Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Obama Looks Ahead

Less than 24 hours after a stunning defeat at the hands of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) in New Hampshire, Sen. Barack Obama's campaign sought to turn the focus to Nevada, South Carolina and the slew of states set to vote on Feb. 5.

"Coming off an impressive win in Iowa and taking the once inevitable frontrunner down to the wire in her firewall state, it is clear Obama is well-positioned to become the next president of the United States," writes campaign manager David Plouffe in a strategy memo released this morning.

To Obama's senior strategists, New Hampshire changes very little. While they acknowledge that a win in the Granite State would have put him in the pole position for the nomination, they point to what they believe to be their financial and organizational edge in a series of soon-to-vote states as evidence that the Illinois Senator remains well-positioned to win the nomination.

Let's take the next few voting states one by one to examine that logic.

In Nevada, Obama will get a major boost later today when the Culinary Workers Union backs his candidacy. The Culinary union, which represents more than 60,000 men and women who work in the Las Vegas casinos, is a tremendously powerful force in state and local politics and almost assuredly will help Obama's ground game in the state. Obama has also won the endorsement of the Nevada Service Employees International Union -- another boon to his turnout efforts.

Obama aides note that not only do they have double the number of offices in Nevada that Clinton currently has open but that they have focused heavily -- as they did in Iowa -- on rural sections of the state. The Obama campaign has also moved two of the men widely credited with their Iowa caucus win -- state director Paul Tewes and field director Mitch Stewart -- to Nevada to oversee the field operation in the state.

Clinton's organization in the state is based around her state chairman -- Rory Reid, the son of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. While the elder Reid has stayed studiously neutral in the race, his son's work on behalf of Clinton should boost her organization. Clinton has also secured the endorsement of Rep. Shelley Berkley who represents the most Democratic district in the state.

We wrote many months ago that the two keys to winning Nevada were the Culinary workers and the Reid organization. With those two at least partially split, it will be a real test of organizational strength for both Obama and Clinton next Saturday.

A week later the scene shifts to South Carolina where, given the large number of African Americans in the state -- 30 percent of the overall population but a far larger percentage of the Democratic primary electorate -- Obama should start out with an edge.

Of all states, the Obama campaign is probably most confident in their South Carolina organization -- the biggest and best operation ever built in the Palmetto State, they argue. Steve Hildebrand, a master field organizer and one of the people responsible for Obama's turnout operation in Iowa, is now in South Carolina and will stay there through the primary on the 26th.

In today's memo, Plouffe referred to South Carolina as the "gateway" to Feb. 5, adding: "South Carolina will provide our campaign enormous momentum heading into those twenty-two states."

Clinton's South Carolina organization was regarded as a bit spotty until recent weeks when Steve Bouchard, who ran America Coming Together's ground game in Ohio in 2004, was brought in to take over. Bouchard is very well regarded in the political community and now has 17 days to get ready for the battle that will assuredly come.

Once Feb. 5 rolls around, it's hard to know what to expect. What happens in Nevada and South Carolina (and maybe even Florida on Jan. 29) will have a big say in which candidate is riding high into "Super Duper" Tuesday.

Today, Obama appears to have a financial and organizational edge.

His campaign reported raising $23.5 million over the last three months of 2007 -- all but $1 million of which can be spent in the primary. In the first eight days of this year, Obama brought in $8 million more, the direct result of his victory in the Iowa caucuses. That financial windfall means he will compete on at least level ground with Clinton throughout the next month.

And, as we reported in late November here on The Fix, Obama has already spent large sums to build organizations in Feb. 5 states -- an investment that could well pay off in a month's time.

That said, Clinton takes a huge burst of momentum from her win in New Hampshire and is sure to see a financial and polling bounce over the next week in these early voting states.

What last night means is that the fight for the Democratic nomination is almost certainly a two person race between Obama and Clinton with a winner not likely to emerge before Feb. 5 or perhaps even later.

With so many states -- 24 in all -- voting between today and Feb. 5, it's easy to conjure a scenario where Obama and Clinton both win enough states to keep their campaigns going and relevant. Such a scenario could well mean that states like Maryland and Virginia, set to vote on Feb. 12, and Wisconsin and Washington, set to cast ballots on Feb. 19, could have far more impact on the identity of the nominee than we could have possibly imagined even one week ago.

Stay tuned. We're in for a wild ride.

By Chris Cillizza  |  January 9, 2008; 1:43 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Clinton Wins in a Stunning Upset
Next: Clinton Cash Machine Keeps on Churning

Comments

hjnoz npiblocj mxvftbke yfmpodj liyxj eyrnsigf zjgtdfo http://www.mkwgc.bjkm.com

Posted by: tpov cfznltkwd | May 1, 2008 6:31 AM | Report abuse

fleojz csegtj rsewd mguavpxj ozlwdyhqj cxhof oxfipnc

Posted by: ydzrbvxwl cnlvzim | May 1, 2008 6:30 AM | Report abuse

"When Men discover that women have cast a affirmative action gender vote for Hilary Clinton their will be a backlash. When Hispanics look at where they are versus the talk, they will CHANGE their vote." -- America First

Hello my Hispanic friends meet Barack Obama. Hello Women and mothers of sons meet Barack Obama. A graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, Editor of the Harvard Law Review, lecturer of Constitutional Law at the top tier University of Chicago Law School, and one of 100 United States Senators. I want to hear that Mr. Obama went to Harvard Law every day until November in the media. Senator Obama completed his Juris Doctorate degree magna cum laude in 1991 at Harvard University. I don't think we understand the kind of competition Senator Obama experienced to gain entrance into Harvard. Ask any graduate about the fierce competition. He then went on to outperform his peers and compete in this environment. He has proven he is willing to stand up for the average person even in the White south, rural america, Latino, Native and Asian America. Heck all of America he won in Greenwich, Connecticut.

On returning to Chicago, Obama directed a voter registration drive, and eventually was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004. The greatest thing about Obama: He is not going to be held hostage by corporations and lobbyist due to campaign contributions. He owes no one and we are funding him with a multi-million dollar campaign. He has to be the envy of politicians around the world. Who gives a brilliant guy $30 million dollars in a month? The people of the United States who put the United States before themselves. This is one of the reasons we see John F. Kennedy's character in this man. It is no longer about how to win, but when will we win, because we will win one day soon.-- "We are lucky someone of this caliber wants to serve the people of the United States, and my Latino and rural friends will break tradition and come around when they see the students in the streets..... it is an amazing movement. Senator Obama is a King and a Chavez, he is in the streets with the people, with all of that education. It is pure love for the people and the country."-Will Ray

Voting for Senator Barrack Obama is a function of knowing him. Once you hear what he has to say, you understand he is interested in taking the country in a more optimistic direction. When you see young people turning out in record numbers to vote, campaigning, and cheering CHANGE in the streets of your city, it is really infectious. Everything he says about looking forward to a better future is very uplifting. He rivals Jim Cramer, the stock market veteran, on a college tour. Barack's college tour may have to become a reality.

Given the choice between a Republican and a Democrat again in 2008, I had planned on voting for a Democrat. I was excited by the affirmative action of a women in a Hilary Clinton vote. As I polled the public, I found voters saying I would vote for McCain over a Clinton. I then wondered what the Clintons had done for Latinos and African Americans that was substantive. They seem to like minorities more than most Republicans, but what laws and policies benefited minorities and hurt minorities during their 8 years in the White house? I will need to do my homework. Are we voting for status quo because we are not being informed and we don't trust ads? There is one thing Democrats will vote against with Republicans and it will win the election for Obama.

Californian's surprised me in the primary. Although Obama will get 40% of the delegates, I expected to really lead with an overwhelming vote for the issue of CHANGE. With all the diversity in our counties, we have it good. So good, it will take some time for us to look outside of our bubble for the greater good. But, don't kid yourself, we will come around. We will be on the CHANGE movement. This is to good to pass up, and will make the most successful Californian's say, "I wish I would have thought of that CHANGE message."--it is going to have a bigger impact on peoples lives than being GREEN, Thinking Different, or the invention of a New, New Thing.

Posted by: willrayii | February 6, 2008 3:10 PM | Report abuse

Obama claims his contributors come from "individual donors"...wonder how many of these "individual donors" are his old drug clients & partners?

Posted by: bryant_flier2006 | January 9, 2008 05:02 PM
*******************************************
OKAY. NOW I'M MAD. This individual donor has had it. I'm gonna tear up.

I am a woman, a baby boomer, and I work 10 hours a day. I have sent plenty of my hard earned dollars to Senator Obama and I am volunteering for him in California as are my twenty-something kids.

People have become so cynical, it's really sad. But I understand it, I really do. I felt the same way.

AND on that Monday when Hillary teared up, I had a visceral reaction. "Aww, I'm so tired. Man, I sure can relate to that. Just trying to do my best, people don't appreciate me, they say I'm not likeable, I've been standing in a man's shadow forever, what do I have to DO?" Hey, I might have run out and voted for her if I was in New Hampshire.

And the % of voters that put her over the top were women who did exactly that.

That should take care of it. They can't use it again without being ridiculous, Hillary will be Hillary and NOT BILL. NOT.

Obama is The Real Thing. Lylepink, have you ever heard him speak or read his books. Do you doubt his authenticity or ability to bring people together? Wouldn't it be nice to have someone in office who genuinely cares about the people?

And btw, so the Republican machine can try to swiftboat him. SO? WHO HAVE THEY GOT?
Huckabee is the only threat to Obama because he is genuine. But he genuinely believes the Earth is only 6,000 years old. No other candidate can beat ANY of the Democratic candidates.

So vote for the best Democrat - the best human being in the running, the best man for the job due to the fact the he represents YOU. Not his own agenda, not something he owes somebody, not his spouse's reputation.

We need not only change, but the inspiration to make the change ourselves.

Obama/Edwards '08!

Posted by: sheridan1 | January 10, 2008 8:40 PM | Report abuse

The WA primary does not matter--our Democratic delegates are chosen by our caucuses, which are on Feb. 9th. That's the first contest after Tsunami Tuesday.

Posted by: jon.morgan.1999 | January 10, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

And there was no stunning defeat like you propogandaist act like.

1. they got the same number of delegates.

2. Obama is winning the delegates game up to this point

so work your selves into a tiffy. Currently Obama is winning. But this is a game of pool. Runs can happen. I don't think hillary can cry her way to vicotry. i think nevada is going Obama. Sc obama. She will have to wait for super tues. I hope edwards drops out by then.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 10, 2008 11:09 AM | Report abuse

You show your face Truscott1. I was going to answer yo intelligently until I saw your conservative tag. You show your face. Way not talk about how great you candidates are rather than sabotaging the opposition? Why, because your party is done. All you can do is pray the dem's screw up by electioning clinton. HAHAHAH

you show yoru face.

As to yoru racist claims. We have had iowa and nh, up to now. Two all white states with no population. And iowa rejected yoru claim, nh seems to have not. But it is one state. Wait for the big ones if you are going to try and start a race war again, you fascist you.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 10, 2008 11:06 AM | Report abuse

"stunning defeat"? Didn't she win by 3 percent, when about a week and a half ago she was being measured for her crown? Come on, it was a palpable hit, congratulations to the Clinton team and we'll see them in South Carolina, but "stunning?"

Posted by: light_bearer | January 10, 2008 8:59 AM | Report abuse

Senator Clinton proved the "experts" wrong!!! She really has shown that substance, experience, and her "proven" ability for enabling change, along with a lifelong passion and experience in actually helping the majority of Americans, is what the voters care more about when choosing the best leader for this next critical term as president! Voters are not listening to the slanted views of the media "pundits" who care more about drama and a "story", rather than reporting the truth... Americans are smarter than the "sheep" they believe we are! The NH voters proved this!!!...

Thank goodness people are finally waking up and realizing that although Obama is a brilliant orator and nice person, he lacks the actual skill, leadership, experience, and ability to truly make change happen and lead our country... talk is cheap at this point - Look at his record as a State Senator in Illinois and in DC!!! Whenever he is presented with a difficult vote, he doesn't even take a stand - he votes "present"!!! He voted "present," effectively sidestepping issues nearly 130 times as a state senator. On a sex crime bill, Mr. Obama cast the only vote in a 58-to-0 vote!! He barely has any record for doing much as a US Senator in Washington DC, but what is interesting is that he said he would vote against the Patriot Act, yet when he joined the US Senate, he voted for it!! He said he would vote against the Iraq war, and then voted for funding, AND, he SKIPPED a tough vote on Iran, distorted what the bill authorized, and criticized those who voted for it!! This does not show the true leadership that is required for creating the change we desperately need! He's not the "outsider" that his campaign is trying to make him out to be - yes, he has fantastic speeches, but his record shows otherwise...it proves that he is more of the typical "sidestepping" polititian and lawyer that we have seen before, who lacks the "real" leadership to get things done. The Republicans will have a field day with Obama if he ever got lucky enough to win the Democratic ticket!!!

Rookies are not needed right now to run the country in the most important job in the world.... Remember the last "rookie" who used "likeability" without substance or experience to get elected? Back then, people liked GW Bush, they didn't care that he lacked experience because he talked in generalities and made us feel good. Well guess what, he won the White House and got us into this mess!! - GW Bush ran a very similar campaign as Obama, and his inexperience has been a disaster for our country!!.... Gore and Kerry warned all of us, but we didn't listen. Obama can talk in generalities - anyone can do this, but he has no clear plan, no clear ideas, shows a lack of "true" leadership by avoiding difficult decision-making as proven by his actual voting record, and lacks the "real world" experience to deliver on his unsubstantiated promises and "generalities" for change...Hopefully people won't make the same mistake we made with Bush by believing in another rookie with Obama.

Americans will take this critical vote very seriously for 2008 by choosing the best person who has already proven she can lead with success, has already brought about "real" change, and can truly pull our country together to restore our reputation and our world position as the leaders we were once considered. With former President Bill Clinton by Hillary's side, we will all prosper from such an amazing team that will help bring our country back from the difficulties that we have encountered with the Bush administration... especially with the economic difficulties and international issues we are already facing today and will face over the next few years. No more rookies and false impressions, folks - let's put the best team in the White House!! Senator Clinton is the "real" change Americans need! Go Hillary!!! The country believes in you and your ability to "truly" lead and enable "real" change as our next great President!!!

Posted by: akchonan | January 10, 2008 5:52 AM | Report abuse

I am sure that many people were very excited about Obama from the beginning. Many, such as I, sent him money. After Iowa, I was excited. But trutfully, I must say that I am excited for anyone, any Democrat to be electrifying America after the past seven years.

Now for the reality check. Obama does not have the experience to win the race against the Republican Machine.

Secondly, he has started sounding more and more like Jessie Jackson or some other evangelical preacher and this will only turn off the audience we so desperately need.

Enough Obama. We need to move back to our original choice and fight for this Presidencey. Hillary, our choic--our hope and strength.

Written by one that doesn't like her but doesn't need to like their President as I will never meet her.

Posted by: loudermilk | January 10, 2008 5:35 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: sbrad39 | January 10, 2008 3:49 AM | Report abuse

Mainstream Press Story: A woman who was 22 points up a month ago in New ampshire had a 'comeback.' (AKA their polling and emotional hype was wrong)

The Real Story:

LIBERALS ILLUSTRATE RACISM YET AGAIN

Can you imagine what the papers would be saying if every major poll in America had, i.e. Condaleeza Rice up over 10 points on election day and Giuliani won? All we would hear is that white conservatives told pollsters they were going to vote for a black, but closeted in their polling booth they just couldn't do it. It would be race-race-race.

All of the self-described liberal an independent New Hampshire voters who said they were going to vote for Obama didn't, and all we hear is how there was a late surge. What crapolla.

Look what Hllary said about Obama, MLK, and how it was LBJ who actually got the 1964 Civil Rights Act passed. There were real tears that day--they were in Heaven.

Libs like Hillary see blacks as helpless folks who can't do it alone. As long as they always outbid any reasonable bill and always offer more, they CARE more. Its a nice little arrangement, and since 1968 things have gone downhill in black schools and neighborhoods. The big coalitions and 'agencies' get big money. Schools and neighborhoods atrophy. Ironically, as black reps bond with the big money the problem is ensured to continue--the old line 'they can't do it alone' is being imposed.

Racist liberals??? Can't be. In fact, Hillary's joke about Ghandi working at a gas station was so funny I was in tears. Not Hillary tears--real ones.

You can hear my song 'Left or Right,' a tune about this 'insurance game' the Left plays with America's needy, as well as 'Hillaryous' on my politically charged CD 'Blaming America First.' I'm just a cop who got fed up and made a
12-track CD--hear it @

www.conservativemusiconline.com

Posted by: Truscott1 | January 10, 2008 1:54 AM | Report abuse

Mainstream Press Story: A woman who was 22 points up a month ago in New ampshire had a 'comeback.' (AKA their polling and emotional hype was wrong)

The Real Story:

LIBERALS ILLUSTRATE RACISM YET AGAIN

Can you imagine what the papers would be saying if every major poll in America had, i.e. Condaleeza Rice up over 10 points on election day and Giuliani won? All we would hear is that white conservatives told pollsters they were going to vote for a black, but closeted in their polling booth they just couldn't do it. It would be race-race-race.

All of the self-described liberal an independent New Hampshire voters who said they were going to vote for Obama didn't, and all we hear is how there was a late surge. What crapolla.

Look what Hllary said about Obama, MLK, and how it was LBJ who actually got the 1964 Civil Rights Act passed. There were real tears that day--they were in Heaven.

Libs like Hillary see blacks as helpless folks who can't do it alone. As long as they always outbid any reasonable bill and always offer more, they CARE more. Its a nice little arrangement, and since 1968 things have gone downhill in black schools and neighborhoods. The big coalitions and 'agencies' get big money. Schools and neighborhoods atrophy. Ironically, as black reps bond with the big money the problem is ensured to continue--the old line 'they can't do it alone' is being imposed.

Racist liberals??? Can't be. In fact, Hillary's joke about Ghandi working at a gas station was so funny I was in tears. Not Hillary tears--real ones.

You can hear my song 'Left or Right,' a tune about this 'insurance game' the Left plays with America's needy, as well as 'Hillaryous' on my politically charged CD 'Blaming America First.' I'm just a cop who got fed up and made a
12-track CD--hear it @

www.conservativemusiconline.com

Posted by: Truscott1 | January 10, 2008 1:53 AM | Report abuse

The woman who made Clinton cry ended up voting for Obama because she decided in the end that the moment could not have been all that genuine -

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=41 09322&page=1

.....

Marianne Pernold Young, 64, a freelance photographer from Portsmouth, N.H., told ABC News that while she was moved by Clinton's emotional moment, she was turned off by how quickly the New York senator regained her "political posture."

"I went to see Hillary. I was undecided and I was moved by her response to me," Pernold Young said in a telephone interview with ABC News. "We saw ten seconds of Hillary, the caring woman."

"But then when she turned away from me, I noticed that she stiffened up and took on that political posture again," she said. "And the woman that I noticed for ten seconds was gone."

Posted by: msadvice | January 10, 2008 1:27 AM | Report abuse

Um, South Carolina "started" quite a while ago so to say Obama "starts" ahead due to the African American community there really misses an important story which is that prior to Iowa, Clinton held the advatage there. AND, if you go back to October, her lead was quite substantial. It was only when Obama proved that he could get white people to vote for him that many African Americans came on board. Why? Because they didn't want to waste their vote on someone who couldn't win. Now they see he can win so they are open to supporting him. But, certainly many will continue to support Clinton.

Posted by: matt_ahrens | January 10, 2008 12:21 AM | Report abuse

One of the truely amaziing things for me today was to see time after time after time the posts that claim the media was on Clinton's side and smeared Obamma.
It is a reflection of a very sick society that a good sized percentage of it's population can convince themselves of the opposite of what actually occurs.

For God's sake people, the Media smeared the Woman from pillar to post the past week while cheering Obamma's every breath.
Now if in fact these posters are merely lieing about what they know they saw, heard, and read, well OK, they are just liers and the human race has endured that for millenia. But if the fact is they are not lieing, but actually believe they saw the media side with Clinton and smear Obamma this country is doomed!

GOOD NIGHT!

Posted by: harried | January 9, 2008 11:18 PM | Report abuse

It's really funny I read the comments
of those People and it seemed that all of
them lost their mind.You do not remember
what the Republicans still doing? Just get
Diet-Pepsi with ginseng and wake-Up., go \
otside get fresh air and rethink, Because
later is too Late . America is first above
them all. Dums.

Posted by: rca54hotmailcom | January 9, 2008 11:09 PM | Report abuse

It's really funny I read the comments
of those People and it seemed that all of
them lost their mind.You do not remember
what the Republicans still doing? Just get
Diet-Pepsi with ginseng and wake-Up., go \
otside get fresh air and rethink, Because
later is too Late . America is first above
them all. Dums.

Posted by: rca54hotmailcom | January 9, 2008 11:09 PM | Report abuse

I'm female and I don't think she's "too emotional" to run the country. What annoys me is that she acts phoney like she cares and wants to listen to woman, but then when confronted by women with their concerns and questions she waved her finger in their face and said "I'm the Senator of NY" and then dismissed these ladies (video below). It also annoys me that she acts like she's entitled to the presidencey because of her last name. She's running on "35 years experience" but what accomplishments has she made on her own? In the Senate she blowed any way the popular wind blew to make her "electable" for 2008. Her husband was governor and president, not her. During his reign he put her in charge of Health Care and that flunked. I believe her senate win in NY was because of her husband's name. She didn't really care about New Yorkers it was all about her calculated steps to get to the presidency and stick it to the republicans. For her this campaign is all about her. I like the Obama message that he is running for us and not just what he can do for us, but what we can all do together. With the Clintons, it is all about them and division btwn Rs & Dems. I believe that Obama has the intelligence, leadership skills, positive energy to motivate the AMerican people in a time where the entire world looks down upon us. The bitterness and battling during the last 20 years of Bushs and Clintons in power has drained the American spirit. Obama invokes very basic American principles and beliefs that we do not have to be victims of our past, but vehicles for change. A message of uniting the people and not just a self centered compaign all about himself to stick it to the Republicans, as Hillary has. Obama is a man I would for once be PROUD to have representing the face of this country.

Posted by: vflex | January 9, 2008 11:00 PM | Report abuse

Besides, as a christian and EX Muslim, I will be voting for huckabee, by the way I'm black so don't get it twisted it's not about race.

Posted by: allisonpatricia | January 9, 2008 10:07 PM

_____________________________________

Sounds like you are up for just about anything AllisonPatricia. Ever consider a sex change?

Posted by: harried | January 9, 2008 10:55 PM | Report abuse

Intersting to hear Hillary give this speech back in 2002. I particularly like the part where she mentions her eight years of experience in the White House. It's time for a change. No Neo-Conned, no Clinton.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSu0zXCR9sE&feature=related

Posted by: webperez | January 9, 2008 10:29 PM | Report abuse

harried: I just could not resist a little jab after reading all the junk put out by The "Hillary Haters".

Posted by: lylepink | January 9, 2008 10:28 PM | Report abuse

Please don't try to foster anti-islamic hatred, Obama is a Christian.In Response to that man talking about him being a muslim and drug user etc. Get your facts straight. That is not so and you can read his about his conversion to christianity on his illinios senator website.

So don't start that and mislead readers. Besides, as a christian and EX Muslim, I will be voting for huckabee, by the way I'm black so don't get it twisted it's not about race.

Both Obama and Hillary, especially Hillary have a lot to learn about what it means to be a LEADER of this country. I feel that Obama's has the character, but because of his varied beliefs I don't believe it would be wise for him at this time. Hillary, however, just needs to GET HERSELF TOGETHER. her character is all JACKED up.

SHAME SHAME on you. You want cry your way into office. GIVE ME A BREAK. you are making women look back. I have totally lost all respect for her and her DIRTY POLITICS. She doesn't care what happens to anybody else as long as she wins. Do you really care about this country or YOURSELF.

What happens if there is a war? Do you want her in charge?????

I believe that this is a crucial time for this country, because we are in a religious war.

SO If she lie on a campaign about other people, why wouldn't she in office? CAN YOU SAY WATERGATE???

It's not SEXISM there are plenty of woman leaders, but SHE AINT IT.

She's just on a head trip and if she's really serious about change, she will continue to work for change in this country whether she is President or not.

She just thinks she knows everything because she has a job. What has she done as the senator of NY. NADA. somebody ANYBODY let me know. I give her credit for working with the children because I think she's sincere, and some of her opinions on foriegn policy, maybe. But everything else, she's made bad decison after bad decision.

I would not want of woman of that character leading this country.


and has EVERYBODY forgot that the last time they were in office were we letting terriorist in our country (911) because we were busy with Clintons in their personal business (lewinsky) DO WE NEED PHASE TWO??

So You don't need to be all in front and loud in order to exert your influence Or be an effective leader. you have to be able to make good desicions. you can have class. To lead as a woman, you do not have to be a man.

Posted by: allisonpatricia | January 9, 2008 10:07 PM | Report abuse

This time last week, Hillary was 12pts ahead. Obama battled the Bill and Hillary duo to a victory in Iowa and a squeaker in NH. You guys in the media screwed up the polls. If you guys had competent pollsters, the story would be "Hillary barely squeaks by despite having every possible advantage possible in American politics." Stunning defeat? Puleeze!!

Posted by: nalakop | January 9, 2008 9:52 PM | Report abuse

The Democrats have picked candidates who -- for one reason or another -- may not be acceptable to many Americans in the November election. If they lose again, they have no one to blame but themselves.

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

Hillary got the MOST VOTES of any Dem in NH. Thought some of you would like to KNOW a FACT.
Posted by: lylepink | January 9, 2008 09:12 PM
_____________________________________

FACT? Who give a flying turd about facts anymore. This is America 2008. That's funniest post I've read in a month!

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

I know it is completely unfair to judge the son by the father, but if Rory Reid organizes Clinton's campaign in Nevada the way his father Harry Reid runs the Senate Clinton's in trouble.

I don't believe Clinton or Obama will win the general elction, but I do believe that they are helping to break down barriers for the people who will follow them and for that they can be proud.

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

What's so "stunning" about a 3% win when Clinton was ahead of him for most of the year? She's famous, he's a relative unknown.

I detest the MSM hyping the events of up every day, every morning and afternoon, using wild language and inappropriate metaphors. What they're obsessed with is what Clinton said, "Who's up, who's down." When do they talk about issues, about anything that really matters?

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

Obama is beautiful to look at and to hear. I hear his longing for peace and bipartisian, but I am a practical woman. How, preacher man, how? Tell me you have a plan to go with your dreams. Then I will follow you.

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

MSNBC commentator claims that the press developed a bad man crush on Obama and showed a deep desire to rid itself of Hillary.

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

Regardless of the endless race and gender issues and perhaps if we're lucky more tears and even outright sobbing, what should really matter is which candidate will usher Dems back into power and actually get things done.

Get ready to take this one to the bank, if Hillary/Bubba successfully break Obama this guarentees a very serious run by Mayor Bloomsberg. He has more then enough money, likely more then both potential nominees combined and will almost certainly bleed off enough center and even left of center Hillary-haters to ensure four more years of a Republican-held White House.

This means the troops stay in Iraq for God knows how long, no universal health care, little direct relief for the middle class, and the powers that be will continue to dominate every subsnitive social/economic issue facing average Americans until the same issues come up in 2012.

So remember a win for Hillary and her bra-burning Boomers almost assures a win for the Republicans. Rush and the boys must be downright giddy today.

JJS

Posted by: jjs31020 | January 9, 2008 9:21 PM | Report abuse

Bill may have beem labeled the 'comeback kid' but that was against Howard Dean if you remember, not anywhere near as formidable candidate as Obama ...Blah Blah Blah
......Blah, Blah

Posted by:KRitt
___________________________________________

Whaaaat the....?

Posted by: harried | January 9, 2008 9:20 PM | Report abuse

Hillary got the MOST VOTES of any Dem in NH. Thought some of you would like to KNOW a FACT.

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

I can guarantee you that the voters who won't vote for Obama because he's African-American are the same pool of voters who won't vote for Hillary because she's a woman. Arguments back and forth about that are a waste of perfectly good hyperbole.

Posted by: novamatt | January 9, 2008 03:26 PM
________________________________________

Well I don't know if sexism/racism go hand in hand north of the Mason-Dixon line but south of it sexism/racism are united at the hip. It certainly going to be interesting to see how John Edwards comes out in Dixie! Bye the way it looks like Richardson won't be going to South Carolina, so Edwards will be the only White male, with a southern drawl no less, at that one.
Vegas is a tough one but the goodfellas dispise Blacks, so who knows.

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

Budikavian,

nor can you win the Super Bowl by crying every time you're faced with 3rd and long. Also, 'intellectual' and 'airhead' don't co-exist, at least not in the world with which I am familiar. According to an NPR report I heard this afternoon, the group that put Hillary over the top was middle-aged women, who rallied to her defense when they saw her visibly upset. Explain to me, if you would, how this tactic will serve her in negotiations with Russia or Pakistan.

Posted by: bokonon13 | January 9, 2008 8:49 PM | Report abuse

'As a life long Democrat and liberal I have never been more excited or proud of my party! I believe Hillary is the past and Obama Hussein is the future and the leader of the Democrat Party! I think he can bring many more under the Democrat tent and make it the party of the future in the USA . His experience & knowledge of Islam and Muslins ( both his dad & step dad were Muslins and he attended an Islam school as a boy) as a Black Muslin can bring the Arab Islam Muslins into the Party as well as the Black Muslin Islam Nation and expand the Democrat party. Already we can see Islam Nations around the world are excited & embracing his candidacy.

His strong stand against the Constitution and Law for Illegal Immigration should bring the Illegal Immigrants into into our camp'

CC-- maybe you ought to think about whether is kind of nauseatiing crap is really something the WaPo wants to see on it's website. there's freedom of speech, and then there's white supremacist lunatic ranting... i'm just saying.

Posted by: drindl | January 9, 2008 8:49 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: KRittenmyer | January 9, 2008 8:48 PM | Report abuse

Bill may have beem labeled the 'comeback kid' but that was against Howard Dean if you remember, not anywhere near as formidable candidate as Obama who has built a rather large national following. Still, I suspect the powerbrokers of the Democratic party, i.e. the DNC, the long term-for-life Senators,ranking House members, governors, State legislature leaders, key government and private labor leaders, industrial and key financial backers and other powerful interest groups will politically kill Obama's campaign in one of two ways: money or if that fails, political assassination by exposing some kind of dirt/baggage which all politicians have. You don't get into a position of power like the Senate by being a virgin. You need connections with and approval from the powerbrokers to get there in the first place. The bosses don't want a 'loose cannon' on certain subjects and that is true of every Democrat and Republican in Congress or state governments. Notice how Ted Kennedy, a big powerbroker with many political ties got rid of Jimmy Carter, an incumbent President, who was a wildcard, rather unknown nonestablishment player in 1976. Dems held large majority in both houses of Congress and weren't going to let someone like Carter endanger that. They could control Reagan enough and keep their power. Obama's mantra is bipartisanship. I believe he believes in that. However, Now that the Dems have control of both house after 12 years, the bosses want the establishment, i.e. Hillary as President. She is controllable: look where her funding comes from. Watch, if Obama gets ahead in Feb and March. Notice that in the Iowa caucus, Obama won the vote but Clinton had more delegates. It tells you who the good ole boy establisnment is backing. Obama will probably play the good loser so the people in power might let him try in 4 or 8 years when he will be Hillary's age. Its easy to manipulate voters, just publish some polls. President last 8 years at most, Powerbrokers last twenty or more and are often followed by their loyal, younger trainees. Bill Clinton came from William Fulbright(Bill Clinton is historically insignificant compared to Fulbright). The Bush family is well known to be influential. You can go back through all presidents and most candidates and see why, among many, they were picked to run. Now you see how perfectly they play this facade of being the 'people's choice and elected. The only power we have is the throw the current ones out but for the most part, their replacements are much the same. Only the rhetoric changes. Notice, Dems voted overwhelmingly to back the Iraq War, and keep backing it including Sen Clinton. She knows how the play the game. I feel sorry for people who believe anyone is the agent of 'change.' You'll all see what changes:Image: the most important thing in life nowadays in business, government and education Some may call it ' illusion. Substance is absurdly lacking.Ok,go listen to PRAVDA on the television networks.Believe in those plastic dummies paerying or whining and hope they will rescue you and provide you with everything for free. Uh-huh. Sure. Somebody has to pay for all that. Sorry, no free lunches.I'm 50, I've seen this stuff before but this campaign so far is nothing but bluff, lies, fantasies, and lots of games. Aero reality or substance


Posted by:KRitt

Posted by: KRittenmyer | January 9, 2008 8:23 PM | Report abuse

If SEXIST Nepotism gets Hillary nominated I'm voting against the Democrats for the first time ever.

America is a Democracy = Not a Monarchy

Posted by: PulSamsara | January 9, 2008 8:18 PM | Report abuse

Claudialong = fool
I hope you are not as dumb as your post.
Get a grip!
Wacko!

Posted by: dhinmd | January 9, 2008 8:13 PM | Report abuse

Evidence of how "stunning" this upset is lies in the strenuous (and funny) denial of how stunning it is by Obama supporters (and their GOP "allies" who are pulling for Obama for different reasons). When both the upset-er and the upset-ee are stunned (which they both were), it's truly a STUNNING upset. Obama had been leading in NH (albeit by a slight margin) even before he won in Iowa, and the momentum had swung heavily in his direction afterward. But without a major precipitating event, HRC somehow managed to stem the tide.....and no one caught it until the polls were closed.

Obama is this year's Democratic airhead, pie-in-the-sky, pure intellectual, why-can't-we-all-get-along, New Ideas, "we're gonna fix the corrupt system" candidate, and like all the previous ones (Eugene McCarthy, Gary Hart, Paul Tsongas, Bill Bradley, Howard Dean) he's going to come up short in the end. You can't win the Super Bowl without making a few tackles.

Posted by: Budikavlan | January 9, 2008 8:13 PM | Report abuse

'Obama claims his contributors come from "individual donors"...wonder how many of these "individual donors" are his old drug clients & partners?'

'I think as a seasoned, & experienced drug user Obama and as he says in his book , knowing how to score some blow, he will address how backward, unfair and punitive our drug laws are and legalize drugs. This would release millions of Drug users and drug dealers from prison. They, with their knowledge and experience could go into selling, distribution and expanding the legal drug trade and help our economy and the Black & Hispanic communities. '

Good luck with that bipartisan thing, bsimon. i'm just saying...

Posted by: drindl | January 9, 2008 7:53 PM | Report abuse

Chris (Cillizza), the primary results were certainly a "stunning defeat" for the pollsters and media, but to characterize it as a "stunning defeat" for Obama is absurd. He won the same number of delegates that Clinton did. He was not the one claiming he had a double-digit lead; you guys were.

Posted by: fid4wp | January 9, 2008 7:43 PM | Report abuse

Who are these bigots with these long rants that go no where (i.e. american1)? Shut up and get a life... losers! Let's have honest discussion about facts, and stop with this garbage. No one believes what you write and no one cares what racists like you think!

OBAMA is the REAL DEAL!!

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

They must be scared of Obama. Why else would they was their time with such drivel. Lie spin and discredit. the gop is done. Lie spin and discredit is all you have left. Enjoy it. The american people now see you for the fascist pig propogandists you are. You have no power anymore. Enjoy your irrelvance.

In terms of your post. The war on drugs cost this country hundreds of billions a year. Hundreds of billions of dollars a year. is it worth it? Which is more worth it to you republcains? You care about secuirty so much. Which is more important? Choose? Use fascism on americans or overseas, or neither. Choose.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 9, 2008 7:31 PM | Report abuse

As a life long Democrat and liberal I have never been more excited or proud of my party! I believe Hillary is the past and Obama Hussein is the future and the leader of the Democrat Party! I think he can bring many more under the Democrat tent and make it the party of the future in the USA . His experience & knowledge of Islam and Muslins ( both his dad & step dad were Muslins and he attended an Islam school as a boy) as a Black Muslin can bring the Arab Islam Muslins into the Party as well as the Black Muslin Islam Nation and expand the Democrat party. Already we can see Islam Nations around the world are excited & embracing his candidacy.

His strong stand against the Constitution and Law for Illegal Immigration should bring the Illegal Immigrants into into our camp. Indeed, all immigrants from around the world that want to immigrate to the USA but do not want to go thought. the hassle of legal Immigration will support us. Finally American can live up to its creed under Obama and Citizens of the world irregardless of Religion, Race, Nationally, Education or Skills because anyone can come to American and be citizens of this great Nation and the Democrat party! Our growing and expanding population with our teeming masses will allow to us compete with China, India, and other third world countries and end outsourcing of our jobs.

It may require a balancing act having both the Blacks and Latinos under the same tent with Latino hater of Blacks while Blacks are very upset over Latinos hi-jacking their civil rights by equating walking across a border to the nearest welfare office, as the same struggle blacks went through in slavery. The Ethic killing of Blacks in LA by Illegal Hispanics will also make his task harder but if anyone can reconcile the groups Obama Hussein is the man.

I think as a seasoned, & experienced drug user Obama and as he says in his book , knowing how to score some blow, he will address how backward, unfair and punitive our drug laws are and legalize drugs. This would release millions of Drug users and drug dealers from prison. They, with their knowledge and experience could go into selling, distribution and expanding the legal drug trade and help our economy and the Black & Hispanic communities. In addition to saving tax payers Tens of Billions now spend in incarceration, prevention and drug fighting cost. Of course, all drugs would have a high tax but still be much cheaper than Illegal drugs. We could earmark the tax receipts from drugs to the millions of Uneducated Immigrants we gave American citizenship to help offset the net cost of 20k per year each cost in public welfare. This would reduced the price of drugs to where the average American citizen could afford good coke, just like the elites and Politicians, This will also reduce the price of creak for our poorer citizens, and make their life more enjoyable. But I fear legalizing drugs will be beyond even Obama. The drugs lords have so many Billions due to high prices , to share with our Politicians to keep our borders open for drugs, illegal immigrants, and terrorist to pour across, that the special interests will never let him legalize drugs. I know Obama, you will do your best and that is all we can ask!

Posted by: american1 | January 9, 2008 7:23 PM | Report abuse

lumi21us comment pretty much sums it up. The Clinton campaign has resorted to racism, belittling a great black man. But they've done the same to anyone getting in their way. All of which brings up a point - Bill keeps blathering about being the first "black president" but what on earth as ever done for the black community? Not much by my count. I'm Native American and remember well the campaign contributions that were extorted by Democratic operatives. In the end, I expect no self respective African American to vote for *any* Democrat that has any ties to Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | January 9, 2008 7:16 PM | Report abuse

I don't know why people aren't talking more about how the Clintons have injected race into this campaign. It seems to me the Clintons have now adopted the southern strategy that the Republicans have used so effectively against black democrats in past campaigns. I can't believe of all the people in the world it will be the Clintons who would stoop this low. I'm so mad that all the respect I had for the Clintons as vanished in an instant. I would vote for a Pig voted for another Clinton in my life. SHAME ON THE CLINTONS!

Posted by: lumi21us | January 9, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

I can't believe that the media is buying into the Obama camp's spin. Every time Clinton has some success, the media downplays it. And when Obama runs into trouble (e.g., losing in a state his campaign thought they would win for sure)the media downplays that too. Unbelieveable. And now they're talking about how much help Obama's going to get from Unions in Nevada!!! Does anyone remember how much the vaunted union support got Gephardt and Dean???

Posted by: gutind | January 9, 2008 6:43 PM | Report abuse

Hillary's victory was not stunning because of her advantage in New Hampshire with Democratic leaders. What is stunning is the fact that she continues to harp on her experience as an advantage. If experience means voting for a war that was not necessary and has caused the lives of over three thousand of our bravest citizens then I will take inexperience and change any day.

Senator Clinton was privy to more intelligence information than Senator Obama and still voted in lock step with President Bush. I also remember Hillary's failed healthcare intiative that she presented during Bill's presidency.

Experience??? Right

Posted by: daddyjones21 | January 9, 2008 6:42 PM | Report abuse

I agree it will be a race, but the field is tilted against Obama by not blowing Clinton out in NH. Clinton's strongest voters are regular primary voters. The only way to beat a candidate who has a good grip on establishment voters is to knock them out early.

1. Obama cannot win big enough in SC. All he can do is NOT win big enough. In a state where half or maybe more of the primary votes are cast by blacks, his win can be painted as 'duh' and a close finish by Clinton (like 20 points behind) a sign of Obama weakness. That kills any big MO going into Feb 5. Best Obama can hope for is little mo.

2. Obama attracts the young, independents and first time voters (the disillusioned). Some of the Feb 5 states are closed. Without the big MO, Clinton's draw among the party's primary voters cannot be overcome.

3. How many of the Feb 5 open primaries allow same day voter registration? Obama has no time to get new voters registered.

4. The young, independents and first time voters (especially the young and first timers) need a huge kick in the butt to get out and vote. A doubly big kick to vote in a primary. He has less than four weeks to build the kind of excitement it took over a year to build in the two states used to primary voting. Even if he has the money, I don't think there is enough time.

Obama is a stronger general election candidate than a primary candidate. Party strategists plan a campaign based on who has voted in the past and how to get a majority of those votes in a majority of electoral states. When a candidate comes along that can draw new voters into the system (the young and first timers) plus have an independent following, that candidate changes the math and can do things 99% of candidates cannot. See the Ventura win in MN for governor a few years back. Take away his new voters and he was a third party candidate with a better than normal showing. A spoiler like Ross Perot. He won because of new voters and independents. Obama would not be a third party candidate, he is already guaranteed the blue states.

In the general election he has the potential to change the Fix's math on senators and sweep in a Dem fillibuster majority. Go back and see how many solid Dem seats Reagan coat-tailed into Congress in 1980. And Ronald "The Great Communicator" Reagan is a bush league speaker compared to Obama. Even if he can't pull in a fillibuster proof senate, his ability to go on television like Reagan to swing votes in Congress should be huge. All Clinton can do is engage in partisan sniping.

If the Republicans go with McCain, general wisdom will be that they are simply too weak this year and whoever the Dem is will win. That is probably true, but I thought that in 2004. The only problem with a Clinton v. McCain race is that McCain is weak in the South, the exact states that will never vote HRC. Meanwhile he could have appeal in NH, WI, MN, NM, AZ, NV, CO, OH, and maybe even PA, IA, MO, OR & WA. Can Clinton compete in FL & VA against McCain? A lot of retired military in those states. Not only can Obama go head to head in the swing states, he can force McCain to play defense in the South and if it is Obama-Richardson, he can challenge a McCain ticket in the Mtn West where Obama is weakest. Clinton-Richardson is too nineties to challenge a McCain ticket in the Mtn West.

Posted by: caribis | January 9, 2008 6:39 PM | Report abuse

Hey ImpeachNow -

Lighten up. And check your sources.

Posted by: bokonon13 | January 9, 2008 6:38 PM | Report abuse

" If you ask the blacks, it's Bill Clinton, who is really the Abe Lincoln of this era."

That would be true, if Lincoln had emancipated the slaves after reading polling data indicating that a plurality of voters thought it was a good idea.

Posted by: bokonon13 | January 9, 2008 6:36 PM | Report abuse

Sorry folks, but when Obama's own team (not to mention Clinton's!) is stunned by the results in New Hampshire, the results are indeed stunning.

Posted by: JSnapper | January 9, 2008 6:34 PM | Report abuse

Here's the "case" for O-BOMBA that much of the MSM hides:

1. He is the most ignorant, inexperienced and lest-capable Dem politician running for president.

2. He is a total hypocrite on lobbyists. His efforts in support of Illinois lobbyists have cost US taxpayers $12 million - so far. (Documented by Brian Ross on July 16 - see ABC NEWS website).

3. His shady real-estate dealings with his partner-in-crime, sleazy lobbyist Tony Rezko stink! - especially O-BOMBA's deal to buy the lot next to his Chicago mansion for a bargain-basement (pay-off-like) price from Rezko.

4. He wants to bomb Pakistan.

5. O-BOMBA is so devoid of creative thought, he has to steal the campaign ideas of John Edwards on healthcare, poverty and nuclear proliferation and try to pass them off as his own.

6. What's that white powder around his nostrils? (Must have had a powdered sugar donut, right?)

7. Note carefully this exchange to understand how dangerous it would be to have such an IGNORAMUS in charge of nuclear weapons:

2007-08-02 19:00:39 -

WASHINGTON (AP) - Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday he would not use nuclear weapons "in any circumstance".
"I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance," Obama said, with a pause, "involving civilians." Then he quickly added, "Let me scratch that. There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table."

Eight years of having bumbling, incompetent morons in charge is enough. America can, and MUST, do better than O-BOMBA.

Posted by: ImpeachNOW | January 9, 2008 6:30 PM | Report abuse

Clinton's narrow victory in N.H. was not "stunning" given that she was ahead in the N.H. polls prior to Iowa. The media's breathless reporting that Obama had a double diget lead was likely not checked out before being reported by the dummies in the media. What was stunning to me is how ugly and spiteful both Clintons became just prior to the vote. Read today's NY Times Editorial comment on the Clintons divisive tactics and statements. The Clintons are truly power hungry and low lifes

Posted by: bringbackimus | January 9, 2008 6:22 PM | Report abuse

Lets hope Hillary wins.

She's going to be a GREAT President!!!

Posted by: svreader | January 9, 2008 6:20 PM | Report abuse

Obama will crash and burn.

There is no there, there.

Maybe he can have a career as a "male model".

He's all flash and no substance.

We've just been through 7 years of that.

America doesn't want any more of it.

Posted by: svreader | January 9, 2008 6:15 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Wonderful's "fairy tale" crack at Obama surely will backfire. It's very likely to bring massive gay and lesbian support to the Illinois senator not to speak of having insulted the many already supporting him. All Mr. Wonderful did for gays was to get them out of The White House and into the military where their lives are at risk. Talk about cynicism!

Posted by: filoporquequilo | January 9, 2008 6:11 PM | Report abuse

Pursuit of happiness, that is

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 9, 2008 5:49 PM | Report abuse

Let bill have his interns. Persuit of freedom right. Can we please take about real issues. The 90's are over

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 9, 2008 5:45 PM | Report abuse

Choskasoft, don't take it too literally. I know you are from Selma and not all blacks of today came from there. haha I'm just making fun on the Oby followers that the black votes will give him a resounding victory. There is really nothing wrong with Oby and Eddy, they are not the real enemies but fellow brothers suffering from the reign of "W". The real war starts after Convention, no more hanging chads nor disenfranchisements of voters, no more silence on attack Ads. Democrats are ready for all-out battle against the NeoCons.

Posted by: Ebucdondimer | January 9, 2008 5:45 PM | Report abuse

really? a "stunning defeat"? Just a week or so ago Obama wasn't even expected to win Iowa let alone NH, and not only that Obama won by almost 10 points there while hillary won by less than 3 percentage points in NH. Not much stunning there. In fact considering how far behind he was projected before iowa I would say Obama is the next comeback kid.

Not sure who remembers the comeback kid who lost NH but won the nod and the presidency.... give up? it was bill in 92 he wasn't the front runner and didn't win NH but he came close just like Obama.

Hillary Who?


Obama 2008

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

"Are you going to tell us it will be a neck and neck race for the Dem vs GOP candidate in the year of the Blue Tidal Wave, Chris?

Posted by: WillSeattle | January 9, 2008 05:16 PM
"

Agreed but that vote was for edwards and obama, and what they represent. These huge numbers are not clintons to trumpt, or teh democratic party for that matter. If the dem's throw that away, they are morgaging their future on clinton and what she will do. Is the democratic party willing to bank their future majority on clinton? Is she worth it? Time will tell if the d's think so or not.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 9, 2008 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Educdondimer, what are you talking about?

"The descendents of MLK are all interconnected in Selma, AL"?!

I've read some crazy things on this comment post over the years, but that takes the cake.

BTW, have you ever been to Selma? I graduated from Selma High.

Posted by: choskasoft | January 9, 2008 5:29 PM | Report abuse

and driftwood is correct. Our state caucus in on Feb. 9th, and all delegates will be based on that vote - the Primary on Feb. 19th only matters to the GOP who use part of the vote to determine HALF of their delegates (and none of their superdelegates).

Naturally, many of the independents in our 40 percent independent state will vote in the Dem caucus and then the GOP primary. We used to have 30/30 Dem/GOP split, but it's more like 38/22 Dem/GOP now (as is most of the nation).

Posted by: WillSeattle | January 9, 2008 5:25 PM | Report abuse

Chris, the way I look at it, Obama is the one who has the big problem. For him to win handily, he has to ask Edwards to withdraw in his favor and get those votes, then there will be a parity. Just look at the big states from now on to Super Tuesday, how many will go for Obama namely: FL, CA, MI, NY, IL, PA, NJ, TX, Solid South. Is he sure in Illinois or Chicago? if he has not locked in all these states, he will run dry and have no chance at all. He cannot rely merely on hope or audacity of hope, the independents or Republicans will no longer be around to propel him to greatness and comapare him to a black JFK. If you ask the blacks, it's Bill Clinton, who is really the Abe Lincoln of this era. LOL, he even held an office in Harlem to prepare for this opportune time. It will take Oby a generation to change that culture.

Having said that, there is really nothing wrong with Oby. He claims to be decendant of MLK however, he doesn't talk and act like the MLK followers. If he could not get J J and Cardinal Al Sharpston's endorsement, then, he is not a decendant of MLK, but a son of an immigrant from Kenya half-black and half-white. The decendants of MLK are all interconnected in Selma, AL and struggled with Rosa Parks and sang "We Will Overcome" as they got dozed of water from those powerful fire hoses, they never uttered in their struggle: Yes We Can (How can they say this phrase when they are getting hurt consistently?)

Posted by: Ebucdondimer | January 9, 2008 5:22 PM | Report abuse

It was a historic upset! The people from New Hampshire did not get fool by a salesman. The country needs someone who has the strength and experience to make the change. The country needs a doer not a talker.

Fellow Americans, please don't be fooled by a phony salesman.

Posted by: graysce101 | January 9, 2008 5:21 PM | Report abuse

This is a 'JOKE' right like one of those HILLARY 'fake-cackle-laughs' for the media???
HILLARY was never in danger of 'losing' anything - at least not in IOWA or NEW HAMPSHIRE - two jerkwater states!!! Yeah HILLARY will be 'all things' to 'all peoples' right??? A crying feminist when the 'media permits' and a warrior-hausfrau in "...asbestos pants-suits" girded for war with those terrorists and RIGHT-WING REPUBLICANT FANATICS!!! Ha! Monday will be GAY-DAY at the WHITE-HOUSE while BILL is in his 'play-pen' with his 'bimbettes'. Tuesday will be 'TACO-DAY' for all HISPANICS while BILL is in his 'play-pen' fooling around with MS. BELINDA STRONACH. Wednesday will be 'WATERMELON DAY' to please all BLACKS while BILL is in his 'play-pen' enjoying cigar-sex with anyone who still smokes. Thursday will be GLATT KOSHER KITCHEN-DAY at the WHITE HOUSE to placate all Jews while BILL is in his 'play-pen' "...restoring the image of AMERICA" with yet another intern. Friday will be 'FANATIC ISLAM-DAY' to assuage all MUSLIMS while BILL is in his 'play-pen' "...working-hard for the peoples" plowing new roads to perversity. Saturday HILLARY rested while BILL wondered if he could get the 'porn channel' and not FOX NEWS on his 'play-pen' TV??? ALL HAIL HILLARY - THE NEW FASCIST LORD + christened 'comeback kiddette' for what???replacing BENITO MUSSOLINI - NOT AS SMART NOT AS GOOD-LOOKING NOT AS ARTICULATER BUT WHAT CAN YOU EXPECT FROM A NYYANKEES FAN??? Ha - how many 'LIES' can HILLARY TELL/ACCOMPLISH before the '^SSHOLE NATIONAL MEDIA' responds to your tirgavisations??? Ha! - a female who is as deceitful -vindictive - vicious - as any male and who has never accomplished anything!!! HILLARY - THE FEMALE FASCIST OF OUR WORST NIGHTMARES.

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

Stunning defeat?

What drugs are you on?

Last time I checked Sen Obama still has more delegates and was neck and neck with Sen Clinton.

The good thing is maybe some of you MSM types might actually start considering this a three-way race rather than an anointment of a single candidate, as you've done all year - first with Clinton, then after Iowa with Obama.

Get a grip and report the NEWS. Tell us what the policy views are, tell us what the differences are, go into the minute details of energy policy.

Do your WORK.

And it would be nice if the MSM noted how different the N.H. vote is in 2008 from 2000 and 2004 - a normally 2:1 GOP:Dem state is voting mostly Dem now.

Now that says something.

Same is happening in Iowa.

Are you going to tell us it will be a neck and neck race for the Dem vs GOP candidate in the year of the Blue Tidal Wave, Chris?

Posted by: WillSeattle | January 9, 2008 5:16 PM | Report abuse

Great Performance -- choke,shed a tear and get all the old ladies to back you up and you will win a war!
And that too in the most powerful nation in the world -- isn't that the claim?

Posted by: stan_soares | January 9, 2008 5:12 PM | Report abuse

cam8, thanks for clarifying.

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

Clinton often gets criticized for accepting too much money from lobbyists. Which, hurts her feelings & makes her cry. Edwards often says "I have never accepted lobbyists money". He always stops right there, and never goes on to say he gets his money from trial attorneys. Obama claims his contributors come from "individual donors"...wonder how many of these "individual donors" are his old drug clients & partners?

Posted by: bryant_flier2006 | January 9, 2008 5:02 PM | Report abuse

The Clintons turned the Democratic party into a red-neck, tasteless and colorless party "At the end of the day, in November, the American electorate will not give the presidency to a black candidate named Barack Hussein Obama", said one Hilary supporter above at the top.
Like the Bushes, they want to turn this country into a nasty dynasty. They think we all are dumb and we should just shut up and give the nomination to Hilary because she is entitled to it. But this is a democracy. They will have to earn it.

Posted by: muahmu | January 9, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

Even after the MLk statemnt she made mo-lama? They are mearly using teh black vote. I don't think african americans will vote agaisnt omaba at all. But I'm white I could be wrong. But this white man can't do any more than I currently am to make MLK's dream a reality. If african americans won't stand with whites like me, then where are we?

The time for unity is at hand. If people would sabotage that for money, you deserve what you get. no more complaining about whites running everything though.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 9, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse

Chris, I'd caution against assuming that Obama has a lock on the black vote in South Carolina. Black women as a block have a longstanding affection for Hilary, both because of Bill's record as "the first black president" and as a woman who toughed it out in a difficult marriage and made her own way. IT may be anecdotal, but every one of the dozens of African-American women I've spoken with here in NY plans to vote for Hilary. .

Posted by: mo-lama | January 9, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse

-Pamela

Florida won't be about delegate counts. But, unlike Michigan, everybody's still on the ballot in Florida. If Clinton's name recognition can overpower Obama's message in FL, she'll gain some traction from a win there, even if she doesn't seat any delegates.

Posted by: cam8 | January 9, 2008 4:53 PM | Report abuse

I'd caution against assuming that Obama has a lock on the black vote in South Carolina. Black women as a block have a longstanding affection for Hilary, both because of Bill's record as "the first black president" and as a woman who toughed it out in a difficult marriage and made her own way. Don't forget, there's a lot of single moms in that group who have faced some tough decisions of their own.

Posted by: mo-lama | January 9, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

speaking of writing checks simon. On blitzer it said Obama is averaging a million dollars a day this year. I like that. Paul broke records. i'm not interested in that. Paul raised 6 millin one day. Obama raised 8 million in 8. I'll take it.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 9, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Las Vegas has changed by leaps and bounds to count too much on Reid's influence nor the unions. There is just too much diversity in Las Vegas today even the gangsters don't control the casinos anymore. It will be decided by hard fought campaigning person-to-person, house-to-house and blog-after-blog. Another political 101 lesson, don't underestimate the power of Bill Clinton in the Western states, if he can resurrect in NH after the media, Oby and Eddy ganging up on his lady, can't do that in the west. Yo-yo, you're now in the Clint's...'hood: "I feel your pain."

I would say, the charm of Chelsea is more effective than those traditional political powers (unions and Reid).

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

"Why isn't anyone talking about this?

Posted by: coupland12 | January 9, 2008 04:03 PM
"

Hillary was supposed to be done. this gives credance to a belief many thought the iowa cacuses destroyed.

1. Women suppor tto hillary simply because she's a women.

2. The white racist vote.

Nh brought all of us back down to reality on those two subjects. It can turn back to her, based only on these two NON ISSUES, at any time. i hope the rest of america is not as scared and weak as NH. Now I know never to travel/move there. :)

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 9, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse

"A good showing in FL would be the only way that the national momentum won't be in Obama's favor then."

cam8, how much does Florida count? I thought the Democratic party had stripped their delegates b/c FL jumped ahead of superduper Tuesday?

Posted by: -pamela | January 9, 2008 4:44 PM | Report abuse

"All I see here is worthless speculation. Who knows if/when Edwards will drop out. Who knows where his supporters would turn? How about Richardson's supporters? Who knows if the Nevada endorsement for Obama will really matter, or if the entire state of Nevada will even matter? Who knows what will happen in the upcoming debates and politicking? Who knows if Clinton or Obama would end up the better candidate in November for the Democrats? I don't know, and neither do you. We can speculate all we want. Our speculation, like most professional speculation, is worthless.

Posted by: JSnapper | January 9, 2008 03:57 PM
"

so give up then. Edwards supporters are "worth" more than richardson supporters, due to sheer number and delegates.

As far as your prognostication comment. i agree to a point. if we are talkign fox news, or cnn or drudge. In the current world of media when credibility no longer matters it seems that why. The answer IS crediblity. With you personally. Of cousre "The media" shoul dnot be blindly follower. But if you find a show or journailst, or blogger, that is correct more often than not, they then should get crediblity to you. Some people are smarter than others. Some are more in the know tham others. And again, some blindly propogate who they would liek to win (a la the 49ers are going to win the superbowl).

It's up to uindividuals. Help me get fox/rush/savage/malkin/coulter/hannity/oreilly off the air if you believe what you say. If not then find something or someone to believe in. Crediblity. Presonal crediblity is the key. I know they is very little now. It must be on a personal basis. Read the acrhieves. I won't led you astray :)

Obama-Dodd 08

When I know it, you will.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 9, 2008 4:42 PM | Report abuse

'Hussain Obama is a joke played on Democrats by the corporate media.'


and you are a joke played on your mother by God.

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


hahahahahahA. these people are stuck in the past. "All democrats are like clinton and clinton supporters". But what if clinton is now a moderate republcain?

These people are stuck in the past. If not the clinton 90's, then the 60's. If not the 60's the 50's then 40's and so on. Anything to supress the future and be a slave tot he past. These peopel are hytarical. Obma and Edwards ARE the democrtic party now. Get your old our of the past old cow folk gop. the future is now. And it's not clinton

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 9, 2008 4:36 PM | Report abuse

It's anything but over. Had Obama won NH, I don't think that his momentum could be curbed. Clinton has guaranteed that Feb. 5 is more than just a coronation of the Democratic nominee, but she's still in trouble if she's soundly beaten in NV and SC. A good showing in FL would be the only way that the national momentum won't be in Obama's favor then.

Either way, I see Obama coming out with a delegate lead after 2/5, though I think it will stay very close.

Posted by: cam8 | January 9, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

That is a very important - how does one win the general election? Win the Independents - the middle of the road.


Obama will be President one day - get used to it.


It won't be that bad, you will enjoy it. We can all sing Kum-ba-ya. Barack is an Arabic name remember.

Posted by: Miata7 | January 9, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

They Clintons played the gender and race card. Chris Mathews of MSNBC said the truth and I give him a lot of respect for that.

Go OBAMA. If not, I will vote republican.

Posted by: JonB1 | January 9, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

I agree with those that are saying Obama will have a real shot at the presidency in a future election. That will happen when the Dems chicken out yet again and nominate the establishment candidate out of fear, while totally ignoring the fact that she is the most disliked national candidate in decades (we won't count non-contenders like David Duke) -- and John McCain wins the White House, potentially filling two more Supreme Court seats (Stevens and Ginsburg). That's what the "independently minded" NH voters are enabling, based on calculated crying (or, if not calculating, at least incredibly selfish). It makes me sick.

Posted by: nshafroth | January 9, 2008 4:28 PM | Report abuse

The NH primaries really needs to be investigated, I don't what people says, it just doesn't make sense. The whole world could not have been wrong. All the polls couldn't have gotten it that wrong.

I refuse to believe many women fell for those crocodile tears. If they did, then we are in very serious trouble as a nation. The Clintons make me sick.

Posted by: JonB1 | January 9, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Chris,
One error in your article:
Washington State's Democratic Party delegates to the convention will be entirely decided by a caucus on the Saturday, Feb 9. There is a primary on February 19, but the Democrats ignore it. The state Republican party allocates their delegates using the results of both the primary and a caucus. But for the democrats at least, the delegates will be decided the same week as super tuesday.

Brad S.
Seattle, WA

Posted by: driftwood68 | January 9, 2008 4:25 PM | Report abuse

Given the huge number of people who apparently don't intend to vote for any of the candidates on account of their personal prejudices, the entry of an Independent like Bloomberg may have a real chance.

Posted by: dunnhaupt | January 9, 2008 4:25 PM | Report abuse

That is a very important - how does one win the general election? Win the Independents - the middle of the road.


Obama will be President one day - get used to it.


It won't be that bad, you will enjoy it. We can all sing Kum-ba-ya. Barack is an Arabic name remember.

Posted by: Miata7 | January 9, 2008 4:25 PM | Report abuse

I am a democrat living in Nevada and I am not a fan of Senator Reid or his son. If Rory Reid runs the Clinton campaign like his father runs the Senate, Obama will win Nevada.

I'm guessing that quite a number of those in the Culinary Union are minorities, especially Hispanics. It will be interesting to see if these Hispanics will caucus based on union endorsements or what their Hispanic leaders tell them. My guess is that they will back their union leaders.

Posted by: Nevadaandy | January 9, 2008 4:20 PM | Report abuse

coupland: because the few delegates awarded in these early primaries and caucuses in NH, and IA, and WY, and NV, and SC are irrelevant. It's all perception.

That's why even, in many years, a primary "winner" can still be a loser and vice versa. See, e.g., LBJ, New Hampshire, 1968, and Bill Clinton, New Hampshire, 1992.

But in this case, Clinton was projected to lose NH by several percentage points and not only did she beat the spread, she won outright. Unquestionably she "won" the NH primary.

Posted by: Spectator2 | January 9, 2008 4:20 PM | Report abuse

JSnapper said: "Hillary Clinton won Democrats in New Hampshire (as opposed to Independents) by a big margin of 45% to 34%. This is Obama's big problem. Most upcoming states are closed primaries that do not allow Independents to vote."

Sorry but 15 of the 22 Democratic races on Feb. 5th allow independents to vote. And how does anyone win a general election? By winning independents!

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

harlemboy: That is one of the most accurate comments I have seen over many days. This "Love Affair" the Media has going on is coming to an end when they realize their "Lover" is going with someone else.

Posted by: lylepink | January 9, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

"I don't think Edward's cares at this point. He is running the "Only I can change America" campaign and I think it has become more personal to him as a cause...things along the way have given his candidacy a different purpose... It's now a mission he is on with an undetermined ending."

Dave, I think that may be the key to the Edwards candidacy. I know some find him phony, but he strikes me as sincere and committed. Plus, what has he to lose? He's unlikely to make a 3rd try.

Obama, on the other hand, has a real shot at the nomination in 8 years - or 4 if McCain wins (I frankly can't see how any other Republican could win regardless of who the Dems nominate.)

Posted by: -pamela | January 9, 2008 4:15 PM | Report abuse

The Clintons want people to believe that she has the best experience over Obama and that he is young. How easily they forget that Bill Clinton was 46 when he was elected. Obama is 46. What foreign policy experience did Bill have when he was elected? None. So their arguments about Obama are meaningless. It just shows how their memories are "selective" or "short-termed". We don't need a leader with short-term memories or selective memories. We need a leader who remembers what the past was like and can envision what the future will look like.

Hillary has been in the Senate for 8 years during that time she has not done anything significant to shore up our economy and make America safer. If she really were a leader she would have worked harder during her first term in office to make the kind of meaningful changes she now is touting. Instead she voted to get us in a war that she says she will get us out of. How can the American people believe and trust that she will now do the right thing? Please don't fall into the trap you did when you elected Bush, he said one thing and turned around and did the opposite. Hillary is Bush in disguise. She and Bill want to regain the White House for them and their rich friends (remember that before Bill left office he stated how much he loved living there and regretted having to move out). They won't remember the poor working stiffs or retirees on fixed incomes - they only care about us when they want our vote, and once they have it they turn their backs and close their ears on our pleas for help.

It's time for America to wake up and give someone (Obama) who is not tainted by special interest groups and corporate greed a chance to put America back on the right path. Change will come only when we allow someone with an entirely different approach to take the reigns of government. The old ways of doing business are no longer compatible with the world we live in today and therefore some drastic changes need to happen for America to regain its place among the world powers. These are different time that we live in. We're dealing with trade deficits; terrorists; a deteriorating health care system, schools, and environment. If the Clintons were good leaders, they would have taken action back in the 90's to deal with these issues and to keep us on the right path. They did not. We should not give them a second chance to make things even worse. Don't forget that it was under Bill Clinton that "contracting out" government jobs and functions really got started.

Posted by: Nevadaandy | January 9, 2008 4:13 PM | Report abuse

"Why isn't anyone talking about [the 'tie' in the delegate count]?"

Because, at this point, the number of delegates awarded is essentially meaningless. Following Iowa, HRC & JRE supporters made the same argument - 'Look at the delegate count! BHO only won one more than HRC!' At this point of the race, its not about delegates, its about proving viability. Go over to The Trail blog & check out the posts on who's seeing fundraising boosts (Obama, Clinton, McCain). People aren't writing checks because of delegate counts, people are writing checks because these candidates have won races.

Posted by: bsimon | January 9, 2008 4:12 PM | Report abuse

HRC as Democratic nominee = RECORD Republican and Independent voter turnout

Posted by: svarada123 | January 9, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse

I think it's important to remember that saying Senator Clinton won the New Hampshire (NH) primary requires a definition of the word "won" that ignores the way in which the primary process works.

Yes, Senator Clinton received about 2% more of the vote than Senator Obama, but NH has a proportional system of assigning delegates, which means that a candidate is awarded delegates based on the percentage of votes received, not on whether or not the candidate wins overall. As such, NH will award an equal number of delegates to Obama and Clinton; both get 8.

Given that the purpose of a primary election is to win the most number of delegates--NOT to win individual states (it just so happens that those two things GENERALLY go hand in hand)--doesn't it make sense to say that the winner is the candidate who garners the greatest number of delegates rather than the person who wins the election percentage-wise? I think so, and as such NH was really a tie between Obama and Clinton rather than a victory for the later.

Why isn't anyone talking about this?

Posted by: coupland12 | January 9, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse

MKK 0918 would you please explain that comment?

Posted by: Miata7 | January 9, 2008 4:01 PM | Report abuse

All I see here is worthless speculation. Who knows if/when Edwards will drop out. Who knows where his supporters would turn? How about Richardson's supporters? Who knows if the Nevada endorsement for Obama will really matter, or if the entire state of Nevada will even matter? Who knows what will happen in the upcoming debates and politicking? Who knows if Clinton or Obama would end up the better candidate in November for the Democrats? I don't know, and neither do you. We can speculate all we want. Our speculation, like most professional speculation, is worthless.

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

Hillary Clinton's campaign shipped in folks from Massachusetts supporters to vote in New Hampshire. There's growing anecdotal evidence of this. WHY, Chris Ciliza, are you not reporting or investigating this? You are gutless fraud.

Posted by: happyj13 | January 9, 2008 3:55 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton's campaign shipped in folks from Massachusetts supporters to vote in New Hampshire. There's growing anecdotal evidence of this. WHY, Chris Ciliza, are you not reporting or investigating this? You are gutless fraud.

Posted by: happyj13 | January 9, 2008 3:55 PM | Report abuse

'Hussain Obama is a joke played on Democrats by the corporate media.'


and you are a joke played on your mother by God.

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

Obama does now have a really good chance, should he not make it this year, to come back and run again for President.


That is a really good point.


Before this year, Obama could have been a "one term and out Senator" - his renomination and reelection in Illinois no means assured

Posted by: Miata7 | January 9, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse


'I am a woman. It took me more than 12 hours to overcome the anger and depression caused by Hillary's teary eye performance. Her act powerfully evoked the disturbed emotions of a white female victim raped by a black youth. If she repeats it again and again, which is almost certain, I might ask her and her feminist supporters money to under go a gender re-assignment surgery.'

I have to say that the Hillary Haters have reached a pinnacle in blind irratonal lunacy. Don't support her, fine, but jesus, get a grip.

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

bsimon - "can Edwards compete effectively there?"

I don't think Edward's cares at this point. He is running the "Only I can change America" campaign and I think it has become more personal to him as a cause than just running for pres. I think that he knows he can't win (since he is doing worse than last time when he couldn't win and has no money). But i think that that WV guy with the cleft palate, his wife's cancer, and other things along the way have given his candidacy a different purpose for him. It's now a mission he is on with an undetermined ending. That will be determined based on how much he still cares about national politics and the Dem party vs his mission.

Posted by: dave | January 9, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

Chris, Hillary better hope that Rory Reid leads Nevada better than Harry Reid leads the Senate.

And freedom41, while I do think the Democrats erred in so easily dismising stronger general election candidates (Biden, Dodd) I think comparisons with Mondale defeating the upstart Hart only to lose in the general don't take into account Mondale's opponent (Reagan) or the atmosphere in the country. In 1984, Rs were on the way up. Thanks to GWB, we don't have that to worry about.

Posted by: -pamela | January 9, 2008 3:47 PM | Report abuse

I belive there was foul play at the ballots. Needs to be investigated.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2008/090108Polls.htm

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

The New Hampshire primary was determined in both parties by the independents. The independents went for McCain instead of Obama and that gave the Democratic win to Clinton as well as the Republican win to McCain.

Posted by: info4 | January 9, 2008 3:39 PM | Report abuse

Hispanics will have their first say starting NV. If it was an election instead of caucus, Hussain Obama will loose.

Still, it would be interesting. Hope democrats gets tired of loosing and vote for known winners (other than those running against Alan Keyes :-)

Hussain Obama is a joke played on Democrats by the corporate media.

Posted by: SeedofChange | January 9, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

I am a woman. It took me more than 12 hours to overcome the anger and depression caused by Hillary's teary eye performance. Her act powerfully evoked the disturbed emotions of a white female victim raped by a black youth. If she repeats it again and again, which is almost certain, I might ask her and her feminist supporters money to under go a gender re-assignment surgery.

Posted by: mkk0918 | January 9, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

shrink2 writes
"Edwards will drop out, it is a matter of when not if."

Kindof makes you wonder if any prominent Dems are working behind the scenes to encourage Edwards to make that decision sooner rather than later. NH basically thumbed their collective nose at his "its between me & Obama" argument; with the NV unions endorsing Obama, can Edwards compete effectively there?

Posted by: bsimon | January 9, 2008 3:35 PM | Report abuse

'Rudy Giuliani is set to unveil a new tax plan Wednesday afternoon that the campaign is touting as the "largest tax cut in the history of America."

Fittingly, Giuliani plans to deliver his tax plan announcement in Melbourne, Fla.

Details of the plan are still emerging, but the campaign says it will include a $3,500-per-person deduction, and deductions for health care, home mortgage payments, charity contributions, and local and state taxes, as well as a $1,000-per-child tax credit.

Then a 10 percent tax would be assessed on the first $40,000 earned, 15 percent on $40,000 to $150,000 earned and 30 percent on $150,000 earned and above.'

what does anyone have to say this? sounds great to me, i'd pay less than half of what i do now... but it sure doesn't sound feasible or plausible. If he's including capital gains in the 30% taxation category, he will vry likely get lynched by the Club for Greed.

Posted by: drindl | January 9, 2008 3:34 PM | Report abuse

I, for one, will be interested to see Steinem's column explaining how Chelsea Clinton really has a much more difficult time winning in 2024 than the other Dem candidates...

Posted by: rpy1 | January 9, 2008 3:31 PM | Report abuse

"The Clintons have begun playing racial politics saying Obama cannot win because he's black. It's the saddest thing I've ever seen in my life, the are the same Clintons who pretend to love African-Americans so much. But we know they don't, they'll do anything to win even if that means dividing the democratic party into racial segments. The Clintons are the sickest scums I've ever seen in my life. I for one still believe in hope! OBAMA 08!

Posted by: lumi21us | January 9, 2008 03:17 PM
"

Here here. Users. Hillary downplayed the sugnifigance of MLK, last week, saying it was the president LBJ, that put his words into action. I'm not sure howshe won nh. But this WILL backfire on her in the african-american community.

I am starting to calm down on this. I now relaize nh was just prolonging the inevitable. Don't fret obama supporters. don't get to high clinton supporters. Obama will not screw up at the wrong time like the yale plan sabouters. Clinton already is making mistake after mistake. What with edwars delgates goign to obama after he quits. We can't lose.

Keep you optimisum ladies and getlemen. The racist angle is all they got. The year is 2007. They will be left wanting at the end.

Obama-Dodd 08.

"WE WANT CHANGE"

..

"you can't have it"
...


"YES WE CAN"

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

jeff.cronin makes a good point. The Democrats sure know how to pick a losing candidate. Mondale defeated the "upstart" Hart to become a sure winner (at least he won 1 state). Every single presidential candidate we have had since 1980 has been lame, and most of them defeated what were probably stronger candidates. Even Bill Clinton only won because Perot took away enough votes from Bush I. It's time for Democrats to not be so dumb and not choose Hillary. She will push away independents like myself, or at the very least people worried about dynastic politics in America. There's a better choice Democrats!

Posted by: freedom41 | January 9, 2008 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Edwards will drop out, it is a matter of when not if. He will need to save some of the money he has for some future campaign, too young to quit politics.

All signs are that his voters will disproportionately go to Barak.

Since this question is indeed so important, if not decisive, no doubt that poll is being conducted as we blog...

Posted by: shrink2 | January 9, 2008 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Obamanuts, cheer up and fire up! We will bring change!! The Culinary Workers Union endorsed Obama the man (not "the kid" as described by Hillary's husband). HRC may dismiss them as she dismissed Iowa's caucus, but we will bring change!!! Change in discourse, change in tone, and change in momentum. Fight hard, fight fair! WIN!! Godspeed and courage!!

Posted by: meldupree | January 9, 2008 3:26 PM | Report abuse

I can guarantee you that the voters who won't vote for Obama because he's African-American are the same pool of voters who won't vote for Hillary because she's a woman. Arguments back and forth about that are a waste of perfectly good hyperbole.

Posted by: novamatt | January 9, 2008 3:26 PM | Report abuse

jeff.cronin, what about bill's bro? or dipping into the rodham line?

Posted by: bsimon | January 9, 2008 3:24 PM | Report abuse

Too right, Jeff.

Instead of pretending to be a Republic, America could borrow the name used by the Hapburgs' empire as it creaked into dotage, decline and disrepair: The Dual Monarchy.

Posted by: Bud0 | January 9, 2008 3:23 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 3:20 PM | Report abuse

"What last night means is that the fight for the Democratic nomination is almost certainly a two person race between Obama and Clinton with a winner not likely to emerge before Feb. 5 or perhaps even later."

Then shouldn't somebody be analysing which way the Edwards' supporters will break if he drops out? It seems to me that must be the decisive question.

Posted by: Bud0 | January 9, 2008 3:19 PM | Report abuse

The Clintons have begun playing racial politics saying Obama cannot win because he's black. It's the saddest thing I've ever seen in my life, the are the same Clintons who pretend to love African-Americans so much. But we know they don't, they'll do anything to win even if that means dividing the democratic party into racial segments. The Clintons are the sickest scums I've ever seen in my life. I for one still believe in hope! OBAMA 08!

Posted by: lumi21us | January 9, 2008 3:17 PM | Report abuse

Chris- Have you delved into the "Iron my shirt" sexism questions being raised by the Daily News?
http://jtaplin.wordpress.com/2008/01/09/mark-penn-is-no-dummy/

Posted by: Trumbull | January 9, 2008 3:16 PM | Report abuse

Oh, come on, Chris. Given how deeply enmeshed the Clinton and New Hampshire Democratic machines are, the only thing that is "stunning" about Obama's "defeat" is how narrow it is.

Against the Clintons' New Hampshire power base, Obama's anticipated double-digit shellacking of Clinton would have been revolutionary, to the point of surreality.

But that doesn't make the actual result any less a demonstration of how truly vulnerable Clinton is.

In fact, as you'll know, Obama tied Clinton in regular delegates from New Hampshire, 9-9 -- and when New Hampshire's superdelegates are added to the count, Obama actually beat Clinton, 12-11.

Ditto re the current total of regular delegates (New Hampshire + Iowa): Obama edges Clinton, 25-24.

As Clinton asked in last Saturday's debate, "Can we just have a sort of a reality break for a minute?

Posted by: johnlumea | January 9, 2008 3:11 PM | Report abuse

I hear that shrink2. But if Edwards were to drop out compleatly. He chooses where his delegates go, does he not? So if he stays in and does not win, whould his delegates be counted as obama's, if he so choosed?

If the above statemnt is true then clinton is toast regardless. I just talked myself out of hysterics. By rationalizing with myself. HAHAHAHAH

Just kidding

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 9, 2008 3:10 PM | Report abuse

To whom will the Edwards votes go?
That is the question.
Here is a hint at the answer:

"Mr. Edwards, who pulled workers out of [Nevada] early in the campaign, has had a harder time getting traction, even with the support of the leadership of the culinary union, who were ultimately redirected by members to choosing Mr. Obama." (NYT today)

Leadership redirected by members.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 9, 2008 3:08 PM | Report abuse

To whom will the Edwards votes go?
That is the question.
Here is a hint at the answer:

"Mr. Edwards, who pulled workers out of [Nevada] early in the campaign, has had a harder time getting traction, even with the support of the leadership of the culinary union, who were ultimately redirected by members to choosing Mr. Obama." (NYT today)

Leadership redirected by members.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 9, 2008 3:05 PM | Report abuse

I'm new to the process. If edwards dropps out. He is free to give his delegate to whomever he choose, correct.So if he does back down obama get's his delegates agaisnt hillary, right? So it doesn't matter if he stays in or not, does it?

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

"Obama's focus on bipartisanship is a fantasy. Republicans have never been interested in bipartisanship. I suppose people remember the rancorous aura of partisanship that existed during the Clinton years and they don't want to return to that. But how naive can an electorate be? Do they really think a different Democrat not named Clinton is going to get a free ride by the Republican party?"

you got it wrong harlem boy. It's not about forcing the gop to act right. It's about the rest of the coutnry acing right and working for americas future. Then pointing out and marginalizing those that would sabotage this country for a party. That is what it's about. To end the gop for good. It's not about sucking up to them. It's about the gop changing, or not. But if they stay the same, they are done. Their old cow folk are dying out and not being replaced.

It's not a naive idea. It's about putting the sabotuers on front street. Edwards would combat then. I don't know if that woudl work. But obama is for this coutnry and the future. Those that would sabotage that MUST be pointed out. What happens as a result? What is happening to fox now? Ignore the ratings. I watch fox everyday. Their propoganda is marginalized. It is started. After a obama vicotry they WILL get viler. that is the plan. the worse the get, the scareder they get. The more the attack. The faster they accelerate their downfall.

I don't know how fox is still on the air. But fret not. They, and rush, don't have much longer. Do not fear the fascists. Margianlize them

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 9, 2008 3:02 PM | Report abuse

Here's my take:

Dems: Obama will win a few more primaries but Clinton will wear him down in the end. Regardless of what happens this year, I think we will see President Obama one day.

Repubs: I have no freaking idea. I cannot remember a race that is so wide open. Reasonable cases can be made for four candidates, which is almost unheard of nowadays. Ok, it IS unheard of nowadays.

Thompson will be gone after SC. What a joke of a campaign he has run. Ron Paul will stick around.

As for the general, head to head polls taken before the presumptive nominees are known are meaningless. You have to say to people, "OK, these two folks ARE the nominees. Which will you vote for?"

Posted by: Spectator2 | January 9, 2008 3:00 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 3:00 PM | Report abuse

I have one: Our resident pundit aka "The Inside Expert" Cillizza zes' so, duh.

Posted by: rfpiktor | January 9, 2008 2:59 PM | Report abuse

Let's get this straight: Obama did not experience a "stunning defeat" - he turned what was a 20%+ poll deficit a fortnight ago into a loss by 3%. In any other context than a shock win in Iowa, Obama would today be the Comeback Kid - after all, he did far better than Bill did here in 1992, from memory.

Sure, Obama's spin could have been better, but to most of us it's one of his virtues that he isn't as slick as the politics-as-usual Clinton machine.

Clinton's got enough spin-mongers creating her fairytale version of events without you joining in, Chris.

Posted by: adamcgray | January 9, 2008 2:59 PM | Report abuse

"In Nevada, Obama will get a major boost later today when the Culinary Workers Union backs his candidacy. The Culinary union, which represents more than 60,000 men and women who work in the Las Vegas casinos, is a tremendously powerful force in state and local politics and almost assuredly will help Obama's ground game in the state. Obama has also won the endorsement of the Nevada Service Employees International Union -- another boon to his turnout efforts."

Great news cc. LAs Vegas is where it's at. Hopefully this pushes obama over the edge. Reno and vegas are the only cities in Nevada, for the most part. Small reno is 100 fascist republcain, other than me of course:)

Vegas is more democratic. If they get away from clinton, or if obama can sway the unions from her, he should hold.

Great news. Thanks for vaild facts cc, for once ;0

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 9, 2008 2:57 PM | Report abuse

I realize this may sound like a joke after NH, but the last poll in NV on Pollster is from early December, and shows Clinton leading. Is there some other reason (besides the endorsements CC mentions) that folks are assuming that Obama is doing well in NV?

Posted by: rpy1 | January 9, 2008 2:55 PM | Report abuse

pmasundire: When you consider that EVERY poll had Obama ahead by double digits to high single digits and consider the conservative nature in which Obama complete his New Hampshire campaign, it is a "stunning defeat". In the scheme of things, New Hampshire's small number of delegates means nothing. The primary vote is what matters.

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

Clinton should work it two prong re Nevada (lower expectations but work the state while she focuses on the big 2/5 states) and S. Carolina (she absolutely can't win there, so she should do everything short of writing it off but hold her base of support to meet "expectations"). The MAIN job is to control the spin going into February 5th, when this race will probably be decided. New Hampshire staunched the bleeding for Clinton, but did no better than that. Unless she has her people keep Obama on the defensive over his statements versus his record, his "vision" speech will carry the day. If he is brought down to earth to compare qualifications he is toast.

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

bsimon: Check her website at hillaryclinton.com under "Hillary". It's all there. You're welcome!

Posted by: JSnapper | January 9, 2008 2:39 PM | Report abuse

When you consider that only two weeks ago that Obama was behind Clinton by double digits, coming within 2% points can hardly be described as a "stunning defeat". Also, in the all important delegate count, Obama and Clinton both get 9 delegates out of NH, which makes this a tie and not a "stunning defeat"

Posted by: pmasundire | January 9, 2008 2:38 PM | Report abuse

jeff cronin notes
"the MLK denigrations"

I suspect those will get some airplay in South Carolina before the primary.

Posted by: bsimon | January 9, 2008 2:36 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton won Democrats in New Hampshire (as opposed to Independents) by a big margin of 45% to 34%. This is Obama's big problem. Most upcoming states are closed primaries that do not allow Independents to vote.

Posted by: JSnapper | January 9, 2008 2:36 PM | Report abuse

Blarg notes
"Her campaign loves to talk about how experienced she is, but they never list the details."

I'm most curious about that extensive record 'fighting for what she believes in' in the 27 years prior to her Senate terms. Lets start with 1972, could someone list her accomplishments on an annual basis for then & the subsequent 34 years? Thanks in advance.

Posted by: bsimon | January 9, 2008 2:35 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 2:33 PM | Report abuse

"At the end of the day, in November, the American electorate will not give the presidency to a black candidate named Barack Hussein Obama."
Oh look, it's the racism argument. How original. Do you think that a candidate's ethnic background is a legitimate reason to not support him, harlemboy?

"Believe me, if Obama has any skeletons in his closet, the Republicans will dig them out."
...just like they already did for Hillary. That means the Republicans don't even need to do any work if Hillary is the nominee. Rush Limbaugh can just air old episodes of his show from 1994, and we can all talk about Whitewater and cattle futures again. Won't that be fun? And if as you say the Republicans will attack any candidate equally, that still isn't a reason to support Hillary.

"Was not Hillary a more impressive Senator at this point in her first term?"
I don't know, harlemboy. Why don't you tell us? List Hillary's impressive accomplishments as a senator. Her campaign loves to talk about how experienced she is, but they never list the details. In Hillary's Senate career, what has she actually done?

"She is a roll-up-your-sleeves and get to grueling work kind of leader."
You can keep repeating this as much as you want, but that doesn't make it true. What grueling work has she done? Let's hear some specifics.

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

Miata7 writes
"Chris it is time to start gaming a deadlock and what might happen in that scenario."

A lot depends on how states award delegates. Do the Dems have any winner-takes-all states, or are those just a GOP thing?

Posted by: bsimon | January 9, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse

"They want to win above all."

If they want to win, above all, they ought to consider how to best appeal to the swing voters that decide the general.

Posted by: bsimon | January 9, 2008 2:21 PM | Report abuse

Edwards is the wildcard - if Edwards can hold onto percentages in the high teens, we are headed for a deadlock. Can Hillary even hope to reach 51% after the events of the next week and the strength of Obama in South Carolina.


NOt sure what Hillary will do.


The key is 51% of the delegates - however 25% of the delegates are Superdelegates who officially are not pledged until the convention. If Edwards continues to poll in the range he has, it is hard to see either Obama or Hillary breaking out to a majority.


I'd like to see the new calculations of the candidates.


Chris it is time to start gaming a deadlock and what might happen in that scenario.

Posted by: Miata7 | January 9, 2008 2:19 PM | Report abuse

Today Republicans nationwide breathed a huge sigh of relief.

The Democrats are trying hard to dodge the bullet of actually winning a presidential election and being forced to deal with the situation on the ground in Iraq in a meaningful way. They are attempting to run the candidate with the least chance of winning.

For a moment, I was afraid Mr. Obama would be the nominee, and, while Mrs. Clinton is far from having it in the bag, it looks like her institutional advantage in a host of states will render Iowa's loss a footnote by February 5th.

If this boils down to Hillary versus, Giuliani or McCain we win. Her best shot lays in Huckabee or Romney, and if Huckabee, a doubtful choice for the nomination no matter how much I and many others like him, does get the nomination, I don't think it will be long before his easygoing communication captures American hearts, particularly if he proves adept at looking as though he is running for the middle while throwing signals to his base.

Posted by: chuckcoulter | January 9, 2008 2:11 PM | Report abuse

Republicans know Obama cannot win a general election. At the end of the day, in November, the American electorate will not give the presidency to a black candidate named Barack Hussein Obama.

Fickle Independents, Obama's fair-weather friends, will assuredly desert him once the Republican slime machine chews him up and spits him out...especially if McCain is the Republican nominee.

Obama's focus on bipartisanship is a fantasy. Republicans have never been interested in bipartisanship. I suppose people remember the rancorous aura of partisanship that existed during the Clinton years and they don't want to return to that. But how naive can an electorate be? Do they really think a different Democrat not named Clinton is going to get a free ride by the Republican party? Believe me, if Obama has any skeletons in his closet, the Republicans will dig them out. And the rancorous atmosphere in Washington will merely continue under a new guise, and all those "changelings" will be sitting around wondering what happened: How did their golden boy acquire that old Clinton stink? It's called the Republican machine.

And given that we have a long year ahead which will be fueled by a media that is itching for the next story all the time every day, what is that next story going to be after "sexy hot Messiah Obama" has run its course? Then we'll see just how gifted a politician Obama will turn out to be. Has he really been that impressive as a first term Senator? Was not Hillary a more impressive Senator at this point in her first term?

Hillary's whole m.o. is that she is not a flash-in-the-pan star-of-the-moment. She is a roll-up-your-sleeves and get to grueling work kind of leader. That's why she won registered Democrats in New Hampshire. They want to win above all.

Posted by: harlemboy | January 9, 2008 2:10 PM | Report abuse

It is a wide open contest. While the Clinton victory was unexpected, it certainly was not "stunning". It is important to remember that as recently as Jan. 3-4 some polls showed Obama 9 percentage points behind Clinton, so he wasn't able to close the gap. It will be interesting to see how thing unfold from here.

Posted by: welchd | January 9, 2008 2:10 PM | Report abuse

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

It is worth noting that Senator Clinton's victory stems from the efforts of her network of activist supporters.

In other words, Clinton gained the top spot in NH by virtue of the bottom up nature of her campaign.

This contrasts sharply with the Obama campaign's reliance on their leader's charisma: the classic sign of a top down political movement.

Posted by: pach12 | January 9, 2008 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Just because only two people on the blog predicted a Clinton victory, we are not going to talk about the predictions winners?

What about The Fix t-shirts???

Posted by: youcrew | January 9, 2008 1:55 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company