Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Polls Picking Up an Obama Surge?

NASHUA, N.H. -- The Fix is sequestered in an Irish pub watching tonight's Republican presidential "forum" but couldn't avoid offering a thought or two about several new polls in the Granite State that suggest Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) received a real New Hampshire boost from his win in Thursday's Iowa caucuses.

In a new CNN/WMUR poll, Obama leads Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) 39 percent to 29 percent, a major change from the 33 percent tie that the same survey showed yesterday. A new USA Today/Gallup poll confirms the Obama bounce, putting him 13 points ahead of Clinton. A new Franklin Pierce/WBZ survey showed a more modest gain for Obama. He led Clinton 34 percent to 31 percent in the latest poll; four days ago he trailed Clinton 32 percent to 28 percent.

The results show a major tick upwards over the last 48 hours for Obama and run counter to the message being pushed by Clinton campaign pollster Mark Penn who issued a memo yesterday asking: "Where's the Bounce?"

In the days since Clinton's third-place finish in Iowa, her campaign has insisted that New Hampshire would pay little attention to what happened in the Hawkeye State. "Voters in New Hampshire are fiercely independent," argued Clinton deputy communications director Phil Singer in the spin room following last night's Democratic debate. "They make their own decisions [based on] what they see, not what happens in other places."

Tonight's polls seem to contradict that argument. It's important, however, to caution that an abrupt surge in the polls should be taken with a grain of salt. Voters could well have been energized and enthused by Obama's win in Iowa last Thursday night and got swept up in the excitement of the past couple of days of campaigning here, but they may reconsider that support before Tuesday's primary. Unlike in years past, however, there is so little time between the votes in Iowa and New Hampshire that even a temporary bounce could be enough to carry Obama to victory in the primary, a win that would be another major step forward in his quest for the nomination.

Looking for the Republican results? Sen. John McCain's (Ariz.) lead held steady at six points over former governor Mitt Romney (Mass.) in the CNN/WMUR survey ; McCain carries a 34 percent to 30 percent margin over Romney in the USA Today/Gallup poll. The new Franklin Pierce/WBZ survey pegged McCain's lead over Romney at nine -- 38 percent to 29 percent.

By Chris Cillizza  |  January 6, 2008; 9:58 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: PostTalk: McCain Insists He Can Beat Obama
Next: Top 10 Reasons The Fix Loves New Hampshire

Comments

Hello there,very nice place
forex trade software

Posted by: Braden ahsxv | April 9, 2008 12:04 PM | Report abuse

I run a non-profit institution in India on democracy and citizenship, and have been following the US elections with a lot of interest.

As the race heats up post-New Hampshire, I believe that voters need to seriously engage on backgrounds of both candidates. Here, Barack Obama's cocaine use is an important one, but NOT for personal mudslinging. Here is what i feel is worth exploring by the American media:

-What is Barack Obama's view on the nexus between cocaine, terrorism, trafficking, and economic development ; how does he propose to address these issues, esp given his past record and that he might lack the moral authority to lead on this front. As is well known, cocaine is intimately related to the Afghan economy, illegal trafficking and terrorism.

Would appreciate a response from the Hillary campaign on this idea

Regards

Ramesh

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

One good question that's come up directly and implicitly: Will America elect an African American President?

But America doesn't elect anybody, really. 270 electors from some 20-30 states do. Will NY or CA or IL or MN elect a black man? If he's a democrat, hell yes! It's nearly a certainty.

Will the southern states elect a black man? If he's a republican, maybe, but they almost never elect any democrats, so why should I let it enter my calculations?

So then we're left with the swing states: FL, OH, NM, WI, NH, IA...

Did you notice those last two swing states? White states where independents seem to swinging heavily behind Obama.

No democratic or republican nominee can guarantee a win, but the evidence definitely suggests that Obama can.

Posted by: stpaulsage | January 8, 2008 1:36 PM | Report abuse

Female Nick,

Gridlock renders congress impotent. It does not do the same to an aggressive president ready to impose his will wherever he can. The laundry list is endless: dismantling FEMA before Katrina, rejecting Kyoto and other treaties, signing statements to defang the laws congress was able to pass, recess appointments, no bid contracts to Halliburton and Blackwater, a partisan Justice Department looking to help elect republicans instead of enforcing election laws, an EPA in the back pocket of polluters, the list goes on ad naseum.

An Obama presidency is built on consensus building. And by that I don't mean the cynical horsetrading that gets a bare 50% plus 1 majority. That approach -- which Hillary claims to excel at only works for the small stuff at the margins. Solving bigger problems require an atmosphere of respect and communication. By having a movement behind him yet affording advocates of competing ideas an arena in which to work for comprehensive solutions, we can -- we must -- tackle the problems that have been and are festering far to long in a gridlocked, partisan environment.

We see how Obama will govern if only we look at how Al Gore has worked to build consensus on the climate crisis. Rather than up the partisan rhetoric or villify Sen. Imhoff, the most vocal critic of climate change, Gore asks if they can share a meal and discuss the issue further. Even in that partisan environment, Gore refused to play the game. You don't win over all your critics that way. But you do move toward consensus and action. That, what I suggest, is what the Obama movement is about, and how he will lead our nation. And don't doubt that Al Gore will hop aboard at the appropriate, non-partisan time.

Posted by: optimyst | January 8, 2008 11:13 AM | Report abuse

femalenick writes
"What no one seems to be pointing out is that Obama has yet to face media scrutiny, which, to date, has been focused on HRC. "

Nick, it would appear that you are mistaking your own lack of investigation into Senator Obama for a lack of media scrutiny. I won't argue that he's received the same scrutiny that Sen Clinton has, mostly because nobody has been more scrutinzed in the history of American politics. If you expect every opponent she faces to undergo the same degree of examination, plan now for disappointment.

Posted by: bsimon | January 7, 2008 9:46 PM | Report abuse

Femalenick,

If Obama gets a mandate he will prevail. Ronald Reagan was no brainiac but had the support of the people. The man was an intelectual midget but a political genius.

Obama is in that same mold of self-made visionaries that make people believe and aspire to a better form of government.

The Obama phenomenon is above policy wonks, press scrutiny and entrenched congress mores and vicious circles.

Hillary has numbed her audiences with an endless laundry list of policy initiatives and recondite and really swell citizens groups and whatnot.

People are fed up with paralysis. People are fed up with the Iraq quagmire. Young soldiers and military personnel are dying for no intelligent reason. People are fed up, period.

Out with the old, in with the new.

Posted by: rfpiktor | January 7, 2008 6:53 PM | Report abuse

Optimyst, it is not true that the administration controls all the power. Washington gridlock is because we have ideologues on both sides.

The last time we had true electoral landslides was during the 80s - both times when we elected Ronald Reagan. Before that it was Nixon beating McGovern. And since Ronald Reagan's defeat of Mondale in 1984, there hasn't been a popular vote "landslide."

We're in a very different country. We are divided, and Congress is thus deeply divided. What do you think will happen with the division if Obama wins and he forces "change" without compromise as Bush has done?

It's the nature of youth (the voters that Obama counts on) to be idealistic and to believe that anything is possible - and thank heaven for them. Heck, my friends and I were idealistic in our 20s. But those of us nearing 50 are much more pragmatic. Life isn't such a fairy tale, and I personally am more comfortable with a president who has seen the consequences of ideas over a longer period of time. This is why I cannot support Obama today.

Posted by: femalenick | January 7, 2008 6:52 PM | Report abuse

femalenick:

Huge change is not only possible, it is likely. Here's why. First, we currently have a gridlocked federal government. Legislature controlled by democrats, Executive branch by republicans. Ending the gridlock will be the biggest way we voters can empower change.

Second, if a democrat is elected, all those political jobs in the executive branch will be filled by people with a mandate for change. So much of the power in Washington is controlled by the presidential administration and can be enacted without input from the legislature. Obama will reverse much of the damage caused by Bush and his political appointees.

Third, as it stands, democrats are likely to pick up 4 or 5 senate seats in 2008. That's great, but not enough to get to the magic 60 seat level which can stop filibusters. This Obama phenomenon and its harnessing of youth has the possibility of both causing an electoral landslide and the coat tails that could sweep another 4 or 5 democrats into the senate and even more into the house.

Change is not the difference between the health insurance plans of Hillary or Edwards or Obama. It is creating the atmosphere in Washington that will allow a law to be passed that will insure the 45 million Americans who need it.

Obama himself does not create the change. He is the leader of the movement who makes the change happen. Don't evaluate this in the traditional way. The other campaigns are top down. Obama's is bottom up. The power comes from us. That's why it has taken hold so powerfully. Join us.

Posted by: optimyst | January 7, 2008 6:23 PM | Report abuse

What no one seems to be pointing out is that Obama has yet to face media scrutiny, which, to date, has been focused on HRC. What will we learn if Obama gets the nomination?

I believe that we Dems lose if McCain and Obama become the nominees. I will bet that foreign policy & national security will be the focus of the general election. Certainly, they are to me the most important issues. Remember that Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford lost their re-elections because of foreign policy gaffes.

I would have a hard time voting for someone with only two years of Senate experience. If McCain and Obama were the nominees, McCain would get my vote. Only with Giuliani as the GOP nominee can I today be certain that I would vote for Obama in a general election. I hate the idea of another Republican in the White House, but I hate the idea of voting for someone with so little experience even more.

The fact is that it's naive to think that one person can effect sweeping change. The only way that can happen is if we voted out every single person in Washington today. Since that's not feasible, the next president must know how to navigate their way through the existing system and all its dysfunction. This is a fact that Dems are obviously ignoring. Dems seem to forget that Bill Clinton would have likely lost in 1992 were it not for Ross Perot, and that he was re-elected because he was so moderate.

"Change" is an attractive, inspirational word during the primaries, but when push comes to shove, people prefer incremental rather than radical change. And if we all take off our partisan hats off and set aside our personal preferences, I think most of you here would agree.

Posted by: femalenick | January 7, 2008 5:41 PM | Report abuse

Lyle,

If Hillary recovers on Feb5 she will have out-Obammaded Obama. She would not be awesome, we're talking major MAJOR AWESOME, dude!!!

The reason for the primaries is to provide the best able and strongest candidate to run for president.

Up to now, strongest, best able = Obama.

If she evens the race or gets ahead and finally wins, my hat's off to her. She has my vote.

Posted by: rfpiktor | January 7, 2008 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Lyle, I hate to burst your bubble, but the polls are not trending in HRCs favor. While no poll is entirely accurate, the trends are not in her favor. Rasmussen is showing a 10 pt lead in NH for Obama (39 to 29), more importantly, their latest daily tracker shows a collapse in her support nationwide, where she & Obama are now within the margin of error. That's a big drop from a 20 pt lead. If she suffers another decisive loss tomorrow - 10 points would be decisive - she's going to have to come up with something good in order to recover.

Posted by: bsimon | January 7, 2008 5:03 PM | Report abuse

rfpiktor: I read them occasionally, not very often. I liked your "awesome" comment, although I think you meant it would not happen, that is most likely to happen on 5 February when Hillary wins the Dem nomination and will be well on her way to being elected our next POTUS.

Posted by: lylepink | January 7, 2008 4:43 PM | Report abuse

I have also just seen her little woman act. The only thing believable is that she's tired. They all are. Obama probably is the most tired.

So when you have the crisis of your life your enemies are going to hand you the fort and make nice, 'cuz the little lady is a little sad...Right, and I was born yesterday.

Posted by: rfpiktor | January 7, 2008 4:41 PM | Report abuse

Is this her Muskie moment or her Dean moment, or what.

Posted by: rfpiktor | January 7, 2008 4:25 PM | Report abuse

I just saw a clip of Hillary at a roundtable in NH where she got emotional and teary eyed. Now that she's behind, she's no longer cocky and arrogant and wants to play the gender card. She said she's passionate about our country and that she cares about America, well she's had in her words 35 years of experience - so if she's so passionate about America and sees it falling backwards, why in her 35 years did she not do anything to prevent our fall? Why does she now want to step up to the plate? She said it's about right and wrong, who's ready to lead and who's not ready (and she's sooo ready). If that's the case then the voters need to choose the candidate who is right on point on the issues and that is Obama. You have to be right in order to be a good leader. Being sooo ready to lead based on experience without having demonstrated good judgement does not automatically make a person a good leader.

Posted by: Nevadaandy | January 7, 2008 4:20 PM | Report abuse

bsimon,

I enjoy your cool posts. The real problem for Hill is that she is a great executive, not a great politician. She has created this aura of can do-will do tough exterior that she has to get rid off pronto.

Exactly how that is supposed to work is the subject for the sorcery cognoscenti. People have her pegged as a phony that will do anything and everything to succeed.

People see through her, the mystery is over, she has been scrutinized and vetted.

More like vetoed by an unamused public.

Posted by: rfpiktor | January 7, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse

optymist,

Here is Dorsett doing the Obama. Although the clip is 9 minutes long, Dorsett's is at the very beginning and lasts only 1:45 minutes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQGnq3kqWrI&feature=related

Posted by: rfpiktor | January 7, 2008 3:49 PM | Report abuse

While Lyle is correct about Shrum's legacy as a candidate adviser, it is not necessarily true that Mr Shrum is wrong 100% of the time.

What the Clinton campaign needs to do is take a day off & rest. After the Iowa results they panicked & it shows. They're likely to suffer another setback tomorrow; though attempts to spin it as a comeback are almost certain.

On their day off, Clinton campaign strategists need to sit back and think about what their candidate stands for. This should, ideally, be a top-down exercise - where Hillary figures out what she stands for & directs the team to build the appropriate advertisements, slogans, etc around this message. I have thought for some time, and still think, that her problem is one of trying to tell people what she thinks they want to hear. Thats not what people want - they want to know what the candidate stands for, whether they individually agree with it or not. Here in MN, Paul Wellstone won two elections comfortably, despite being far more liberal than most Minnesotans - and we sent Repubs to the other Senate seat. This didn't happen because all the liberals showed up when Wellstone ran & all the Repubs showed up for the other race, its because people respected his convictions - even if they didn't agree with them.

So, Senator Clinton - take Wednesday off. Rest up. Figure out what you stand for - then on Thursday come out and tell us. Who knows, you might find it refreshing.

Posted by: bsimon | January 7, 2008 3:08 PM | Report abuse

For the folks critical of this Obama validation and surge after just one caucus, let me try a sports analogy. I guess it will only work for the older among you who remember Tony Dorsett and his 99 yard touchdown run. He squirted through a hole in the middle of line into some daylight, then at about the 10 yard line he cut hard to the sideline to avoid the linebackers. By the 15 yard line, he had mostly clear sailing. At about midfield he used some blocking and danced up the sideline to avoid the last defenders in the secondary. After that, the touchdown was assured.

In winning Iowa handily, Obama has squirted through that hole up the middle. New Hampshire seems to be those slower linebackers that don't have a chance to catch him with his speed and moves. Then, finally, Super Tuesday is that dance along the sideline at midfield that will be his last obstacle.

The only point of this is that there was this incredible excitement when Dorsett broke through that first hole. I remember jumping out of my chair. I don't think I breathed for the next 15 seconds, it was so incredible. I may have to hold my breath a little longer, but Obama's win in Iowa feels much the same with the near certainty of his nomination at the end of this process. Still 90 yards to go, but most of the work is done.

Posted by: optimyst | January 7, 2008 3:07 PM | Report abuse

lylepink,

I wikied him and he is associated only to losing campaigns.

Do you think his analysis is slanted?

Have you read Tumulty at Time mag and Ruth Marcus here at the Post.

There is also a NYTimes article about Bubba's underwhelming audiences.

There is an article at Politico about mayor Villaraigosa at Hill"s side.

What would be awesome is that Hill actually recovers from this debacle. She was ultra prepped and she fell on her face.

Posted by: rfpiktor | January 7, 2008 2:34 PM | Report abuse

rfpiktor: I think you are referring to an article by Bob Shrum, if so, I would point out he was with Gore and Kerry and look what happened to them. I cannot think, off hand, of anyone he has been associated with being a winner. I don't like Penn or Wolfson, and think Hillary made a big mistake hiring them.

Posted by: lylepink | January 7, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

legan00: The main thing we have to do is pull together to avoid another fiasco like we have had for these past two terms of GW. My own personal "Feeling" about Obama is something I don't understand, nevertheless it is there. We do not have to defend Hillary, she is quite capable of dong that herself, and that thought goes against all logic, when you consider she has been the target for at least 15 years. I am convinced with Obama, we have a loser, with Hillary , we have a winner.

Posted by: lylepink | January 7, 2008 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: rfpiktor | January 7, 2008 2:03 PM | Report abuse

I've been pulling for Kucinich this whole time. I wish we could nominate him. It's unfortunate. But Obama is still the Left. Not as left, sure, but the Left.

Posted by: legan00 | January 7, 2008 1:40 PM | Report abuse

lylepink,

Just go for it. We can't defend Hillary for 10 months. Come on. If we lose, John McCain wins. Worse has happened in my life. But have some faith and represent the Left. Is Barack obama perfect? No! Is he suitable? Hell yes. So throw your support and hope that the rest follow suit. Let's be daring. The Republicans are too fragmented. The Independents are more in sync with us now. Have some faith, my secular brethren.


Free Debs

Posted by: legan00 | January 7, 2008 1:38 PM | Report abuse

lyle, Obama is not "the left." That would be Kucininch.

Posted by: bokonon13 | January 7, 2008 1:36 PM | Report abuse

legan00: I can assure you the left cannot win a GE, that is an "Ideal" movement that gets very little support from the public at large. McGovern fits in this group and look what happened to him. Many of us believe the same would happen if we nominate Obama.

Posted by: lylepink | January 7, 2008 1:25 PM | Report abuse

SeedofChange,

I think it's clear that you've got the hots for Hillary. Or that you really do not want Obama to win. Don't pretend like you couldn't vote for Obama. If you're a partisan Democrat, as you suggest, you ought to recognize what Obama is doing for American politics. Especially for 9-out-of 10 of your causes.
-I'll be honest, I've withheld my support for Obama. Initially, I found a lot of his rhetoric to be full of platitudes. But that's just rhetoric. I know how capable he would be. And you'd be foolish to deny Obama's huge momentum. I hear people talking about it everywhere. What's exciting people so much is that Obama reminds the Left that we have a real shot with him. He's turning out people that don't vote. And he will continue to. By the way, read George McGovern's Op-Ed piece today in the WashingtonPost, sounds like this country should have supported him in 1972. So for you to caricature Obama's candidacy is naive, and irresponsible. Turns out 2008 will be the year that people like you make little sense, and are told as much. If Obama wins New Hampshire, I'll lay odds he takes Nevada, South Carolina. Then it's all but his. The reality is that Hillary was bete noire for the Democrats. They kind of like her, many still like Bill, but you cannot convince me that Hillary could carry the male vote. And more importantly, Obama proved Hillary can be routed even amongst women.
-Many on the Left right now are deciding, which side am I on? But more importantly, where do I want to be next year? 2004 was the safe year. Kerry was better than Bush, but hardly anyone to write home about. Left, and independent, voters recognize that Hillary would be too difficult to defend. Sure women can defend her publicly, privately. I'm not sure enough men could. And by now, if Hillary can't beat Obama in Iowa, don't expect her to win anything much, let alone a general election. Obama v. McCain (maybe Romney)
-So let's get ready. People on the Right go over to your corner, and let's throw hands. I'm ready. Losing in '04 stung, I can't wait to watch Republicans lose. This will go down smoothly. I've said it for some time now, focus on the mid-terms in 2010, if you're on the Right. Your party looks old, and sounds even less relevant.

It's time for the last minute members of the Left to realize that the prudent move here is with Obama. Republicans will not beat us. I promise. Republicans will beat themselves. Look at their party. The Right created a mess in D.C. and now their campaign can be reduced to: We hate that mess in D.C. This is like firefighters starting fires and rushing to put them out. This is a cute strategy guys, but just try not to hurt your chances in 2012. By the way, WE hate that mess in D.C. YOU! YOU'RE THAT MESS WE HATE! The Left has been crying foul for years. That's why we're voting your party out of as many offices {there} as we possibly can.

Eugene Debs '08

Posted by: legan00 | January 7, 2008 12:56 PM | Report abuse

My tried and true "Crystal Ball" is serving me well again these past few days. I made a comment about how the Media would play this as to their past praise of Obama, and wondered if it was possible to play him in an more favorable light, and sure enough nothing but praise. Now we wait until early February for the bubble to bust.

Posted by: lylepink | January 7, 2008 12:39 PM | Report abuse

I don't know if this is true, but The Drudge Report is saying that, facing a big loss in NH, Hillary may drop out soon. Hillary's team does love tipping off Drudge. Here's the report...

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashhn.htm

Posted by: writeava | January 7, 2008 12:05 PM | Report abuse

I'm not sure who I support yet but I find this whole 'surge' thing to be very interesting. I hate to cheapin' things with a comparison to sports but much of the surge sounds like announcers at a sporting event. A few good plays by one team and the color commentator begins to sing the team's praises. That is until the other team starts to do well. In otherwords, whoever has momentum is the greatest. I guess the only difference here is that the comments made don't effect the outcome in a basketball game. The comments in this political spectacle, "Barrac-Star," etc. directly contribute to the momentum. After all, some people, 'fair weather fans' will vote for him just because they think he will win. I think Hillary needs a reverse slam dunk or a couple 3 pointers to reverse the trend.

Posted by: dkelley | January 7, 2008 11:56 AM | Report abuse

JEP7 writes
"That needs some elucidation, how about a column dissecting what you only scratched the surface of here..."

Jep, I think he wrote more on Sat night. Something about leaving the debate, he got two emails, one from Mr Penn trying to spin the latest polls as showing Sen Obama didn't get the 'Iowa bounce'. Of course, he now has egg on his face, as polls are showing a 10+ point lead for Obama. We won't know for 36 hours whether the polls will convert to votes, but my guess is that they will. I'd like to see the next journalist to interview Penn press him on the issue. "Saturday night you sent an email asking 'where's the bounce' - now we see a big lead for Obama in the polls - was your email premature?" Watch him spin while he twists in the wind...

Posted by: bsimon | January 7, 2008 11:44 AM | Report abuse

What Presidential Candidate would you vote for today?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1455

.

Posted by: PollM | January 7, 2008 11:39 AM | Report abuse

Why the "?" in the headline Chris? There are about 10 recent polls all showing a dramatic surge in Obama's numbers. What more do you need to be convinced that Obama is surging?

Posted by: zb95 | January 7, 2008 11:32 AM | Report abuse

"....run counter to the message being pushed by Clinton campaign pollster Mark Penn who issued a memo yesterday asking: "Where's the Bounce?"

That needs some elucidation, how about a column dissecting what you only scratched the surface of here...


Posted by: JEP7 | January 7, 2008 11:24 AM | Report abuse

Lincoln also ran a brilliant campaign for the nomination. He was an incredibly gifted politician. Doris Kearns Goodwin's "Team of Rivals" has an excellent description of the political maneuvering necessary to win the nomination.

Lincoln then applied those same skills in the White House, keeping a fractious coalition together. Lesser men were not able to do so after his death.

BTW, Lincoln won the popular vote for the Senate seat in 1858. But gerrymandered districts kept the State Legislature in Democratic hands, and they voted for Douglas (at the time those were the votes that counted.

Posted by: J | January 7, 2008 11:05 AM | Report abuse

Bob Schrum has an interesting take on Hillary Clinton's problems:

He says that "Hillary [has become] a product whose sell-by date has passed. In a year of change, she has been positioned as the establishment candidate. The relentless appeal to "experience" reinforces that - and too often elides into a dubious attempt to take credit for some of Bill's accomplishments. ......

She can launch an all-out attack on Barack Obama - based on Saturday night's debate, that looks like where her campaign is headed - but what's there to attack that would convert rather than repel primary voters? "

She has certainly done a lot to repel voters. Her appeal to independents is mostly non-existent. Obama is the one candidate who can expand the electorate as evidenced by the number of new voters he brought into the process in Iowa.


You can read Schrum's full article at:

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2008/01/07/2008-01-07_sen_clintons_massive_mistake__and_the_fi.html

Posted by: jimd52 | January 7, 2008 10:59 AM | Report abuse

dedondres writes "I can think of another president that built his reputation in the Illinois state legislature and never served as a US Congressman before becoming president. Interestingly, Obama preaches a similar message: "A house divided against itself cannot stand.""

Actually Lincoln did serve one term in the Congress in the 1840's as an anti-Mexican War Whig. He built his national reputation as a result of his performance in the Lincoln-Douglas debates during his losing Senate campaign in 1858. He then became one of the hottest attractions on the Republican speaking circuit.

Posted by: jimd52 | January 7, 2008 10:52 AM | Report abuse

seed writes
"If Nevada does not turn this tide, we are heading for another McGover, Dukakis disaster..."

Nevada probably won't turn the tide. Then time will tell whether you're right or not. To compare Obama to Dukakis is... inappropriate. Lets stick with that.

Posted by: bsimon | January 7, 2008 10:45 AM | Report abuse

Dellis2
We aren't swayed by Iowa. I think the race gets clarity and focused the last 5 days. Also, with Dodd and Biden dropping out, it gives those supporters time to figure out who to vote for.

I know Bill Richardson supporters have to figure out if they will vote for Bill or if they need to help narrow between Edwards, Clinton or Obama.

Also, last time I checked the "Party of fiscal conservativism" (the GOP) has trashed our budget surplus from 2000 and has put our nation into greater debt than ever imagined. And us "tax and spend liberals" are supporting candidates with sound fiscal policies such as "Pay as you Go."

I am optimistic that we can get past this great partisan divide and get past the old tired rhetoric of tax and spend liberals, etc.
Republicans like Mike Huckabee and to some extent John McCain at least look towards the future.

And that is the key to Obama's message. It is forward thinking towards the future. His message of hope is inspiring. It's what people want to hear.

Posted by: rpinNH | January 7, 2008 10:44 AM | Report abuse

"Apparently they don't splat - they bounce. A tad gruesome, but true."

Oh, man. That complete ruins the song we heard so many times in Airborne School (sung to the tune of "Battle Hymn of the Republic".

To add to the gruesome scene, the relevant line: "He hit the ground, the sound was splat, the blood went spurting high..."

Sorry, I couldn't help myself. I'll stop now.

Posted by: J | January 7, 2008 10:30 AM | Report abuse

SeedofChange (???), more like demonseed. Brave words spoken behind the anonymity of the net and a bogus screen name. You don't offend just Dems, you're just offensive.

Posted by: meldupree | January 7, 2008 10:30 AM | Report abuse

BB:

It is because of the decent people like you, I am a Democrat. Honest and truth is at the core of every Democrat.

But we are tired to loosing. Honesty and truth will not be part of Republican strategy.

If Nevada does not turn this tide, we are heading for another McGover, Dukakis disaster...

Posted by: SeedofChange | January 7, 2008 10:29 AM | Report abuse

(1) Why do "independents" in New Hampshire really like a tax and spend liberal?

(2) Why are Democrats year after year unduly swayed by the undemocratic, non-secret ballot, non 1 man 1 vote Iowa Caucus?

Posted by: Dellis2 | January 7, 2008 10:26 AM | Report abuse

"Shouldn't that be the splat?"

Apparently they don't splat - they bounce. A tad gruesome, but true.

Posted by: bsimon | January 7, 2008 10:19 AM | Report abuse

Re: Seedling of Change

In answer to your question, the substance at question was cocaine, not crack. I've tried MJ several times, that doesn't make me a pothead. Nor does enjoying wine make on an alcoholic.

It's already been revealed that the Moonie allegation of Obama having gone to a madrasa is a lie. It was a secular school in Indonesia. His father was muslim; he's a practicing Christian.

Finally, his given name is Barack. At least you haven't resorted to the infantile distortion of his middle name that some have used.

BB

P.S. I know, I know. I just ignored the "Don't Feed The Troll" sign.

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | January 7, 2008 10:19 AM | Report abuse

This is all very interesting. The big question is if the national polls will shift. Is it possible for HRC to have several second place finishes to Obama and then pull ahead in the big states?

It was interesting watching Obama in the Saturday night debate. I'm reminded of that moment in The Matrix when Morpheus says "He's beginning to believe." I've been supporting HRC, but I have to admit that an Obama win is truly exciting.

Re BSimon: Shouldn't that be the splat? :-)

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | January 7, 2008 10:14 AM | Report abuse

Oh those big bad Republicans...ooooo. The Emperor has no clothes. Dems out caucus'd Repub's 2:1 in Iowa. If I were Republican and supported George Bush and was scammed by the neocon/evangelical slime machine, I would either run back to my pews and pray for forgiveness or vote for Obama. I sure do see a lot of "Proud to be a Republican" t-shirts out there....Not!!!

Posted by: thebobbob | January 7, 2008 10:12 AM | Report abuse

'Crackhead black muslim- which part is incorrect? '

'crackhed' 'muslim' what a disgusting slimeball you are.

'I feel extremely sorry for the Democratic Party at this time'

ROFLOL

FOX is throwing over Rudy for Mitt because Rudy is sinking fast and they are terrified of obama, paul, and huckabee.

Posted by: drindl | January 7, 2008 10:08 AM | Report abuse

To clarify--My post was supposed to include the words "Out with the old, in with the new" at the top.

Posted by: amadeus56 | January 7, 2008 10:08 AM | Report abuse

>


Sorry to say, we thought that about George McGovern in 1972.
All Obama supporters should prepare for a really crushing election day should he be the candidate.
The mainstream majority of voters in this country will not elect a man of such little experience, and such little concrete plans. It takes more than a small percentage of people in Iowa and a small percentage of people in NH to win a national election.
I know of six die-hard Democrats who won't be voting for Mr. Obama. Trust that there are many more such as us who also won't be.
It's all a dream, it's all just flowery words. Many of us are based more strongly in reality.
I feel extremely sorry for the Democratic Party at this time.

Posted by: amadeus56 | January 7, 2008 10:00 AM | Report abuse

Was it just me, or was Fox News All Mitt All the Time last night?

He got the majority of attention pre-debate (favorable), 12 of the first 15 minutes to hit on his best issue (taxes), then all the love post-debate. If CNN had set up Hillary for an entire evening 24 hours before a make-or-break primary, everyone would be howling.

I'm not voting Republican this cycle, so it's not as if I really have a dog in this hunt. I was just surprised at how overt their efforts seemed.

Posted by: starthom | January 7, 2008 9:58 AM | Report abuse

Hussain Obama, McGovern, Dukakis, Mondel, Carter- at least one of them won against a Republican other than Alan Keyes :-)

Crackhead black muslim- which part is incorrect? If it offends any Democrat, they better get ready for it. It will not be just swift boating of a Vietnam hero. It will gutting of an unaccomplished "speech writer"

Posted by: SeedofChange | January 7, 2008 9:57 AM | Report abuse

rdklingus writes
"My concern is the speed of the movement that seems ready to almost elevate him to the Presidency right now, primaries and elections can be cancelled and Obama can pick up the reins of government as soon as George Bush can hand them off to him."


Ironic indeed, as thats been an ongoing criticism of the Clinton campaign. I think you overstate the situation. People are excited over the change in the campaign - particularly those that have been offended by the Clinton campaign's efforts to forestall the nominating process.

Posted by: bsimon | January 7, 2008 9:56 AM | Report abuse

rdklingus,

Mr. Obama is the real deal.

He is shredding the Democratic establishment to pieces and spearheading a changing of the guard.

Out with the old in with the new.

Posted by: rfpiktor | January 7, 2008 9:50 AM | Report abuse

Color me cynical,but the Obama momentum, fueled by a media that seems to have lost its head over a charismatic celebrity candidate, is troubling to me. As a partisan Democrat, if Obama can, in fact,bring independents and some Republicans to vote for him, politically he is the god send savior for the Democratic party. If the post-partisanship that Obama says he represents can actually exist, then obviously the country as a whole will benefit. My concern is the speed of the movement that seems ready to almost elevate him to the Presidency right now, primaries and elections can be cancelled and Obama can pick up the reins of government as soon as George Bush can hand them off to him. My skepticism really is the leap of faith that as a non-believer finds difficulty is accepting a beautiful dreamer god-king. He may well be all that and more, a man for the ages..whatever. Is this it then?

Posted by: rdklingus | January 7, 2008 9:45 AM | Report abuse

If Obama wins the nomination, I think he should choose Mark Warner as his VP. He strengthens Obama's message about working together and has experience at an "executive" level.

Just my two cents.

Posted by: jnoel002 | January 7, 2008 9:44 AM | Report abuse

The technical term for a double parachute failure is:

This-is-not-the-beginning-of-the-end-but-the-end-of-the-beginning-spin

Posted by: rfpiktor | January 7, 2008 9:41 AM | Report abuse

My bad Claudia, I thought you were saying that about Obama. Like College football this is a crazy election, that we may be voting for the same candidate is amaizing seeing how far apart we are in our views. I will vote for Mitt/Rudy/fred over Obama but would vote for Obama over McCain and Huckabee.

Posted by: vbhoomes | January 7, 2008 9:35 AM | Report abuse

bokonon asks
"out of curiosity (if you know), what do skydivers call the moment when the chute opens and free fall ends?"

I don't. The term 'bounce' sticks in the memory a bit more than any of the other terms. If it wasn't clear above, I think its the Clinton campaign that will see the 'bouce' to which I referred...

Posted by: bsimon | January 7, 2008 9:30 AM | Report abuse

OMG, did I just read that the bhoomer is going to vote for Obama over McCain?

I think my head just exploded.

Posted by: elroy1 | January 7, 2008 9:20 AM | Report abuse

One of the reasons the racist Ford ads worked was because he already had a playboy reputation. Obama, however, is just the opposite, so I think that kind of attack would only work on the kind of people who would never vote for a democrat anyway.

Posted by: drindl | January 7, 2008 9:14 AM | Report abuse

Why is there a question mark in the title of the post? In both the polls cited, Obama went up 6% in a short period of time. Therefore, the polls are picking up an Obama surge. That is a fact. The question mark isn't necessary.

Posted by: Blarg | January 7, 2008 9:09 AM | Report abuse

This business about different experience is nonsense. They are both Senators, working side by side for the same party in the same building where they see each other every day, where they keep their offices, eat in the same restaurant, and swim in the same pool. OK, one of them worked for change at the Rose Law Firm and Whitewater 35 years ago.

Posted by: dunnhaupt | January 7, 2008 9:03 AM | Report abuse

Something that should be considered in Obama's win last week is that a number of his (and probably Edwards)delegates were
Richardson supporters who wanted the governor to be their first choice, but the 15% cut wasn't made. This factor will be enhanced when the turn out is very large. If it is double, that means that minor candidates would have had to brought in double the people to keep their deligates in each congressional district. The New Hampshire primary doesn't have this issue so I think we'll see a closer race between Hilary and Obama a weaker Edwards performance and better showing for the Governor. Richardson is still my man and I hope he hangs in there so that I can cast a vote for him in New York State.

WesternNY Geologist

Posted by: prichard | January 7, 2008 9:02 AM | Report abuse

The big mover in TN was the "Call me, Harold" ad, which despicted a young, pretty white woman asking the black batchelor Congressman to give her a call. As adamant as the denials of racism were, it was a pretty despicable ad, but I'd imagine that anything playing to racial fears in one region would be used against the Republican in every other region.

If Obama were to get a single elector in the core states of the south, I'd be surprised, but Republicans play with racial politics at their own peril.

Posted by: poremsbe | January 7, 2008 8:56 AM | Report abuse

'I take it, you will not vote for Obama, '

bhoomes, i was criticizing some jerk who called obama a crackhead black muslim. do you think that's appropriate? it's hard not to respond to that kind of brainless attack on a decent guy. of course i would vote for obama. i could vote for mccain too, were it not for his unfortunate stance on iraq. we can't stay there forever, it's rapidly draining our ability to defend ourselves against real threats.

Posted by: drindl | January 7, 2008 8:48 AM | Report abuse

fyi, junkies

'USAT's new polling data echoes a CNN-WMUR poll, which had a smaller sample size but showed similar trends of a rising Obama and McCain. Also of note from USAT's poll is that Mike Huckabee has 13 percent, compared to Rudy Giuliani's 8 percent, which is the same amount of support that Rep. Ron Paul received.'

guiliani in dead heat with ron paul--teehee!

Posted by: drindl | January 7, 2008 8:42 AM | Report abuse

Drindl you are showing your dark side this morning. I take it, you will not vote for Obama, does that mean you are going to vote for the Republican this year?

Posted by: vbhoomes | January 7, 2008 8:42 AM | Report abuse

Can dull get you elected?

Especially when your chief rival is selling poetry?

Both campaigns have now reduced their themes to single word.

Obama has a sign that says: Hope.

Clinton has a sign that says: Ready.

What do you believe will win New Hampshire's primary vote on Tuesday, Dull Competence or Poetry?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1464

.

Posted by: PollM | January 7, 2008 8:25 AM | Report abuse

I agree, Bloomberg would be a very good VP candidate, for either party actually. Ironic that, Constitutionally, HRC is not allowed to make him her vice.

Posted by: JD | January 7, 2008 8:12 AM | Report abuse

'Crack head black muslim is the ideal candidate for Republicans and Coporate Media. They are trying to ensure that happens. Democrats don't seem to want to win Presidency.'

amazing that a knuckle dragger like this can actually use a computer, isn't it? or perhaps his dog types for him...

Posted by: drindl | January 7, 2008 8:02 AM | Report abuse

I sort of suspect that what's happening is that a lot of people have doubted that Obama is electable, but as they've seen other people who look like them step forward and support Obama, those people are starting to think that maybe he is electable after all.

This really got started with those massive Obama/Oprah rallies where people were likely swayed in Obama's direction as much by the size and makeup of the crowd as who was on the stage. And then the very public demonstration of support that is the Iowa caucus validated and deepened the impression that maybe Obama is electable after all.

If Obama wins by 10+ points in NH, he's unstoppable, and I think we'll see unprecedented turnout in the remaining states. At that point it won't be momentum carrying in, it will be catharsis.

Posted by: novamatt | January 7, 2008 7:42 AM | Report abuse

Goodbye Clintons, don't go away mad, just go away. Hopefully Mitt will win tomorrow, I do not like or trust McCain, if its between McCain and Obama, I'm voting for somebody I like.

Posted by: vbhoomes | January 7, 2008 7:37 AM | Report abuse

Obama=Change=Hope=A Great & Respected America

When such a positive force is on the role, there is no stopping it, not even the Clinton Negativities nor the Repub Swiftboating.

Obama Haters, take a nap, get a clue and join for change


Obama/Biden 08

Posted by: jsu4193k | January 7, 2008 7:28 AM | Report abuse

Three major polls all showing double-digit leads for Obama. Who would have thought it? I think we are witnessing the last throes of the Clinton empire. Thank God.

Posted by: zb95 | January 7, 2008 6:53 AM | Report abuse

The momentum is building rapidly for Obama. A big NH win be huge. Look for Ms Clinton's "superdelegates" to begin abandoning her after NH and SC wins by Obama -- that we will be the sign that she is truly finished.

Posted by: zb95 | January 7, 2008 6:51 AM | Report abuse

"In a new CNN/WMUR poll, Obama leads Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) 39 percent to 29 percent, a major change from the 33 percent tie that the same survey showed yesterday. A new USA Today/Gallup poll confirms the Obama bounce, putting him 13 points ahead of Clinton. A new Franklin Pierce/WBZ survey showed a more modest gain for Obama. He led Clinton 34 percent to 31 percent in the latest poll; four days ago he trailed Clinton 32 percent to 28 percent."

Well atually the two gains that chris has shown are the same arnt they? 33-39 and 28-34. Up six points in both cases. Maybe chris refers to the gallup poll... but he doesnt give the previous scores on that. Just though id point that out. Obama is is up 6 in both. its just that clinton looses more in the CNN/WMUR poll.

Posted by: the_skilled99 | January 7, 2008 6:47 AM | Report abuse

Hussain Obama- Good actor and script writer

Denzel Washington- Better actor, better looking, but not his own script writer. In otherwise, does not write about false hopes.

Democrats should hire Obama to write their speech....

Posted by: SeedofChange | January 7, 2008 6:37 AM | Report abuse

Crack head black muslim is the ideal candidate for Republicans and Coporate Media. They are trying to ensure that happens. Democrats don't seem to want to win Presidency.

Hispanic population in Nevada probably will knock some sense into the bad decision process

Posted by: SeedofChange | January 7, 2008 6:33 AM | Report abuse

Another clintonista-not thought.

Iowa demonstrated that Mrs. Inevitability not only is beatable, she is trounceable.

My pick for Funerals envoy is Edwards.

The two new amigos got along swimmingly last Saturday.

Posted by: rfpiktor | January 7, 2008 6:05 AM | Report abuse

Why, oh why do people keep saying Hillary is our best chance to win back the WH??? Even *two weeks* ago...almost all polls showed Obama doing better against ALL Republican candidates in the general election versus Hillary.

If you haven't noticed, Obama's "positives" have grown just a wee bit over the last two weeks. Let's face it, this was Hillary's election to lose...and she lost it...imo...by following Mark Penn's advice, which is Karl Rovian tactics lite. Bad judgement ONCE AGAIN. Obama/Biden 08 is my suggestion at this point.

Posted by: jaduffy108 | January 7, 2008 5:47 AM | Report abuse

Hillary is, of course, not "evil"--this echoes the worst of Republican strategies--and intends positive change.

The momentum, however, now is clearly with BHO, and he is carrying people with him in a way that we have not seen in presidential politics in recent memory.

When this is combined with a candidate with intellect and charisma, this can lead to genuine change.

Go BHO!

Posted by: caraprado1 | January 7, 2008 5:23 AM | Report abuse

Clintonistas, be afraid, be very afraid of your referendum vote on the Clinton legacy.

Bill Clinton has struggled since he left the White House in 2000 to have a lasting impact on American politics and thereby, in history. Sorta what Reagan actually accomplished with Bush I in '88.

Ozone-Guy was supposed to be such referendum but the voting masses sorta didn't buy that "Had no sexual relations with that woman" expert gambit that didn't quite work so well n'all.

His cottails were of a minor nature so plan B was put into action with Mrs. "35 years of change". The woman is so good, she's going to change "change". It depends what change is, or something.

Bubba moved and shifted and cajoled and work hard n'all.

The fruit of his labors is Iowa '08, N.H. tomorrow and whatnot.

People voting for Clinton are really voting for Bubba's legacy in the American political landscape.

A vote for Clinton is a validation vote for Clinton, the spouse. Sounds like South American magical realism or maybe simply put, Third Worldish elevation by proxy.

Bubba's new, improved, "love me AGAIN, because I say so" gambit is going nowhere.

Something funny happened on the way to the '08 primaries: Gen Xers came of age and are taking over, n'all. Count the ways.

Posted by: rfpiktor | January 7, 2008 5:07 AM | Report abuse

orangemen90,

I have often likened Obama's candidacy to Jimmy Carter, 1976. The difference is that Obama looks presidential now, and he really could be the real thing. Let's hope so.


Free Debs

Posted by: legan00 | January 7, 2008 4:12 AM | Report abuse

I'll lay odds this comes down to Obama versus McCain. I suggest that McCain name Thompson his running mate. And Obama must name a Joe Biden, or a Chris Dodd, someone more seasoned. He needs to somehow neutralize the lack of experience narrative from the Right. Maybe even Bill Bradley, or Mike Bloomberg. Once achieved, Obama walks away with this thing. And he has my vote. Republicans earning less than $250,000 annually, are the most obsequious lot on this earth. NOW THEY DECRY WASHINGTON! Republicans are yesteryear, they will bow out gracefully. Indeed, Republicans always go out in style. Imagine Bob Dole, 1996. McCain is too old to beat Obama. But it's not his fault, his party ought to have nominated him in 2000. Now they want to give him the mess. And he wants it. But with all due respect, I am not voting for McCain. He's charming, straightforward. Yeah, great! That's what politicians should do; charm me, speak earnestly with me. But the reality is that I disagree with John McCain much more than I agree with him. And Obama is my guy, and again if you make less than $250,000 annually, he's yours , too.


Eugene Debs '08

Posted by: legan00 | January 7, 2008 3:53 AM | Report abuse

wp11232 observes:

"Obama because he lacks experience and a mature presence."

** Uhhh, he was right about Iraq when your Goldwater Girl flunked the test. **

"I can't help but suspect he's got some serious skeletons to come out of the closet later in the campaign. His cocaine use is bad enough already."

** Now THAT'S a reason not to vote someone, because of your guess that he's got skeletons. Criminy! Most of this generation has tried drugs, and I respect someone who's honest about it over a "I didn't inhale" or refusal to talk about it(GWB) any day. **

"If Clinton fails I'm not sure where my vote goes. I can't imagine voting for anyone who supports Bush, the war criminal, in his Iraq war."

** You can say that with a straight face after Hillary, who learned nothing from her idiotic Iraq vote, listened to Joe Lieberman say, "we really have to consider military action to stop Iran, perhaps by striking the bases around Tehran" and then she voted YES on the Kyl-Lieberman Iran resolution? (The names alone on that resolution would have been warning enough for any thinking person). **

You sound like the ideal Clintonista. You've obviously given this a lot of thought. *L*

Posted by: BushCrimeFamily | January 7, 2008 3:43 AM | Report abuse

Clinton campaign chief, Mark Penn, whose firm is defending Blackwater mercenaries accused of murder in the Middle East (which makes him the perfect choice to head the Clinton campaign), wonders, "Where's the bounce?"

Sort of reminds you of the outfielder who miss-plays the long ball having it ricochet off his head and over the wall for a home run...and looks about wondering, "Where's the ball?"

Watching the wheels come off the Clintonista bus is the best game in town. Soon they'll be driving down the road with 30-foot flames incinerating the bus while Penn asks Hillary, "Do you smell smoke?"

Posted by: filmex | January 7, 2008 3:26 AM | Report abuse

Amadeus5691,

Hillary, where's the bump?

I have this beefy prediction: Obama wins N.H. by more than 20 points.

Posted by: rfpiktor | January 7, 2008 3:21 AM | Report abuse

Ok, amadeus, being a lifelong Democrat, you're obviously reasonably intelligent. For Obama's legislative accomplishments look at: http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2006/10/barack_obama.html and: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303.html.

For his future plans either read his book or check out his policy proposals which you'll find on his website: http://www.barackobama.com/index.php.

Really, with all the information available, there's no excuse for intelligent people to stay ignorant. Sure there's a lot of hype and overexuberence on the part of many Obama supporters. But that doesn't mean there's no meat on the bone. It's there - believe me. All it takes is a little reading, a little effort on your part to think about the issues a little, and see what Obama's proposing.

Frankly, for me, it's not the issues per se that has attracted me to Obama, but his general approach to government and ability to reach across the aisle and work with his political opponents to get legislation passed. Both opponents and allies have said that when Obama was in the Illinois Senate he listened to those who disagreed, cooperated with Republicans and incorporated other people's suggestions into his legislation. That's the mark of leadership, surely.

Hillary's health plan failed last time because she couldn't get the cooperation of her opponents. She failed last time, and will fail again because half the country hates her. I like Obama's chances at achieving health care reform a whole lot better. Real change. Believe it.

Posted by: mjo1 | January 7, 2008 3:17 AM | Report abuse

My only thought is the Obamba may be a bit like Jimmy Carter.. I really don't want to relive that period....

Posted by: robinhood2 | January 7, 2008 2:10 AM | Report abuse

Barring a major unforeseen event, I don't really think anyone can beat Obama for the Democratic nomination now.

Posted by: jon.morgan.1999 | January 7, 2008 2:10 AM | Report abuse

I am certain that "Obamamania" (is this what our nominating process has been reduced to?!) can succeed in winning him the Dem's nomination. But that will be as far as it goes. He absolutely will not win the general election, so his supporters should ready themselves for the crushing letdown they will experience in November.
I am a lifelong Democrat who will not vote for someone so inexperienced and devoid of any real future plans or prior accomplishments. The words may sound sweet, but I am (thankfully) not so naive as to fall under their spell!
Obama--where's the beef?

Posted by: amadeus56 | January 7, 2008 1:56 AM | Report abuse

If you can't see Obama's momentum on the ground here in NH you're blind...it defenitely has a good chance of holding until the election (perfect weather by the way). And Romney won that debate and McCain better watch out in NH... http://www.enewsreference.wordpress.com

Posted by: nquotes | January 7, 2008 1:53 AM | Report abuse

Hillary needs a visit from Dr.Phil. She needs a reality check. She should know that when people voted for change in Iowa, they voted for people who were running a positive campaign. That is the change they were looking for. Be positive.

Or she should take the advice from the founders of Google. "Don't be evil."

Hillary tried to bring gender into the race, that did not work. She tried to use surrgates to throw some race cards at Obama to see whether he will pick it up. That didn't happen. She used Bob Kerrey to throw some religion into the picture, that did not stick either. She tried to use Sheehan to cast Obama as a pharmacist. That didn't work either.

Hillary just doesn't get it. Now she has gone wild and just like an uneducated teenager who does not listen to anybody, taken it on herself to spread the mud. She is hard at work digging up negatives about Obama. People see right through her. The only person who does not see what she is made of is Hillary herself.

Only when she stops talking about Obama, can she talk to people about what her vision for the country is. Until that time comes she has no time to even think about what 'vision for the future' means.

Let Obama have Oprah. Hillary should visit Dr.Phil. Mark Penn can not help her. Bill Clinton can not help her. The old retired general can not help her. And the demented Madeline Albright can not help her.

Hillary absolutely needs Dr.Phil, if she wants to keep her sanity. Tough times call for tough decisions. A Bill-Penn-Albright detox is what is required for Hillary. Dr.Phil does make house calls and he will be willing to walk alongside of Hillary for a price.

Posted by: JohnMcCormick | January 7, 2008 1:51 AM | Report abuse

The question of electability is not one of race or gender. At least to me it is not. I do not support Obama because he lacks experience and a mature presence. I can't help but suspect he's got some serious skeletons to come out of the closet later in the campaign. His cocaine use is bad enough already. He's not a light-weight like Edwards, but I do find them both of much smaller stature than Clinton. If Clinton fails (and IA and NH are not the last words in the primary process), I'm not sure where my vote goes. I used to like McCain before he sold himself out to Bush, Romney comes across wimpy to me. Huckabee is great to listen to but his religious zeal is offensive. Worse, I can't imagine voting for anyone who supports Bush, the war criminal, in his Iraq war.

Posted by: wp11232 | January 7, 2008 1:15 AM | Report abuse

I think a lot of people were surprised by Obama's showing in Iowa. Iowa is a state synonymous with conservatism these days. The general consensus, amount people I know anyhow, was to elect defensively. That is that while we may have really been intrigued by the thoughts of Obama, surely Hillary had the power to win; not that she didn't have baggage of her own.

What came out of Iowa is a new understanding that perhaps America might just be open to the idea of Obama. Obama proved he can motivate people. Obama proved he can stand the test. I strongly feel Hillary's support early on were people who didn't really like her all that much just didn't like any Republican a lot more. The outcome of the Iowa primary is causing people to second guess their impression on this matter. Perhaps, just perhaps, Obama can pull this thing off.

Posted by: fortheclueless | January 7, 2008 1:02 AM | Report abuse

Often, one hears issues relating to Obama's electability. The subtext is that being Black, southern strategy will be used successfully against him. But this type of mindset is not backed with empirical data.
Now let us look at the Senate election between Harold Ford (D) and Bob Corker (R). Bob Corker won 51% of the votes and Ford won 48% votes. The difference is just 3%. By funding Bob Corker = ($13 mil), Ford = ($9 mil).

Ford lost the election, not because he is black, but for other reasons.
Ford claimed that Corker campaign was attacking his family. Then, for whatever reason, he crashed into Bob Corker's news conference at the Memphis airport in the most juvenile manner. Such behavior is very inappropriate for a candidate seeking Senate office. It was a huge blunder that really embarrassed even his supporters. Ford's action was similar to what Congressman Rick Lazio did by invading Hilary Clinton's space during their New York Senate debate. Lazio's behavior shows him as very insensitive to sexism during that debate. Hilary as would be expected exploited that huge mistake to the max by casting herself as victim of sexism. In this election, she tried to exploit being victim of sexism by claiming that boys were ganging on her but it fell flat on its face.

Posted by: jckckc | January 7, 2008 12:34 AM | Report abuse

jari_t_malinen -

not sure what you refer to - I am a fan of neither Golda Meir nor Thatcher, and at this point am about 90% sure that I will support Obama. I'm glad you agree, though...

Posted by: bokonon13 | January 7, 2008 12:31 AM | Report abuse

Chris,

There is something that has been going on in America for about 3 years now, that the people in Washington are truly missing. Real change. Not a change of party, or steakhouses, nor vodka's. But a change of how our government operates. How they deal with the public. How they deal with foreign governments. How they deal with lobbyists ( I was one for 20 years). The 2006 election gave a real look of what people where thinking but truly the Congressional leaders have been somewhat derailed by this administration and the feeling that status quo may still work. Well it does not. Iowa proved that clearly on both sides of the voting booths last week, yet you still cling to this "grain of salt" in regards to the status quo polling that is out there this evening. YOU STILL DON'T GET IT. (did polling for many years as well and these polls will tell the tale). Your newspaper last Wednesday lead with "Conventional Wisdom" takes a beating (or something in that vain). They see something but you still hold to this myth that the Clinton message will win out and the "indenpendent" voter's of New Hampshire will figure out that Mrs. Clinton has been a leader of change for 35 years and that is also what her experience is (talk about fuzzy math. Well, I would cleary point out that her 7 years in the Senate put her lock step on status quo and her 28 years before that she was a active First Lady, good rainmaker at a regional law firm, a figure-head Chair of a well meaning but little accomplished "Children's" group and other then that, pretty nice but no real change. NEVER EVER.

On your blog you have continued to support the status quo and did not see 2006 happen nor what is going on today. I wrote this same type of comment then and you took your "beating" for about 10 minutes and then went on like you were correct all the time. I DO THINK YOU ARE SMARTER THEN THIS. Well, Mrs. Clinton will be going the way of the Washington Nationals pretty soon and that is first in war, first in peace and last in the Democratic candidates for President. Yes, Sen. Obama is moving his message forward and man, there are ears that hear it loud and clear. What a Democracy. Get on board Chris and stop drinking the bug juice.

Don't worry Terry...there are other battles you will win.

Posted by: EricWhite | January 7, 2008 12:16 AM | Report abuse

Haha sorry for the multiple posts...they weren't showing up before I am not a rabid Obama supporter I am just an intruiged young man.

Posted by: deadondres | January 7, 2008 12:11 AM | Report abuse

I am suprised that Obama refuses to defend himself against charges of inexperience. In many ways it could be a plus. I can think of another president that built his reputation in the Illinois state legislature and never served as a US Congressman before becoming president. Interestingly, Obama preaches a similar message: "A house divided against itself cannot stand."

Posted by: deadondres | January 7, 2008 12:10 AM | Report abuse

I think that Obama will win NH by 10 points and carry that momentum to a 30 point victory in SC. He has broadened the electorate and struck a new tone, now all that is left to see is how the GOP turns to face him. Luckily, he comes from an intellectual background which should limit the strength of the knowledge/experience argument.

Posted by: paulb | January 7, 2008 12:10 AM | Report abuse

I am suprised that Obama refuses to defend himself against charges of inexperience. In many ways it could be a plus. I can think of another president that built his reputation in the Illinois state legislature and never served as a US Congressman before becoming president. Interestingly, Obama preaches a similar message: "A house divided against itself cannot stand."

Posted by: deadondres | January 7, 2008 12:07 AM | Report abuse

I am suprised that Obama refuses to defend himself against charges of inexperience. In many ways it could be a plus. I can think of another president that built his reputation in the Illinois state legislature and never served as a US Congressman before becoming president. Interestingly, Obama preaches a similar message: "A house divided against itself cannot stand."

Posted by: deadondres | January 7, 2008 12:07 AM | Report abuse

@bokonon13: I was in England during the era of the Poll Tax and Birmingham riots, trust me, we don't want a Margaret Thatcher. Golda Meir is neither exactly what we need - unless we think the surge in Iraq is just a modest start to the right direction and Iran should be next.

As a recently naturalized European I feel the U.S. as the wider world most urgently need a more presidential character in the White House. Go Obama!

Posted by: jari_t_malinen | January 7, 2008 12:00 AM | Report abuse

According to Rasmeussen Polls, Obama's numbers =nationally have not had a bump, and actually he has gone down one point since Iowa.

Edwards seemed to have profited, gaining 5 points, and Hillary dropping several points.

If Hillary's deflections go to Edwards and not Obama, then Edwards is the nominee.

Obama may have a ceiling of people who may be willing to roll the dice, and his superior organization of younger people in Iowa may not be duplicated in other larger states.

There may only be so many people who will take a chance on a black person, as a women. Edwards could still be the nominee.

Posted by: river845 | January 6, 2008 11:51 PM | Report abuse

You better not be in the Peddler's Daughter, Chris. That place sucks and is the poorest excuse for an irish pub I've ever seen (worked at).

Nashua Garden has the best beer in town.

Posted by: andyj2287 | January 6, 2008 11:47 PM | Report abuse

It's ridiculous that one state's primary, in which only 10% of its population even participated, can or could have such an effect on our country. Could someone please explain who benefits from the current primary system?

I'm not pro-Clinton, Obama, or any other candidate. I'm a Democrat and still very undecided.

People need to take the responsibility to become informed rather than just follow "momentum", spin or rhetoric.

Posted by: shubhada.hooli | January 6, 2008 11:20 PM | Report abuse

Obama is going tobloe=w Hillary
out of the water

"Come over to the winng side!"
support Barack Obama

2.

Change of Heart

I love John McCain
but he can be too much of
a wise a-s for my taste.
and he mismanaged his campaign funds
over this past summer.

Mitt Romney can pay the bills

He ran a successful business
and America's Business is Business
what's so bad about being a business man anyways?

that's all the change i need!

good luck Mitt Romney in New Hampshire

Posted by: steve_real | January 6, 2008 11:13 PM | Report abuse

Mark Penn is the most inept campaign manager I've ever witnessed in a political campaign before in my life. The guy just doesn't have a clue. And how can you have you pollster be your campaign manager? That just tells you everything you need to know about Hillary, she's running a poll driven campaign which as never worked in American history. I was thinking Hillary was going to lose New Hampshire by like twenty points, but with the way things are going and after her Howard Dean moment at the debate I think she's headed for a thirty point thrashing on tuesday which will pretty much be the end of her campaign even if she drops out or not.

Posted by: lumi21us | January 6, 2008 11:09 PM | Report abuse

I live in Rhode Island but just watched Hillary on a Boston station.

She flatly stated (without naming him) that Obama was NOT electable..

She offered no reason, she just let her suggestion reach its own (racist) conclusion.

As a white, moderate democrat I am repulsed that Hillary Clinton would introduce "race" into the election.

I expected such boorish repulsive remarks to come from a republican. Not from within my own party.

You deserve to be shunned.


Posted by: bobnsri | January 6, 2008 11:03 PM | Report abuse

WAKE UP, NH! WAKE UP, Dems! WAKE UP, America!
If you want the WH, think twice about falling for the euphoria. It may feel good, but it will dissipate oh so quickly when the Reps swing at it. You can bet on it...

Posted by: my | January 6, 2008 10:59 PM | Report abuse

so if two independent states, whose electorates do not influence each other, both decide that Obama is far better than Hillary, what will that mean for her campaign?

Posted by: yiannis | January 6, 2008 10:52 PM | Report abuse

I'm not surprised about the Iowa result although it involves a small, rural state and certainly not at all representative of the entire US, I suspect people have gotton wise to the Clintonesque method of taking positions depending on the constant, daily polling data on each issue trying to be all things to each specific audience. This leads to the inability to do anything even if elected. Great leaders do the right thing no matter the consequences to their own selves. The Clintons are both all about themselves.Kind of strange McCain and Obama saying nice things about each other the last few days.

Posted by: KRittenmyer | January 6, 2008 10:49 PM | Report abuse

FOX News Republican Debate in New Hampshire

Five major Republican candidates appear tonight in Manchester for a Fox News Channel presidential forum. The Fox forum has been criticized for excluding Republicans Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter from the forum.

Who won the FOX Republican Debate in New Hampshire?


http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1463


.

Posted by: PollM | January 6, 2008 10:48 PM | Report abuse

Barack Obama is derfinitely a force to be reckoned with but let us not forget the Harold ford debacle in tennessee,,, the repubs will make mincmeatout oif obama's cocaine use, his ultra liberalism and his fip flops on different issues... not to metion he has 0 % foreign policy experience .... havent we learned that a prez who learns on the job is dangerous... hillay is ready to go ,,like her her not she is the democratic party's best chance to win back the white house... the very best DEM candidate dropped out ..joe biden because he could not compete $$$$ wise with obama and clinton...throw hillary under the train at our peril... obama is too good to be true... where is the beef??? CHange is a mere word and obama is using it ad nauseum... experience triumphs change anyday in my book! think about it new hampshire,, obama is too smug and conceited in my book,,, & his iowa bounce has gone to his head ,, we are not ready to coronate a candidate after on caucus filled with independents coming from a state that is not diverse... how about a change ,, a competent WOMAN in the white house .... margaret thatcher ,,a golda mier perhaps ?

Posted by: delgirl27 | January 6, 2008 10:47 PM | Report abuse

bsimon -

out of curiosity (if you know), what do skydivers call the moment when the chute opens and free fall ends?

Posted by: bokonon13 | January 6, 2008 10:38 PM | Report abuse

welchd writes
"If McCain should end up losing to Romney in NH it will because of independents voting for Obama instead."

It doesn't seem appropriate to treat the NH independents as a monolithic voting bloc. Inedpendents, like anyone else, have their 'pet' issues. For the small gov't, low tax, independents who want a candidate with integrity, they'll probably swing to McCain. The more liberal, younger, 'new kind of politics' types will probably swing to Obama. Me, I'm a hybrid. If I were in NH, I would vote for Obama; but if he weren't in the race, I'd vote for McCain. Unless Biden were still in it, which would make for a tougher choice.

Posted by: bsimon | January 6, 2008 10:33 PM | Report abuse

The McCain campaign has to be sweating bullets over the independents choosing to vote in the Democratic primary--that fact threatens to be keep any margin of victory on the small side. If McCain should end up losing to Romney in NH it will because of independents voting for Obama instead.

Posted by: welchd | January 6, 2008 10:25 PM | Report abuse

"It's important, however, to caution that an abrupt surge in the polls should be taken with a grain of salt. Voters could well have been energized and enthused by Obama's win in Iowa last Thursday night and got swept up in the excitement of the past couple of days of campaigning here, but they may reconsider that support before Tuesday's primary."

Hey Chris? Would you consider letting the Clinton campaign do their own spinning?

Posted by: thechilidragon | January 6, 2008 10:22 PM | Report abuse

"Clinton campaign pollster Mark Penn who issued a memo yesterday asking: "Where's the Bounce[*]?""

Don't worry, Mark, its coming.

* The 'bounce' to which I refer is that used in the skydiving community, in which a bounce is the inevitable result when both chutes fail to open.

Posted by: bsimon | January 6, 2008 10:13 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company