votes and that HRC gained them at the expense of JRE and undecideds? Do you think that was a function of the union strongholds abandoning their ally JRE for HRC?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 9, 2008 9:28 AM | Report abuse

Pasting this in from HuffPo:

"Arianna Huffington: A Great Night for Hillary, a Crappy Night for Pollsters
Nashua, New Hampshire -- The results from New Hampshire represent a crushing setback. Not for Barack Obama -- after all, only three weeks ago he was 12 points behind. No, the biggest losers of the night were the pollsters, who will now have to down a heaping helping of humble pie. Like Lucy Ricardo, they have a lot of 'splainin' to do. "

Posted by: judgeccrater | January 9, 2008 9:26 AM | Report abuse

"one of the most stunning comeback victories in modern American politics."


Geez, Chris. Got Hyperbole?


.

Posted by: bsimon | January 9, 2008 9:25 AM | Report abuse

Drindl -- Gotta say, I'm surprised to hear you criticize Obama's response to Hillary choking up a bit. In point of fact, he was quite gracious when asked about it and said the process was a grind for all of them. The contrast with Edwards' response couldn't have been more stark. Obviously, you should support whoever you want but in my view that's a pretty lousy reason to make the switch.

Lyle and the Hillary supporters -- clearly a good night and, without a doubt, an impressive performance by HRC and her campaign. Gotta give credit where credit is due. But this aint over by a long shot.

Posted by: _Colin | January 9, 2008 9:21 AM | Report abuse

'there is no recent historical evidence that R voters actually care more about a bipartisan foreign policy than D voters.'

I would say that they seem overwhelming to care a lot less.

Posted by: drindl | January 9, 2008 9:21 AM | Report abuse

My 9:15A should have said "...to HRC's benefit."

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 9, 2008 9:20 AM | Report abuse

Is this the first every win in a primary or caucus by a woman? Does anyone know? If so, why isn't this being covered? Obama's win as a black man in Iowa was reported as historic yet Jesse Jackson won many primaries and caucuses in 1984 and 1988.

Posted by: dkoebernick | January 9, 2008 9:17 AM | Report abuse

I have now looked and seen that the early exit reports were belied by later ones.

That leaves me with only the opinion that BHO did not under-perform, but JRE did, at HRC's expense.
-------------------------------
Y'all know that personally I am more enthused by the McC victory than by the remaining D race. But I do not currently think I would vote for any of the Rs except McC, so I must keep listening to the Ds to see if any of them convincingly sound the call for bipartisan foreign policy [not a GWB-like call for "trust me"]. Then I have to be convinced that one has the contacts across the aisle to do it.

So far, BHO intrigues me with his call to end polarization. HRC supporters point to some bridges she has built in the Senate, and BHO supporters do the same. But they are such babes compared to Biden [or Dodd] that I am skeptical.

And if Rs vote for "management" or "values" or "9-11", and not the one guy the Rs have who can build coalitions; well, there is no recent historical evidence that R voters actually care more about a bipartisan foreign policy than D voters.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 9, 2008 9:15 AM | Report abuse

It was only a 'stunning upset' to the blviating TV pundits who have been piling on Hillary for the last couple week. Chris Matthews, in particular, i thought was close to breaking down.

Posted by: drindl | January 9, 2008 9:13 AM | Report abuse

On the Democratic side, the results of NH won't matter. Yes, Hillary won. No, it's not a "stunning upset". She won by a narrow margin in a state that had long favored her in the polls. Because the margin of victory was so small, it doesn't change the race at all. If Hillary or Obama had won by a big margin, that would matter. But 3% either way just isn't meaningful. If Obama had won by 3%, it wouldn't have killed Hillary's campaign. Anything but a blowout means business as usual, and 3% is not a blowout.

Edwards needs to give it up, though. He got a distant 3rd, proving that this is a 2-person race.

Posted by: Blarg | January 9, 2008 8:59 AM | Report abuse

Mark,

Jan.9,'08 is beginning to look like REVELATION DAY, the day women roar!

Posted by: rfpiktor | January 9, 2008 8:54 AM | Report abuse

"Obama in the next week or two needs to deliver a foreign policy speech here in Washington to the CFR or some similar group, just to re-establish his establishment bona fides."

What establishment bona fides? He doesn't have any foreign policy experience - it would be foolish to try and speak to that issue. He needs to pray that Joe Biden will be his running mate if he wins the nomination.

Coming from a female voter in NH who was undeclared and undecided until the moment they asked whose party ballot I wanted - I voted for Hillary for many reasons. Joe Biden is no longer in the race. Obama has soaring rhetoric and minimal experience. Edwards just rubs me the wrong way and Richardson wasn't electable. I liked McCain, almost enough to vote for him, but want someone who will pay attention to domestic and foreign issues, not just immigration.

Health care was the deciding factor. As a single mom who works full-time and has to use all PTO/vacation time for sick kids, not to mention how much it costs for healthcare even when you have a great job and employer-sponsored plans - Hillary is the only one I could see truly caring about change in that arena.

It wasn't because her eyes welled up after weeks of being attacked. Big deal. If I was going to fall for hokey attempts at appearing like an actual caring human being, I would have fallen for Edwards a long time ago. I fell for the issues - without Biden, she was the only choice.

Posted by: suzanngale | January 9, 2008 8:53 AM | Report abuse

darren, I saw an exit poll that had HRC at 33% - where did you get the exit poll that was "accurate?"

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 9, 2008 8:47 AM | Report abuse

Perhaps the Hillary haters and the press could stop attacking her for a few minutes now. Really, I have not been a supporter but the level of nastiness aimed at her [far more than any other candidate] has been over the top. She has been savagely attacked by both the left and right, while everyone gives obama, McCain, rudy [not to mention Mike Huckabee] a free pass.

Just the whole question of whether choking up was real -- it's pretty hard to fake that kind of thing, folks, ever tried? Hey maybe she does love her country -- she's certainly been beaten up enough for it over the last several years.

I was supporting Obama, but the way both he and Edwards, and the R candidates treated her -- WORSE and less gracious than they would have another man -- turned me off.

She has been around, she understands the world possibly better than most or all of her opponents and I can certainly support her if she is the candidate. I like McCain, but he foreign policy is no different than Bush's, and I cannot support another war for oil, this one to control the Straits of Hormuz. McCain and 'bomb, bomb, bom, Iran, was not funny to me.

She has a decent health plan -- what i care about most on the domestic side. Those of you lucky enough to get insurance through your employer cannot imagine what a nightmare getting health care is for those of us who are self-employed or otherwise out of the system. And she understands the danger presented by Pakistan, and I hope she understands the complex nature of our dealings with Iran. This is what I would quesstion her most closely on.

Posted by: drindl | January 9, 2008 8:47 AM | Report abuse

Let me restate my point:

I WANT THIS WOMAN IN THE WHITE HOUSE!!!

Musharraf said in an interview about Benazir Bhutto:

''You come here...this is producing negative vibes, negative optics.''

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/14/world/asia/14pakistan.html?scp=1&sq=musharraf+vibes

This primary season is going to be a riot!

Posted by: rfpiktor | January 9, 2008 8:45 AM | Report abuse

Wdsoulplane - your post is inaccurate. the exit polls showed Hillary would win with 40 percent -- which was on the mark.

the result is stunning because she was down by 10 points in most election day polling data. BUT -- a lot more women came out: 57 percent of the vote was female. Why such large numbers? Because the heavy sexism against and unfair treatment of Clinton backfired. Eat crow.

Posted by: darrren12000 | January 9, 2008 8:41 AM | Report abuse

One more horseshoe - let's see if it is a leaner or not.

The pre-polling for BHO was consistent with his vote %.

HRC owed her "surge" to undecideds and to folks who pre-polled for JRE.

That is a surprising result, if the arithmetic represents the reality.
----------------------------

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 9, 2008 8:38 AM | Report abuse

Ed Muskie should not have had to abandon the race! It is unclear whether he even cried. People are so simple-minded.

Posted by: darrren12000 | January 9, 2008 8:35 AM | Report abuse

I am so tired of the "Hillary cried in the cafe, thus she will cry when talking to North Korea" posts. This is ignorance at the highest level. It is a CAMPAIGN, not a negotiation. Do you think Obama will "preach" to world leaders? Will Edwards give a stump speech when he discusses globalization. Will people Iran "cheer" the next president as he challenges their nuclear program? Let go people. She won!

Posted by: darrren12000 | January 9, 2008 8:32 AM | Report abuse

This victory is not about Hillary Clinton crying. Obama gets all mushy talking about the civil rights movement and it's fine. This is about NH rejecting the Obama-mania that the media and tiny Iowa concocted on Tuesday. It was about women realizing how sexist my gender and other women were treating Hillary Clinton. It was about diehard Democrats realizing that Hillary Clinton has the most experience and is best equipped to assume the presidency. It was about focusing on the issues rather than goosebumps. I love the healthy sobriety that has returned to this campaign. We deserve more than a coronation -- of either Obama or Clinton. Now we will actually have some debate. Way to go New Hampshire.

Posted by: darrren12000 | January 9, 2008 8:28 AM | Report abuse

Mark,

I asked you about it last night.

She sounded queenly to you but you saw the choke up was real.

I also think the choke was real. My simpathy for her lasted 63 seconds, though. What she said next brought back the contempt I feel for her as a person. She just has to sell her point, stay on message and get a win.

It is possible, as a has been stated in comments here, women connect to that in a way men cannot.

If she becomes president we men are going to need women explain and translate womenspeak. This thing is gettin interesting.

Posted by: rfpiktor | January 9, 2008 8:25 AM | Report abuse

bhoomes, the other day, when I had only heard her words during the "moment", I thought much as you did that she was upset about losing her "entitlement". But after I saw it on tv last night, I thought she was really choked up about how much she loved America. Honestly, I do not know which is true - it sounded different to my ears, alone, than it looked to my eyes, accompanied by my ears.

femalenick and lyle, HRC is a competent and accomplished person and politician, but the difference in the EXIT polls from the result was enormous - outside the "margin of error" as pollsters say. I am going out on a limb here and throwing a horseshoe for our amateur analysis.

The difference was NOT the old racial divide redux. It was the recurring marital divide, paved over. Husbands who voted for not-HRC had wives who said they agreed with them, to keep peace in the family. The women mis-reported their votes; not the men.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 9, 2008 7:53 AM | Report abuse

Novamatt,

The Michelle idea is great. Not sure about the young kids.

Michelle is The Closer. The gal rocks. She gets in, the gloves are off, knockout is guaranteed.

Go Michelle, go!

Posted by: rfpiktor | January 9, 2008 7:53 AM | Report abuse

Lyle,

Another fascinating question:

Still believe Billary loses S.C.?

Can she govern on her own or is she joined at the hip to Bubba.

Will Democrat primary voters elect a 2X1 combo.

It sounds wacky but it just hapenned last night.

Are Democrats nuts or something?

Posted by: rfpiktor | January 9, 2008 7:46 AM | Report abuse

Its like an old horror movie, just when you think the monster has been slayed, it comes back for another attack. Dems in NH chose the past over the future, division instead of unity, and corruption over idealism. Shame on you.

Posted by: vbhoomes | January 9, 2008 7:40 AM | Report abuse

This from the Obama side:

"Did her choking up have a positive effect among women? Did they say, 'We are not going to run her out of the race here'?" the adviser asked.

"There is no other reason we can see. Every poll showed us even with Clinton with women, and then we lose women to her. There was a big gender gap that didn't show up until yesterday."

Posted by: rfpiktor | January 9, 2008 7:38 AM | Report abuse

Some unsolicited advice for the Obama campaign:

*Obama in the next week or two needs to deliver a foreign policy speech here in Washington to the CFR or some similar group, just to re-establish his establishment bona fides.

*Obama needs a Big Idea, a concrete, tangible proposal that cuts through ossified policy wonkery and cuts across interest group and generational divides. The "Hope" and "Change" themes are fine, but voters need a better sense of what sort of change they're hoping for. I happen to be a big fan of the Apollo Aliance that would both put people to work and get us on the road to energy independence: http://www.apolloalliance.org/ . But there are other Big Ideas out there as well. Find one (and only one) and make it the change we're hoping for.

*A big online fundraiser day centered around MLK Day (tip o' the hat to Ron Paul and Guy Fawkes Day).

*Michelle and the girls need to be foregrounded, and Michelle needs to start making the rounds of the cable shows and talking to print reporters. Family man Obama is much more appealing than single man Obama. Having a few female surrogates speaking for him to media and at public events would be good too. And another round or two of Oprah in the days before Feb. 5 would be sweet.

*Obama needs to be a gentleman to and about Hillary. No more snide remarks, no more subtle attacks. Even if he loathes her. Voters, especially Democratic voters, are turned off by arrogance. Show us how he'd be a better president than she and leave it at that.

Your fan,
Matt in northern Virginia

Posted by: novamatt | January 9, 2008 7:27 AM | Report abuse

Of the 10,000,000,000,000 or so incorrect predictions on The Fix (and elsewhere) no one came closer the the real truth than I did. Sure the raw numbers were a little off (still, not too far off); but the narrative should be on every news show today (and especially listened to by Chris Matthews who has recently gone over the line as, for example, when he played over and over again on one show the supposed subliminal Penn comments on Obama's previous cocaine usage, despite the fact it was Obama who originally brought the issue up.)

Now that I am in charge, let me repeat, the Dems are in a horrible position because Hillary can't seem to break the 47-48% ceiling, Obama is an empty suit and Edwards lacks the financial resources to close out the campaign.

The GOP actually has the more electable candidates, but the baggage is heavy: McCain's age and temper outbursts; Rudy's checkered past (much of it no one's business, but the game rules have changed since Monicagate); Thompson's ennui; Huckabee's scary rock-hard fundamentalism (does he find the Salem Witch Trials as "Christian" as Creationism?); and Romney's crass "take a new position a day."

Will we have brokered conventions?

Will well-heeled third party candidates step up the plate?

I sure don't have all the answers. But if this neophyte could out predict all the talking heads, it's time to guillotine them, and for today at least, L'ETAT C'EST MOI!

And here's the prediction on yesterday's FIX that got me there:

Dems:
Obama 37%
Clinton 32%
Edwards 28%

GOP:
McCain 35%
Romney 31%
Huckabee 12%
Paul 9%
Giuliani 9%

Storyline: This is what counts! Dems will suddenly wake up to the "empty suit" reality of the Obama camnpaign as the media finally stops giving him the free pass. Hillary will be damaged goods, but gets another look. Those excellent Edwards vs. all Republicans numbers keep him in the race. Don't think this will be decided on Super Tuesday...the real script hasn't even been cooked up in the writers' minds yet.

As for the GOP, the picture is more muddied than ever. All candidates hope for Obama as the opponent since he is so vulnerable on substance and wishy-washy in debates when the jabs start flying. But who will deliver the jabs:I predict it will be either Guiliani or McCain and this race will be clear on 6 February.

Posted by: jaysalomon | January 8, 2008 03:50 PM

Posted by: jaysalomon | January 9, 2008 7:05 AM | Report abuse

"But contrary to others, I don't believe her choking up was calculated - and it's unfortunate the media make such a deal out of that. Then again, I think the press coverage of celebrity candidates has been a net plus for her. I guess that's politics 2008."
Posted by: -pamela | January 9, 2008 12:27 AM

I'm glad I'm not the only nutcase that had his ears and eyes intently watching this vignette at the restaurant. I agree with Pamela that the choke up was real. The jarring part for me is she got over it in seconds and continued "on message", throwing jabs at "others that are not ready". Back to Queen Hillary mode.

Posted by: rfpiktor | January 9, 2008 6:36 AM | Report abuse

A three percent win hardly seems stunning, if this were football that's one fourth down field goal.

http://pastandprologue.wordpress.com/2008/01/09/feminism-is-dead-hillary-proves-it/

Posted by: bmccannn | January 9, 2008 6:31 AM | Report abuse

Another fun question for the inquiring masses:

Do you have a prediction about the latest Billary salvos about Luther King and Lindy "The Mad Bomber" Johnson and its effect on the campaign.

What will the Democratic contenders do/say about the latest Billary gross aspersions. Is this dynamic duo sabotaging their win (already?), as we speak?

Sparks will be flying with that huge opening. Will it have traction in the following days?

Will Obama take the bait. What happens in the next few days on this subject will tell a lot about what the Democratic contenders are really made of.

Posted by: rfpiktor | January 9, 2008 6:17 AM | Report abuse

Chris Cillizza,

Your "Stunning Upset" post leaves me with a queasy feeling. What are all you guys doing with your reputations. Were the doughnuts spiked with gullibility juice? This inquiring mind wants to know.

A post explaining the "stunner" is in order. "Clueless in N.H." is the real header for this post.

I'll grant you this: ALL THE "EXPERTS" I looked up on the internet were as CLUELESS.

Posted by: rfpiktor | January 9, 2008 5:52 AM | Report abuse

"I think that there may have been a backlash against the press in favor of Hillary because of the savage press she has been getting."

boldbooks may have a point.

Being a staunch Hillary supporter from day one, I often have to check myself to maintain some objectivity. One of the ways I do this is to call a Republican-leaning friend in Dallas who watches more TV than I do. She told me three things on Monday night that I'm guessing voters in NH also felt:

1. My friend was disgusted by the criticisms of Hillary's emotional moment. For her, it underscored a double standard to which a woman candidate is being held.

2. The repeated replaying of the scene and the extended analysis - is it real or manufactured - further offended her. Every woman understands that sometimes exhaustion can lead to tears, she said. Media and pundit analysis of Hillary's every move and every word while letting the other candidates have a pass, to her, represented unfair coverage.

3. Finally, while she had been leaning towards Obama, she found his "You're likable enough" comment during Saturday's debate ungracious and nasty. It made her realize that she didn't know much about Obama beyond the fact that he's an inspirational speaker.

She won't get to vote until March, but she and her husband have now decided that Hillary Clinton will get their votes when Texas holds its open primary.

I think that we'll find that "experience" does count - and Saturday's debate and "emotional moment" became the clinchers for Hillary tonight.

Posted by: femalenick | January 9, 2008 5:48 AM | Report abuse

Guys, sorry I missed all your posts.

After my famous last words ("My first conclusion is that although the country and the media are marching towards Obama, the good people of N.H. were not so moved by him. What were those pollsters at realclear.com polling up there, the squirrels?") at the previous "Fix" post I turned off my computer (I don't have a TV) and went to bed, thinking it was going to be a long night. I thought that this morning I'd be looking at a squeaker win by Obama wich would be as confusing as what the night before had been already. If I remember correctly, Hill led from the very beginning and kept on leading always by small increments but holding her lead steady by a few points.

The quote saying that Hill expected to win ( "Mrs. Clinton said she expected to lose the New Hampshire primary, and even before the polls closed pledged to fight on to the next round of early-voting states."-NYTimes) is accurate. DID SHE SAY THAT OR TELL THAT TO HER STAFFERS OR DID THE TIMES GUY MAKE IT UP. The word cluelessnes comes to mind.

So, is Nevada culinary still going to endorse Mr. Obama? The fun continues.

Posted by: rfpiktor | January 9, 2008 5:32 AM | Report abuse

Come off your punditry pedestal, Chris: Clinton edged Obama, and that wouldn't have been an "upset" if the news the last few days hadn't been created by broadcast media themselves with the polls.

So how ethical is it for the news reporters to be making the news instead of reporting it?

Posted by: sherman.dorn | January 9, 2008 5:14 AM | Report abuse

The whinning begins boo--- hoo tears. I must say all you anti-Clinton people make me want to throw up. If these stupid excuses or and attacks lower the normal discourse--HE LOST GET OVER IT!!!! I wonder how many of these cry babies EVER GOT OUT THERE AND WORK FOR A CANDIDATE OF ANY PARTY. I am a combat veteran--Pacific theater-- and would NOT upport McCain if my life depended on it. He gets proper respect for his service and NOBODY will take that away from him. I am against him because he was destroyed by the Bush people in South Carolina primary during the 1st bush run. He didn't fight about what they did to him AND he didn't fight the slurs the Republicans heaped on Max Cleland of Georgia--a triple amputee in Viet Nam with many meadls and citations. He didn't fight the swift boat people about the service Kerry gave this country and lastly he supports the carnage in Iraq. If Mcain had a CORE after what he went through in Viet Nam he should be the first person to want to stop the war--instead he supports Bush and the party. I wonder how many youg American men and women have died or been maimed since McCain decided to do the surge with no end in sight.? In the interest of facts I know what war is I saw it very close up in WW2 and it isn't pretty OR an adventure. I say all of you go ahead and support who you like but if you are a Dem. and support McCain you lose. If Clinton wins the rest of the way and don't support her you lose and if Obama doesn't get the Nomination you lose and if Clinton beats McCain you lose--that is 3 strikes and you are out and then go get a job and do something for your country instead of whinning about Clinton.

Posted by: vergens2 | January 9, 2008 5:08 AM | Report abuse

Demand a re-count.

Posted by: WILLIAM-HENRY | January 9, 2008 4:30 AM | Report abuse

Lyle,

YOU RULE, DUDE!!!

Posted by: rfpiktor | January 9, 2008 4:28 AM | Report abuse

In Tuesday evening's New Hampshire primary results, Clinton and her special interest party won tonight over the party of the people.

The people of New Hampshire stood in long lines to vote and the exit polls were not wrong and the pollster were not wrong, by all rights Obama should have won New Hampshire, but the special interest groups pulled another rabbit out of their hat and gave the victory to Clinton. The earlier results where there were paper ballots the victory went to Obama in a very large margin, with the voting machines Clinton got the victory. This same scenario happened to Gore and Kerry. The exit polls and pollster saying one thing and the machines saying another. That is why people cannot trust their government, and until we have voting machines that are fool proof and tamper proof and go go back to elections with paper ballots, like in Iowa, we cannot really trust our election results.

On the eve of the election, Hillary played her poor me, self-pity act (her so-called authentic moment) and Media complicit in this charade, played this teary-eyed Hillary over and over again to get out the "sympathy vote", which she did, but neglecting the air the piece right afterwards in which she lashes out at Barack Obama . This policy blunder will be huge ammonition for the Republicans if she wins the nomination. This "teary-eyed" piece will be aired over and over again in campaign commercials; citing her as to weak and to unstable to lead the country. A big mistake for her!

Change is hard, but Senator Obama will continue on with his message of hope and change. The special interst groups do not want to give up their power and they will do everything they can to keep power in their hands and out of the people's hands. Deciding who to back, be it Republican or Democrat as long as they serve their ends. Eventually the people will win and we will keep on fighting.

President Clinton, a man supposedly of honor, distorted and took out of context words Senator Obama's spoke at the 2004 Democratic Convention about his stance on the Iraq war. Do we really want people like that in the White House who will lie and distort for their own selfish gains? Or do we want a man of goodwill and integrity in the White House a man more concerned about you than himself. It is no easy to task for a man to risk his life for you because he answers the call to make America better and to take it to a higher ground.

When President Clinton achieved his Presidency, he took a lot of Democrats down. They had record loss in both the Senate and the Congress and the tone of Washington, D.C, was divisive and nasty, and a Hillary Presidency will do the same and we will have lost our moment to come together as one.

Much is at stake, we are at a crossroads. Change is hard because the media is in their pockets; the voting machines cannot be trusted. We can only HOPE! God bless this county!

Posted by: wdsoulplane | January 9, 2008 2:21 AM | Report abuse

UGH. That made me throw up a little.

Posted by: katie839 | January 9, 2008 1:49 AM | Report abuse

I think this was subliminal, it didn't register in my mind at the time of the debate, but I think there was a very important moment that was a tipping point for several voters on the fence (as Chris has said head vs heart), probably men as much as women, where John Edwards pointed toward HRC and referred to her dismissively as 'status quo'

If Obama had lived up to his image as a dashing, heroic figure, he would have come to her defense, much like McCain did in the Repub debate. Then, that was punctuated with the comment that she was likeable enough. It was the way Obama said enough that was unneccessarily petty, where it was a perfect opportunity for him to be magnanimous.

So Obama had a momentary lapse, much like HRC had during the Philadelphia debate that snapped people out of autopilot.

Now that the preliminaries are over, let's see what both of them bring to the table.

Posted by: northpotomacdad | January 9, 2008 1:41 AM | Report abuse

Two points:

1. The MSM will overplay the fact that Hillary Clinton beat BHO in New Hampshire by 2-3 points. The Clintons have been cultivating NH for years if not decades. They also cultivated Iowa for more than a year with the support the Dem Establishment, including Gov. Vilsack and many othes.

2. Barack Obama is an African-American from the South Side of Chicago, but neither of the first two states include any African-American voters. Imagine if Illinois or Michigan were the following states after Iowa. BHO would have kicked HRC's ass by far.

Posted by: jbentley4 | January 9, 2008 1:34 AM | Report abuse

Two points:

1. The MSM will overplay the fact that Hillary Clinton beat BHO in New Hampshire by 2-3 points. The Clintons have been cultivating NH for years if not decades. They also cultivated Iowa for more than a year with the support the Dem Establishment, including Gov. Vilsack and many othes.

2. Barack Obama is an African-American from the South Side of Chicago, but neither of the first two states include any African-American voters. Imagine if Illinois or Michigan were the following states after Iowa. BHO would have kicked HRC's ass by far.

Posted by: jbentley4 | January 9, 2008 1:34 AM | Report abuse

I'll tell you what happened. VOTER FRAUD. How are the polls exactly spot on for New Hampshire except for Obama/Clinton? It makes sense that a candidate (especially with the momentum Obama had) would receive a jump from Iowa. Not only were the polls apparently "incorrect" with Obama up nearly seven percent, but Clinton finishes 3 points up. I have no doubt that this was voter fraud. In Iowa, it's much more difficult to have fraud because there are too many people all visually watching the process. Anything odd would be noticed by individuals in any number of other candidates' camps. Not in Fraud Hampshire.

Posted by: rimbaud1 | January 9, 2008 1:23 AM | Report abuse

Eleanor Roosevelt taught us that sometimes silence is the greatest sin

by Mrs. Lyndon Baines (Ladybird) Johnson
Former First Lady, United States Of America
Women can move beyond the struggle for equal status and for material goods to the challenges and opportunities of citizenship. Quality of goals and the achievement of goals which will mean a better life for all. For me, it was the beginning of seeing how politics can bring tangible results. I always hope that the very best of our people will go into politics, and I am sure that some of our best are women. So, I say: "Don't hold back. Don't be shy. Step forward in every way you can to plan boldly, to speak clearly, to offer the leadership which the world needs. Let us today earnestly resolve to build the true foundation for Eleanor Roosevelt's memory--to pluck out prejudice from our lives, to remove fear and hate where it exists, and to create a world unafraid to work out its destiny in peace. Eleanor Roosevelt has already made her own splendid and incomparable contribution to that foundation. Let us go and do likewise, within the measure of our faith and the limits of our ability. Let Eleanor Roosevelt teach Us all how to turn the arts of compassion into the victories of democracy.Eleanor Roosevelt taught us that sometimes silence is the greatest sin.

"Madame President of the United States...it's an extraordinary thought. We truly are in a momentous time, where a woman's potential has no limitations," said Streisand. "Hillary Clinton has already proven to a generation of women that there are no limits for success. She is driven by her passion for public service and her belief in the enormous potential of our country. Smart, capable and strong in her convictions, Hillary has transcended the dictates of what is thought to be possible for our time.
"Hillary is a powerful voice for change as we find our country at an important crossroads. Under her leadership, our country will regain its respect within the global community. She will prioritize issues of global climate change, universal health care and rebuilding a strong economy. After 8 long years, the public will once again have faith in their government.
"Another former first lady, Eleanor Roosevelt once wrote, 'In government, in business, and in the professions there may be a day when women will be looked upon as persons. We are, however, far from that day as yet.' More than 50 years later 'that day' is now upon us...and Hillary Clinton is ready to shatter through that glass ceiling for all women."

Posted by: dyck21005 | January 9, 2008 1:17 AM | Report abuse

prjonp: I make no judgement of you, in your own type written comment you said what I said about you. Be careful about what you type if you do not want other folks to see where you are. My FACTS are just that FACTS, you may dispute them but they remain FACTS.

Posted by: lylepink | January 9, 2008 1:10 AM | Report abuse

Enough with the "stunning" upset, already. Stunning, in comparison to what? Bad polling?

Take a deep breath and calm down.

She is winning by a 3-point nose -- 3 points.

Obama won Iowa by 8 points.

The basic dynamic of this race has changed very little.

Breathe in, breathe out. Breathe in, breathe out. Breathe in....

Posted by: johnlumea | January 9, 2008 12:53 AM | Report abuse

In part, Clinton may have done so well because of difficulty in polling when black candidates are in contention. There is some evidence that indicates that black candidates do better in polls than at the ballot box because some white voters have an impulse to tell pollsters that they intend to vote for black candidates when they really have no such intention.

I cite three examples:

A) In 1989, Doug Wilder, a black candidate running for governor in Virginia, led in the polls in the double digits. In fact, he barely won.

B) In 1989, David Dinkins was predicted, by pollsters, to be well on his way to a solid win over Rudy Guiliani in the New York Mayoral race. Dinkins did win, but it was by a sliver.

C) In 1993, most polls said Dinkins would win his re-election campaign for the New York mayoralty, but he lost.

Of course, Obama did not do worse in the actual voting in Iowa than he did in the polls, but Obama benefitted from a very high turnout of young people that the Iowa polls, perhaps, were not designed to take into account.

Posted by: dgnyny | January 9, 2008 12:51 AM | Report abuse

Heraclitus, the Greek Philosopher wrote many years ago that, "Everything is in a constant flux, the only thing that is permanent is change." There is always change going on in the world, but the question is, what kind of change? The word "change" has been so much used in the 2008 election campaigns. A word first introduced by Senator Barack Obama in this election circle and then later picked up by Hilary Clinton. This word is today also used by John Edwards. The Republicans have also embraced this concept of change. Senator John Mcain, Mike Huckabee and Romney are the Republicans using this term. This word is used by most politicians as a sound bit without much explanation on what change they are bringing to Washington DC. When you have a President and a Congress that is not fulfilling the dreams and hopes of the people, you will definitely want change. The massive turn out in the party primaries is a clear indication that Americans truly want things to change in Washington. Since everything is in a process of constant flux, change can either be positive or negative. When candidates come promising us change, we need to ask them to tell us in specific terms, what change they mean. Some of the candidates who are claiming to be instruments of change in Washington are part of the same establishment that has destroyed the hopes and dreams of Americans. Their actions have made America and Americans become a laughing stock all over the world. What America needs now is a president who would restore the hopes and dreams of the people; a leader that will unite a country that has so much been fragmented by the partisan politics of the democrats and the republicans; a president that will speak the truth to the American people, even if that truth hurts. If Americans elect any one short of these values, it will be the same old story.

http://bekeh.blogspot.com/

Posted by: bekehangel | January 9, 2008 12:47 AM | Report abuse

Poor Ed Muskie cried and had to drop out of the race in 1972. Now Hillary cries her way to victory. Clinton has run one of the most arrogant campaigns and is an established figure in the Democratic party. She has the support of much of the party establishment. There's no reason why she should expect anything other than a tough campaign with tough attacks. It's one thing to cry out of sympathy (say for a wounded veteran), but another to cry because you feel the press is being mean. Pathetic NH Democrats.

For the record, I voted for Hillary for Senate in 2006 and loved her until the start of her presidential campaign. I even met her once in NY and she was very warm and nice. But the presidential candidate Clinton is way too arrogant and dismissive of others. I cannot vote for someone who feels she is entitled to the presidency.

I have to think Obama also lost in part because a lot of Independents went over to support McCain, since he seemed to need it most. It's pretty clear that McCain didn't win on his popularity with base Republicans. 5% in that race, had it been transferred to the Democratic race, could have easily overcome the 2% difference between Obama and Clinton.

Posted by: freedom41 | January 9, 2008 12:44 AM | Report abuse

Poor Ed Muskie cried and had to drop out of the race in 1972. Now Hillary cries her way to victory. Clinton has run one of the most arrogant campaigns and is an established figure in the Democratic party. She has the support of much of the party establishment. There's no reason why she should expect anything other than a tough campaign with tough attacks. It's one thing to cry out of sympathy (say for a wounded veteran), but another to cry because you feel the press is being mean. Pathetic NH Democrats.

For the record, I voted for Hillary for Senate in 2006 and loved her until the start of her presidential campaign. I even met her once in NY and she was very warm and nice. But the presidential candidate Clinton is way too arrogant and dismissive of others. I cannot vote for someone who feels she is entitled to the presidency.

I have to think Obama also lost in part because a lot of Independents went over to support McCain, since he seemed to need it most. It's pretty clear that McCain didn't win on his popularity with base Republicans. 5% in that race, had it been transferred to the Democratic race, could have easily overcome the 2% difference between Obama and Clinton.

Posted by: freedom41 | January 9, 2008 12:43 AM | Report abuse

This was a stunning win for Hillary, no one should forget that everyone was speculating Hillary would lose by double digits.

What do you make of Hillary Clinton wining New Hampshire and defying experts and the pundits who predicted a big loss for her?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1479

.

Posted by: PollM | January 9, 2008 12:34 AM | Report abuse

lylepink,

For the sake of my credentials, I was a HUGE supporter of John Kerry (and Bill Clinton by the way). The kind that talks people's ears off trying to get a couple more votes rounded up. Don't make judgments on me.

Check the definition of FACT, by the way... just to get your facts straight.

Posted by: MNobserver | January 9, 2008 12:34 AM | Report abuse

I think that there may have been a backlash against the press in favor of Hillary because of the savage press she has been getting. I'm an Obama supporter and I certainly felt that way. I would have voted for Hillary yesterday because I think she has been held to an entirely different standard than the men in this race. We keep hearing how she is too cold, then too emotional. She was criticized for not taking questions, then Dana Milbank and Roger Simon said she was dull because she did. Anything negative she said about Obama was criticized, while Romney got a pass for running negative ads. Chris Matthews is a one man hate machine every night demonizing Hillary because he doesn't like Bill. Things culminated with that NYPost front page.

My poor husband has been hearing me rail about the sexism in this race for weeks.

I still like Obama better and now I can vote for him in South Carolina knowing that Hillary has gotten a little support in return for what she has done for our country and the Democrat party.

Posted by: boldbooks | January 9, 2008 12:29 AM | Report abuse

Stunning is right. I had her down by 11. So much for the polls. Sen. Clinton now has something her husband never won...the Gold in NH.

There will be countless stories about this but she does deserve it. No one saw this coming.

http://thepoliticalpost.wordpress.com/2008/01/08/hillary-clinton-wins-nh-against-all-odds-and-conventional-wisdom/

Posted by: thepoliticalpost | January 9, 2008 12:29 AM | Report abuse

Lylepink, I may well support Hillary - which is why I was curious about the content of her speech tonight as I mentioned on the other thread - with Biden out I am truly undecided. I could vote for Obama, too - but his inexperience concerns me in spite of his obvious leadership qualities.

But if McCain makes it to the general, I may well support him, regardless of whom I vote for in the primary. Hillary is smart and I like many of her policies, but I honestly feel her positions (the Iraq vote, Kyl-Lieberman, etc.) are often calculated based on what she thinks will sell. And frankly, I'm tired of the partisanship another Clinton presidency could bring.

But contrary to others, I don't believe her choking up was calculated - and it's unfortunate the media make such a deal out of that. Then again, I think the press coverage of celebrity candidates has been a net plus for her. I guess that's politics 2008.

Posted by: -pamela | January 9, 2008 12:27 AM | Report abuse

prjonp: People like you gripe the hades out of me, pretending to be Dems when that is about as far fetched as men on the planets Mars or Jupiter. Why you cannot accept the FACT that Hillary is going to be our next POTUS is liking a drug addict that doesn't take drugs. Grow up!!!

Posted by: lylepink | January 9, 2008 12:24 AM | Report abuse

stunning comeback victories?? Oh come on. Obama's Iowa win was stunning, Clinton barely beating Obama in a state that She and Bill have 'owned' politically for more than a decade, was unexpected given the volatile polling results and the hype but it was certainly NOT a stunning comeback victory. I was a little bit disappointed and Bill and Hil for going so negative so fast when the polls shifted. That wasn't pretty and I think it'll hurt them down the line..oh well,... on to the next race.

Posted by: thebobbob | January 9, 2008 12:23 AM | Report abuse

The real battle in New Hampshire was over independents, and it looks like they swung towards McCain much more than Obama--perhaps because press coverage indicated Obama had the race sewn up. McCain got his big win, and Obama lost his lead.

Posted by: evanhensleigh | January 9, 2008 12:08 AM | Report abuse

I'm very bummed about the election already.

I'm among those hugely supportive of the Democratic party generically, but who is very displeased with the final selection of candidates this time. According to polls, I'm in the minority of Democrats. Apparently others loved all the candidates from the beginning. The only one I actually liked was Joe Biden. I see Obama as the lesser of evils and would be able to support him (despite major reservations), but I honestly may vote third party if Hillary wins. I hope that group that met recently is starting their planning. I want more options.

The biggest shock 10 months from now won't be what happened in New Hampshire but the giant screech that will happen to Democratic momentum when Hillary is resoundingly rejected in favor of John McCain by Americans who refuse to cede power to a Bush/Clinton oligarchy, however much they liked Bill. The female thing is not a factor for me whatsoever. Actually, that's maybe the only thing I like about her candidacy, but you can't make me vote for her.

By the way, McCain will probably beat Obama too if he gets the nod.

Democratic hopes to win the White House took a big dip when Joe Biden's candidacy ended and when McCain began his comeback tonight.

Though I disagree with David Brooks on quite a bit, I like his comments prior to Iowa when he said Democrats would wish a number of months from now that they would have just picked a solid candidate like Biden or Dodd. I can't agree more.

The biggest story tonight was on the Republican side.

Posted by: MNobserver | January 9, 2008 12:03 AM | Report abuse

Mark: I had hopes for you and other Biden supporters to come over and support Hillary. Drindl, JimD, bsimon, and Truth Hunter to name a few of you that i can recall off hand. I am more convinced now, after tonight, that Hillary will be the Dem nominee after the 5 Feb. Super Dooper and hope you will support her. Just asking, every little bit helps on her way to The POTUS.

Posted by: lylepink | January 9, 2008 12:00 AM | Report abuse

Chris, how is this a "Stunning Upset"? Yes, Senator Clinton came is a close 3rd in Iowa, but according to most long-term national polls she has had a comfortable lead. Except for the obviously unreliable NH polls the five days between Iowa and NH, she was always way ahead in New Hampshire. Senator Obama wins Iowa and loses by 3 to 4 percentage points and somehow he is the one that has been upset?

Posted by: ZnanaB | January 8, 2008 11:55 PM | Report abuse

Hillary cried her way to victory in New Hampshire. She was frustrated that the voters didn't want to coronate her. My questions is, what happens when North Korea is cooperating, or Iran is being belligerent, or when (Prime Minister) Putin yells at her? The tears that worked in New Hampshire, won't work in a world where people don't always cooperate. And another thing; Is Bill running again, or is this Hillary's campaign? This is already given the world an indication of who presidency this will be, if she's elected. Scary stuff!

Posted by: csmith | January 8, 2008 11:46 PM | Report abuse

The turning point was the emotional moment in the restaurant and Edward's crude remark, Democratic women 40+ reacted in anger overnight.

The great news is that this gives Barak the defeat he needs to grow as a leader. Plus a whole year to learn how to fight nationally and several more years to grow and let the USA come to know him. He will be president in 4-8 years.

On the other hand, Hilary will never be elected president. She may get the nomination..in fact I'm sure she will. But
not the White House. It's McCain's.

The USA does not want the toxicity of either the Bush or Clinton family.

As a 50 year old life long Democrat who has never voted Republican, I will vote for McCain over Hilary. If it's Huck or Mitt, I'll give Hilary my vote just to keep those guys out, but McCain is accceptable.

No more Clintons! No more Bushes!

Posted by: wpost4112 | January 8, 2008 11:45 PM | Report abuse

jasonlafuente,

The speaking pattern you're referring to is a fairly typical preaching style in the African-American community. I think you're overreacting.

Posted by: MNobserver | January 8, 2008 11:41 PM | Report abuse

The two victories definitely were stunning. I have noticed something for the past week. Why is it that Barack Obama at certain times talks like Martin Luther King, Jr.? He doesn't talk in word usage but in his accent. He doesn't have the same accent as Martin Luther King, Jr. and I think it is disgusting that he would use himself as on the same level as the GREAT Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Posted by: jasonlafuente | January 8, 2008 11:33 PM | Report abuse

Was that Gloria Steinem standing at the back of the victory rally?

See how the Misty-Eyed Womyn made her comeback!

http://www.voterswrite.org/2008/01/hillary-clinton.html

Posted by: barnesseth | January 8, 2008 11:29 PM | Report abuse

restivob - "...getting emotional or almost crying is still an effective tool for a woman"

Boo hoo! Now all she needs to do is master the Bill Clinton lower lip biting maneurver and she is all set for being president.

Posted by: dave | January 8, 2008 11:27 PM | Report abuse

As an Obama supporter, I'm naturally bummed, but if you listened carefully to his concession speech you got an exciting preview of Barack the fighter (esp. note the 9/11 reference - classic). If anything, I'm more excited, because HRC's attacks this weekend are giving Obama a chance to fight back. She had her 5 days of attacking without much response, but she'd better watch out, now. She has infinitely more to answer for than Obama, and that metric may eventually tip the balance if this gets dirty....

Posted by: Donovan | January 8, 2008 11:27 PM | Report abuse

It also appears that polling is very inaccurate.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 8, 2008 11:19 PM | Report abuse

1. Let's not forget that unaffiliaed voters can vote in the Iowa caucus and NH Primary. Clinton would have won Iowa on a straight Dem vote.

2. Black candidates always poll better than the actual election results. Since this is the first actual election, Obama's support was shown to be thin.

3. McCain kept a lot of the independent voters that helped put Obama over the top in Iowa.

Posted by: Digital_Voter | January 8, 2008 11:19 PM | Report abuse

It would appear that when all else fails, that getting emotional or almost crying is still an effective tool for a woman...shame on NH!

Posted by: restivob | January 8, 2008 11:18 PM | Report abuse

Wow. Reality check

...


In retrospect I'm glad the debate goes on.


...

"We want change."

"Yes We Can."

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 8, 2008 11:13 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company