Who will (not should) be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008?

[flere-imsaho]

We're about a month away (or less) from the first primaries, so I thought it might be fun to revisit this.

First, links to the previous (2) threads:

March, 2006 (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=47984)
October, 2007 (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=61325)

Again, it's who will, not who should.

[flere-imsaho]

Although it pains me, as an Obama supporter, to do this, I'm still going to have to go with Hillary, who also won our last two polls in a landslide. Obama's definitely surged in the past couple of months, but it still looks like Hillary's to lose. At this point she probably needs a Dean-like meltdown for Obama or Edwards to sneak in. I don't think any other Democratic candidate has a hope of getting the nomination.

[JPhillips]

I'll probably be wrong, but I think Obama is going to get Iowa and finish a very close second in NH. From there things will start to break his way especially after Edwards drops out.

[albionmoonlight]

Hillary. Machine candidates are very hard to beat.

She also will have the support of Republicans, who know that she is the easiest to beat in the general election. In a close race, that kind of media support is hard to discount.

[ISiddiqui]

She also will have the support of Republicans, who think that she is the easiest to beat in the general election. In a close race, that kind of media support is hard to discount.

Fixed.

I think once the Republican nominee goes toe to toe with Hillary, they'll find that thinking was wrong.

[albionmoonlight]

Fixed.

I think once the Republican nominee goes toe to toe with Hillary, they'll find that thinking was wrong.

Fair enough.

My personal dislike of Hillary winning shown through there.

[flere-imsaho]

I think once the Republican nominee goes toe to toe with Hillary, they'll find that thinking was wrong.

I continue to agree with this.

Hillary vs. Huckabee = Huckabee's "Willie Horton" moment getting full press, and, eventually, a lot of the secularist "center" going with Hillary over Huckabee. I wonder if Huckabee will suffer in the general election by wearing his faith so openly on his sleeve like Bush (and his low approval rating) does. Remember, when things aren't going well, the electorate just likes change, and Huckabee doesn't seem, to me, to be much of a change from Bush.

Hillary vs. Romney = The Clinton campaign doing to Romney what the Bush campaign did to Kerry, starting with the flip-flopping. The evangelical "base" still hasn't made up their mind about him, and a lot of the centrists don't trust him. If the Clinton campaign keeps pushing a message of "Remember 1995-2000", it'll be very tough for Romney.

Hillary vs. Giuliani = Lowest % turnout in general election history. Half the Democrats stay home and all of the Republicans do (except those who turn out to write in Ron Paul). The Giuliani campaign starts to die on the 9/11 anniversary when he's savaged by the NYPD & NYFD and then the election as a whole dies out completely in October when the Giuliani campaign crumples under the nonstop unearthing of scandals by the New York tabloid press.

McCain could probably beat Hillary, but only if his campaign gets a lot more professional & rich, a lot faster.

[JPhillips]

Huckabee's more likable than Hillary and would beat her.

[Big Fo]

Obama. He will win Iowa and ride the resulting momentum to the nomination as Democrats across the country slowly realize they just don't like Hillary Clinton all that much and that her nomination is the one thing that could possibly galvanize a reeling Republican Party. [wishful thinking/]

[Noop]

America will not elect a black man or a woman. I don't think we're ready for that yet.

[Jas_lov]

It's over. Hillary will win and she will be our next President, God help us all. A pro war Republican has no chance against a Democrat in this election, even Hillary. People don't want another George W. Bush. McCain is a washed up version of himself in 2000, Romney is the only person who flip flops more than Hillary, Huckabee is an economic liberal and an ultra social conservative who would scare away too many people, and Giuliani is an authoritarian war monger. Whoever is elected from this bunch, get ready for more of the same old crap!

[mrsimperless]

Obama. He will win Iowa and ride the resulting momentum to the nomination as Democrats across the country slowly realize they just don't like Hillary Clinton all that much and that her nomination is the one thing that could possibly galvanize a reeling Republican Party. [wishful thinking/]

Agree 100%

The ONLY way a republican gets back into office in 08 is if Hillary wins the democratic nomination.

[ISiddiqui]

I continue to agree with this.

Hillary vs. Huckabee = Huckabee's "Willie Horton" moment getting full press, and, eventually, a lot of the secularist "center" going with Hillary over Huckabee. I wonder if Huckabee will suffer in the general election by wearing his faith so openly on his sleeve like Bush (and his low approval rating) does. Remember, when things aren't going well, the electorate just likes change, and Huckabee doesn't seem, to me, to be much of a change from Bush.

Hillary vs. Romney = The Clinton campaign doing to Romney what the Bush campaign did to Kerry, starting with the flip-flopping. The evangelical "base" still hasn't made up their mind about him, and a lot of the centrists don't trust him. If the Clinton campaign keeps pushing a message of "Remember 1995-2000", it'll be very tough for Romney.

Hillary vs. Giuliani = Lowest % turnout in general election history. Half the Democrats stay home and all of the Republicans do (except those who turn out to write in Ron Paul). The Giuliani campaign starts to die on the 9/11 anniversary when he's savaged by the NYPD & NYFD and then the election as a whole dies out completely in October when the Giuliani campaign crumples under the nonstop unearthing of scandals by the New York tabloid press.

McCain could probably beat Hillary, but only if his campaign gets a lot more professional & rich, a lot faster.

Yep. It amuses me how people seem to forget that Hillary Clinton was the main advisor to that other Clinton who absolutely schooled the Republicans for most of his administration (the first two years were a mess, but once he settled in, he whipped them). It's like they think that Hillary has no idea what she's doing.

She's already completely transformed her image from first lady to Senator. Why do they think she won't be able to adapt deftly in a Presidential campaign?

[st.cronin]

Probably the right way to think about this is to look at candidates other than Obama and Clinton and try to guess who they would back if they felt they had to give up. I believe Richardson would back Clinton, but I don't think he has a lot of support. Would the other candidates flock to one of those two, or would they consolidate behind somebody else (like Dodd, maybe, who I think would be a very strong GE player).

I don't know the answer.

[timmynausea]

I basically think it's a toss-up between Clinton and Obama. Whoever gets the early momentum will steamroll right through.

[Groundhog]

Didn't Oprah come out and back Obama? That should swing about 10 million female voters, surely...

[timmynausea]

I should add that I basically don't have a vote in this matter. The DNC decided to punish the Michigan Democratic Party for making its primary too early (Jan. 15) by making it so the state can't send any delegates to the convention. Florida was given the same punishment.

I can't speak for Florida, but the candidates all agreed to not even campaign here, and several big names (Edwards and Obama among others) won't be on the ballot. Their supporters are urged to vote "uncommitted" in hopes that our delegates can be "free agents" at the convention. So if I was a Hillary supporter my vote would go for her in the primary and there'd be no representation at the convention if she won. If I was an Obama supporter my vote would go toward freeing up Michigan delegates to vote for anyone at the convention. So essentially I get to vote for either no one or anyone, in terms of its impact in the convention. Awesome.

Not only does this discourage loads of people from actually taking interest and participating, but I really don't understand how not campaigning in two crucial swing states makes any sense for the party whatsoever.

[ISiddiqui]

IIRC, the Republicans are also punishing Michigan and Florida, so it'll be wash as far as not campaigning in a crucial swing state.

[JPhillips]

Don't worry, whichever candidate wins will reinstate all your delegates for the convention.

On the Oprah thing I was listening to a story tonight that said every person at the Oprah events gave contact info to the Obama campaign. In SC two thirds of the attendees were new to Obama's list. Oprah could end up being the difference.

[timmynausea]

IIRC, the Republicans are also punishing Michigan and Florida, so it'll be wash as far as not campaigning in a crucial swing state.

Democratic boycott could benefit Republican nominee (http://www.theoaklandpress.com/stories/121007/opi_20071210148.shtml)

I can't figure out what (if any) punishment has come down from the RNC, but according to this article, all the Republican nominees will be on the ballot in Michigan, and "a number of the front runners are expected to campaign in the state."

[Greyroofoo]

IIRC, the Republicans are also punishing Michigan and Florida, so it'll be wash as far as not campaigning in a crucial swing state.

Republicans didn't punish as hard as the Democrats did. As a voter in Michigan, I was leaning towards voting for the Democratic candidate in the general. However right now I will NOT be voting for any Democrat. So right now I'm leaning heavily towards voting Independent, will leaving my options open for the Republican candidate.

[ISiddiqui]

Democratic boycott could benefit Republican nominee (http://www.theoaklandpress.com/stories/121007/opi_20071210148.shtml)

I can't figure out what (if any) punishment has come down from the RNC, but according to this article, all the Republican nominees will be on the ballot in Michigan, and "a number of the front runners are expected to campaign in the state."

I believe the Republicans are docking half the delegates or something like that, but everyone is still on the ballot.

I love how offended that article is. Heaven forbid if the parties want to run their nominating process themselves!!!

[timmynausea]

I love how offended that article is. Heaven forbid if the parties want to run their nominating process themselves!!!

It wasn't that long ago that Democrats were getting all high and mighty about voter disenfranchisement. Now they're taking away my vote in the primary process to punish the state party. I guess it's about equal parts offensive and just plain dumb.

But I don't mean to get the thread so far off track, so I'll leave it at that.

[Warhammer]

Fixed.

I think once the Republican nominee goes toe to toe with Hillary, they'll find that thinking was wrong.

I really disagree. I think the one thing that could really get the right fired up about this election is if Hillary gets the nod. If the Democrats want to win, they should nominate either Edwards or Obama. That would be a landslide. Hillary will be more the same of the last two elections.

[Buccaneer]

One cannot argue with someone so biased as Squiddy in his support for Hillary. Everything, in debating the election, is filtered through that.

[Greyroofoo]

I believe the Republicans are docking half the delegates or something like that, but everyone is still on the ballot.

I love how offended that article is. Heaven forbid if the parties want to run their nominating process themselves!!!

They can run it however they like. However if they don't want to include me in the process they aren't getting my vote in the general election.

[korme]

Kucinich ftw

[larrymcg421]

I really disagree. I think the one thing that could really get the right fired up about this election is if Hillary gets the nod. If the Democrats want to win, they should nominate either Edwards or Obama. That would be a landslide. Hillary will be more the same of the last two elections.

Notreally. What kiled the Democats in the last two elections is the failure to respond. Hillary won't fall for that trap. If they attack her, they better be ready for the same tenfold.

Also, there isn't a single poll that supports this notion that Hillary is an obvious loser against anyone in a heads up matchup.

[ISiddiqui]

It wasn't that long ago that Democrats were getting all high and mighty about voter disenfranchisement. Now they're taking away my vote in the primary process to punish the state party. I guess it's about equal parts offensive and just plain dumb.

But I don't mean to get the thread so far off track, so I'll leave it at that.

Of course they could not do anything and in 20 years we'll have the primary, January 1st... of the PREVIOUS year to the election. Where does it exactly stop? Blame the greedy ass state parties.

As for "bias", Bucc. I can easily say the same thing for those biased against Hillary.

[ISiddiqui]

I really disagree. I think the one thing that could really get the right fired up about this election is if Hillary gets the nod. If the Democrats want to win, they should nominate either Edwards or Obama. That would be a landslide. Hillary will be more the same of the last two elections.

As larrymcg alluded to, Hillary's willingness to fight back and not be a Gore-like or Kerry-like punching bag may actually get the LEFT fired up about this election.

Edwards has gone ridiculously populist and can't even win his own state, while Obama is a black man which hardly any record.

[Buccaneer]

Those that are living by the polls still cannot ignore Hillary's very high unfavorable ratings and despite having been a clear frontrunner, she could only manage to be statistically even with some of the Reps.

[ISiddiqui]

Those that are living by the polls still cannot ignore Hillary's very high unfavorable ratings and despite having been a clear frontrunner, she could only manage to be statistically even with some of the Reps.

The New York Republican Party also thought those high unfavorable ratings would lead to an easy defeat for her. Woe be the candidate that underestimates Hillary. Remember she was the primary advisor to the President who went from the debacle of the 1994 midterm election to the the landslide of 1996.

[Buccaneer]

I truly think Dole had something to do with that. ;)

[timmynausea]

Of course they could not do anything and in 20 years we'll have the primary, January 1st... of the PREVIOUS year to the election. Where does it exactly stop? Blame the greedy ass state parties.


There's a slippery slope. And I've never said they shouldn't do anything about it. In my opinion they should come up with a fair system like a lottery that decides the order or something rather than Iowa and New Hampshire going first for no good reason. That's beside the point, though, as I'm sure they could've come up with a short term solution that didn't involve Michigan and Florida voters being left out entirely.

[ISiddiqui]

I truly think Dole had something to do with that. ;)

Perhaps... but Clinton made Dole seem like a doddering old man, when Dole was anything but the sort. There is a reason Clinton is considered such a great "politician". His team played the game beautifully.

[larrymcg421]

Those that are living by the polls still cannot ignore Hillary's very high unfavorable ratings and despite having been a clear frontrunner, she could only manage to be statistically even with some of the Reps.

Those same polls that show her with high unfavorables also show her winning head to head matchups. If anything, that tells me the high unfavorable ratings won't hurt her. I posted a comparison poll in another thread that showed only 44% planned to vote against her. That's essentially the same % as for Edwards and Obama. However, the % of people that plan to vote for Hillary is higher than any other candidate in both parties.

[Buccaneer]

I do not see that (according to Rasmussen). She is still at 55%, 10 points higher than Edwards and her favorable is lower than Obama and Edwards.

[flere-imsaho]

Those that are living by the polls still cannot ignore Hillary's very high unfavorable ratings and despite having been a clear frontrunner, she could only manage to be statistically even with some of the Reps.

Bucc, you can't argue against us by saying polls are bunk in one post and then argue against us by quoting polls in another post! ;)

Anyway, I think it bears reminding that most of the Republican front-runners have unhealthy unfavorables as well.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I am in the same boat with the other Michigan voters. I plan to vote for Ron Paul in the Republican primary. I would have voted for Obama, but I wont get that chance.

That said, unlike Greyroo, there is no way in hell I am turning my back on the Democratic party in a general election. I will not allow my vote to be wasted. Not after the crap we've had to suffer through over the last 8 years...

I have to agree with those that feel Hillary could struggle in a general election. She's a polarizing force and will motivate the Republican base to get out and vote against her and I think she'll turn off a number of swing voters as well.

[st.cronin]

Is it officially too late for Al Gore to get in the race?

[larrymcg421]

I do not see that (according to Rasmussen). She is still at 55%, 10 points higher than Edwards and her favorable is lower than Obama and Edwards.

The mistake is in assuming that unfavorables will automatically vote against. There are probably alot of Democrats that hate Hillary, but they sure ain't voting for Huckabee. Furthermore, the Dem base will be mobilized byt he GOP attacks on Hillary. She was at her highest historical rating after the Lewinsky affair. The negative GOP attacks could backfire.

Here's a Rasmussen poll I posted earlier. It measures the people committed to Voting For/Voting Against a candidate:

Clinton 32/44
Obama 23/44
Edwards 22/41

[st.cronin]

She was at her highest historical rating after the Lewinsky affair.

What a bizarre point to make. How could that possibly have any significance to either the primaries or the GE?

[larrymcg421]

What a bizarre point to make. How could that possibly have any significance to either the primaries or the GE?

I'm talking about how she was seen as a victim. If the GOP comes out with guns blazing, she can play off that same perception once again.

Regardless, this perceived polarization that Hillary has is completely invisible. It hasn't been measured by any poll. The same polls that show her with high unfavorables also show her still winning head to head matchups.

[st.cronin]

I think its a lot easier to look like a victim as a first lady than as a Presidential candidate.

[larrymcg421]

I think its a lot easier to look like a victim as a first lady than as a Presidential candidate.

She's always been seen as a Presidential candidate.

[st.cronin]

She's always been seen as a Presidential candidate.

You think she was seen as a Presidential candidate during Blowjobgate? :confused:

[larrymcg421]

I think she was seen as a Presidential candidate since 1992.

[ISiddiqui]

Regardless, I think by 1998 most people had figured that she was going to run for Senate, at the very least.

[Bee]

I think Edwards has a legitimate shot. The election is still far enough away that Obama and Clinton could destroy each other in the press and voters will look for a third option which right now seems to be Edwards. When you look back at history it's pretty common for the early front runners to get knocked off before the end since everyone is gunning for them. That might not happen this time, but I do think it's a possibility and Edwards seems to me to be the most likely to benefit from that.

[Butter]

I would much prefer an Edwards candidacy to Hillary or Obama. Honestly, I think Obama may be preparing to turn the corner and rally in the early states, then start winning the southern Black Democrat votes that he'll need to take to the convention. I voted for Edwards last time in the primary and will do it again even if he looks like a sure loser.

[chesapeake]

I think Hillary remains the favorite, but Obama is closing on her. The one thing keeping Edwards alive in my mind is that the turnout in IA caucuses is generally pathetic -- 11 percent of eligible voters in 2004 which was a big year. Since a lot of Edwards voters jave attended caucuses before and thus are more "reliable" caucus-goers, I think that is an advantage.

I read that a lot of Obama's support in IA comes from younger voters. Younger voters are notoriously unreliable. See entries for Kerry, John and Gore, Albert for further information.

[Big Fo]

I came across this great post the other day on a different messageboard regarding why Hillary Clinton is so unpopular, it pretty much sums up why I'm worried about her chances in a general election should she win the nomination.


hated by stay at home moms for her "I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas, but what I decided to do was to fulfill my profession which I entered before my husband was in public life." quote

hated by anti-war advocates for voting for iwr and refusing to apologize for the vote.

hated by men for constantly playing the gender card.

hated by people for carpetbagging from chicago to arkansas to new york.

hated by people for her two biggest achievements prior to 1992 was as the wife of the governor and being hired at a law firm at her husband's request.

hated by people concerned about healthcare because hillarycare was such a cluster**** that it stifled debate on healthcare reform for more than a decade.

hated by people who hate her james carville/paul begala/howard wolfson/mark penn political machine.

hated by people who hate people who take large campaign donations from rupert murdoch and fox news vps.

hated by people who would like to hear a position before that position has been exhaustively polled.

progressives hate her. independents hate her. republicans hate her. what she has is the absolute middle and middle-right of the democratic party, make up mostly of soccer moms and people who voted "electability" and "gravitas" candidates like john kerry.


This is why I'm hoping that somebody defeats her for the nomination, and I'm starting to think it might actually happen.

[Buccaneer]

Bucc, you can't argue against us by saying polls are bunk in one post and then argue against us by quoting polls in another post! ;)

Anyway, I think it bears reminding that most of the Republican front-runners have unhealthy unfavorables as well.

That's the point. Some point to specific polls to back up their arguments while ignoring other specific polls because it doesn't make their arguments.

[Groundhog]

Through my work I have the opportunity to meet many interesting people. One such person had worked in various capacities with a lot of big name US politicians and presidents. Over drinks we were getting the down and dirty on a lot of the presidents in particular. He had nothing but good things to say about the Bush family (as people he had to work for, not as politicians), said Bill Clinton was 'OK, for a politician', and when someone asked him for his opinion on Hillary, he described her as 'the single worst human being [he] ever had the displeasure of meeting', and gave more than enough examples to prove his point.

Though I don't tend to think it really matters all that much who becomes the next president, as an outsider I think I'd rather see Obama than anyone else.

[Abe Sargent]

I think Hillary will win the nomiantion and the general, and I am saying this as the resident Political Science professor who specializes in things like elections (and legislative politics).

Remember, this just happened in Argentina, when Cristina Fernández de Kirchner was elected after her husband left office. Going from First Lady to President is an event that has already been charted in recent electoral politics. You think the Clinton campaign didn't carefully review the Kirchner campaign to see how to make a former First Lady into a realistic, winning candidate?

Elizabeth Dole ran as a republican in 2000 as well. This stuff happens. America is ready for a woman president. She will get just as many votes because she is a woman as she gets against her for the same reason. (This same phenomenon has been observed in gubanatorial elections arpund the country. For example, I present West Virgina Charlotte Pritt where studies show that auto votes for and against cancelled each other. OIther studies show similar trends)

You think there won;t be Republican women jumping the fence to vote for her? You think there won;t be Democrat voters jumping to vote for a non-woman the Repubs nominate? Of course it will happen, and America is ready.

What America is NOT ready for is a non-White President. Polling data nationally on non-White candidates is rough.

-Abe

[Schmidty]

Who the fuck cares?

http://looris.net/Mastollo/images/8/82/Cthulhu_2008.jpeg

[Buccaneer]

Nearly everyone, including experts and specialists, still can filter opinions and thoughts through a bias or perception, esp. if they personally desire to see a particular outcome (whether for or anti).

Personally, here are my desired outcomes:

1. I strongly wish for a libertarian-minded Executive AND a libertarian-majority Legislature.

2. Knowing that appears to be an impossibility since too many are stuck in the narrow red/blue spectrum, the next highest desirable outcome would be to have a gridlock Executive/Legislature. Having a Democratic Executive on top of a Democratic Legislature would be the worst outcome possible (just as a Rep Exec/Leg would be as well).

3. If it was possible to have a Rep Legislature, then a Dem president would be ok (unless he/she becomes stupid about military/intelligence/security). The same holds true that if a Rep would be in Executive, then I would wish for the current Legislatures to remain.

[Abe Sargent]

More Parrallels between Kirchner and Clinton:

Kirchner was a Senator from 1995 to 1997, then from 2001 to 2003 when her husband was elected President and she became First Lady. She was a member of the lower house (Chamber of Deputies)from 1997 to 2001. She was a lawyer for years before that. So was Clinton, although Clinton went from First Lady to Senator, Kirchner went from Senator to First lady.

To be fair, Kirchner is well loved, winning with one of the biggest margins in Argentinian history. She's also highly respected as a capable and intelligent woman. However, she blazed a trail that Clinton could easily follow.


EDIT: Another difference, and this is key, is that Nestor Kirchner was a very popular sitting President while Clinton was popular in some areas (economy) but not in others and he had notoriously soft high ratings.

[Abe Sargent]

Nearly everyone, including experts and specialists, still can filter opinions and thoughts through a bias or perception, esp. if they personally desire to see a particular outcome (whether for or anti).

Personally, here are my desired outcomes:

1. I strongly wish for a libertarian-minded Executive AND a libertarian-majority Legislature.

2. Knowing that appears to be an impossibility since too many are stuck in the narrow red/blue spectrum, the next highest desirable outcome would be to have a gridlock Executive/Legislature. Having a Democratic Executive on top of a Democratic Legislature would be the worst outcome possible (just as a Rep Exec/Leg would be as well).

3. If it was possible to have a Rep Legislature, then a Dem president would be ok (unless he/she becomes stupid about military/intelligence/security). The same holds true that if a Rep would be in Executive, then I would wish for the current Legislatures to remain.

My own bias is to see Ron Paul President, but that doesn't stop me from reading the tea leaves for Clinton, who I don't like at all.

[JPhillips]

It's not because people are stuck in a red/blue spectrum, Buc. The overwhelming majority of people don't agree with Libertarian policies.

[Abe Sargent]

It's not because people are stuck in a red/blue spectrum, Buc. The overwhelming majority of people don't agree with Libertarian policies.

I call bullshit.

[Schmidty]

It's not because people are stuck in a red/blue spectrum, Buc. The overwhelming majority of people don't agree with Libertarian policies.

That might be true, but I don't think think that that means that they still aren't stuck in a red/blue spectrum. I think that spectrum is comfortable for the vast majority of the intellectually lazy, short-sighted people that make up the voting public. And a lot of FOFC.

Not only that, I also don't think they even know why they disagree with liberatarian politics.

The world, and specifically the US, is becoming real-life sequel of "They Live".

[st.cronin]

It is possible to be attracted to libertarian principles and still disagree with libertarian policies.

[Groundhog]

It is possible to be attracted to libertarian principles and still disagree with libertarian policies.

That's pretty much how I feel about "democracy".

[Buccaneer]

It's not because people are stuck in a red/blue spectrum, Buc. The overwhelming majority of people don't understand libertarianism and can only react to ignorant sound bites.

Fixed.

Your sig is apt.

[Buccaneer]

That might be true, but I don't think think that that means that they still aren't stuck in a red/blue spectrum. I think that spectrum is comfortable for the vast majority of the intellectually lazy, short-sighted people that make up the voting public. And a lot of FOFC.

Not only that, I also don't think they even know why they disagree with liberatarian politics.

The world, and specifically the US, is becoming real-life sequel of "They Live".

Well put.

[JPhillips]

I won't argue with the merits of libertarianism, that's for a different day, but you're just plain nuts if you think eliminating Social Security/Medicare, federal education spending, agricultural subsidies, arts funding, etc. are positions that have anything but minimal support. And a true Libertarian, ala Paul, is going to drastically cut military spending and pull troops home from all parts of the globe.

I don't care whether you support Libertarian policies, but at be honest enough to realize that the majority of the country doesn't like what would happen if a true Libertarian were in charge. What's Paul polling now? Answer = 3%.

[Buccaneer]

You, like most others, are still confusing Libertarian (big "L") and libertarianism (small "l"). One is a political party, which I do not believe in (or any political parties to be clear), while the other is a way of thinking. There have been many libertarian-minded politicians, including in Congress, that said the emperor has no clothes.

But I believe you are wrong in voter's views of libertarianism. Most knowledgeable voters will decry the wastefulness of taxpayer's dollars, whether building a bridge to nowhere to corruption in nation-building to many excesses we have seen to expanding the powers of the federal govt in the name of security. We used to have a Golden Fleece Award to highlight such things.

The key is to reverse the trend. It would be silly to think of wholesale eliminations or drastic changes but all we are promoting is to ask the right questions, question the unwritten rules and to not build more on top of too much. Those are things that all can accept unless you really do favor more socialism in your federal govt.

[JPhillips]

But cutting wasteful spending isn't the end all of libertarianism. Hell, I'd agree with most of the pork you want to cut and could probably add billions to the list. That sort of pain free cutting of the budget does have a lot of support.

However, you know as well as I do that the goal of big L or small l libertarians is to radically cut the size of government. Right now that's simply wildly unpopular. Paul's a bit of a phenomenon, but it's highly unlikely that he could even command a quarter of the population to say they support him and if he gets a fifth of that to vote for him I'll be surprised.

You may be right that over time you can persuade people, but my point is that currently there is almost no support for the big goals of libertarianism. To argue that point seems asinine.

[Buccaneer]

Would this be a fair, albeit general, question to ask?

When it comes to fiscal issues such as taxes, government spending, and business regulation, are you politically conservative, moderate, or liberal?

[flere-imsaho]

When it comes to fiscal issues such as taxes, government spending, and business regulation, are you politically conservative, moderate, or liberal?

With regard to fiscal issues, what do these labels even mean anymore?

[JPhillips]

Taxes and government spending probably moderate with business regulation probably liberal. Although I'd argue that the level of regulation I'd be happy with is only liberal because the country has moved to a more conservative position. During a large portion of the twentieth century I'd be a fairly clear moderate in business regulation.

I don't, however, see the point of the question. Regardless of my own views, the national popularity of the larger goals of libertarianism is currently very small. Can you really argue that? If so, show me some proof that big chunks of the country want a government the size Paul is advocating.

[Abe Sargent]

With regard to fiscal issues, what do these labels even mean anymore?

As a Republican, I feel betrayed by GWB and the Congresses of the 2000s for pulling this fiscal crap. We were the party of fiscal responsibility, and for all of his faults, you'd never see leadership under Newt pull this pork spending spree crap.

[Buccaneer]

Something simple from Cato

One of the questions was an old standby: “Generally speaking, would you say you favor smaller government with fewer services, or larger government with more services?” Smaller government won by 50 to 44 percent, but the Post noted that that was a much smaller margin than previous surveys had shown, indicating the damage the Bush administration and the congressional Republicans have done to the “smaller government” brand.

There is also the trend that there is an increasing movement this year towards independent voters away from Rep or Dem. Part of the disillusionment that needs to be kept up.

Those don't answer your question because saying "country want a government the size Pail is advocating" is a straw man. One has to be a voice from that end in order just to get people thinking differently.

[JPhillips]

You're basically arguing what I'm saying. Currently there is, in business terms, little market for the libertarian brand. Maybe you're right and five or ten or whatever years down the road things will change. That has nothing to do with my post, though. You said people don't vote libertarian because of the red/blue spectrum and I said they don't vote libertarian because they don't like the policies. You just said, in effect, the same thing.

Those don't answer your question because saying "country want a government the size Pail is advocating" is a straw man. One has to be a voice from that end in order just to get people thinking differently.

[Jas_lov]

As a Republican, I feel betrayed by GWB and the Congresses of the 2000s for pulling this fiscal crap. We were the party of fiscal responsibility, and for all of his faults, you'd never see leadership under Newt pull this pork spending spree crap.

Exactly. The Republican Party is in shambles and that's why they are going down next year. They've turned into big government war mongers, and the only one running against that is Ron Paul so it is a perfect climate for him to run with conservatives pissed at the neo-conservative Bush Administration. There also might be some Democrats upset with Congress about the war and civil liberties who switch to Paul. He actually has a better record on those two issue than all Democrats running except Kucinich. I'll be voting for Paul in the Iowa caucus and I won't vote for any other candidate currently running, but overall I think it'll be tough for him to gain a lot of traction because people like the government taking care of them. Although, the Iowa Independent predicts a 3rd place for him in Iowa, and he's gonna have a ton of money to spend. Not sure if he can pull this off, but I'm really interested to see how he does in Iowa, a state that you wouldn't think he'd fair too well.

[Buccaneer]

How do we get there five to ten years down the road when 1) all we hear in the media is the polar opposites red/blue myth and 2) certain popular candidates exposing a much greater expansion federal govt through "national [fill-in-the-blank]" and "War on [fill-in-the-blank]" and 3) people are not willing to learn what liberty means and how it applies to local, state and federal governmental roles? People ignore or mockingly cast dispersions on libertarianism out of self-interest, playing anti-X politics and flocking to herd mentalities. We can get there five to ten years from now IF we stop supporting those advocating the opposite of libertarianism.

[JPhillips]

So if we all become libertarians we'll be libertarians?

The problem is that people don't agree with libertarian policies. I'm sure herd mentality plays a small role, but the bigger problem is the larger goals of libertarianism aren't popular. I'm not mocking libertarianism, I just don't think very many people want to vote that way.

I'm a liberal, but there's a lot of social libertarianism I agree with and a lot of spending I'd cut out of the government. However, my problem with ideas like Paul's is that I honestly don't think they're the best ideas for the country. I'm sure you disagree, and that's fine, but don't act as if everyone who thinks different than you is some mind-slave of the political elite.

[Cringer]

When I was 18 I would have voted Democrat. Shortly after that I found both parties suck balls and are crap IMO.

I lean much more towards libertarian views now. Having lame government regulation screw with me/my industry for almost 10 years now may have something to do with that.

[Butter]

But I believe you are wrong in voter's views of libertarianism. Most knowledgeable voters will decry the wastefulness of taxpayer's dollars...

But they will cry far worse when you try to take the benefit of those tax dollars away from people, either through cutting direct subsidies or cutting services. In theory, smaller government is wildly popular. In practice, it is wildly unpopular.

[ISiddiqui]

So if we all become libertarians we'll be libertarians?

LOL, basically ;). That's kind of what I'm getting from Buc's posts. If we all decide to become libertarian minded, then we'll be libertarians ;).

Most people just don't share the libertarian point of view. They think a few things (like eliminating government waste) are good, but others, going farther, (like eliminating the Department of Labor) not so good. Problem for libertarians is that just going on the surface (ie, cutting government waste but keeping most of the bureaucracy) isn't going to fly. And the American people won't want to go much further.

[Raiders Army]

I think she was seen as a Presidential candidate since 1992.

For real?

[Honolulu_Blue]

Who the fuck cares?

http://looris.net/Mastollo/images/8/82/Cthulhu_2008.jpeg

Now that's what I'm talkin' about!

Well put.

[Buccaneer]

So if we all become libertarians we'll be libertarians?


Actually, yes. Here's the vision. The big fallacy that the Libertarian Party has been making, as well as what liberals attack, is that such policies cannot and should not be implemented top-down. In other words, you do not make wholesale changes at the federal level and then let the chips fall where they may. The implementation must start at the grassroots levels (starting at a personal level), then working its way up. That, in turn, will allow for me accountability and resources available at a more local (however you want to define local) level. Consequently, more taxation would have to occur at the local level to fund the added (i.e., constitutional) mandates. It would be the hope that as more is taken care at the level where it can do more good, the less reliance (and taxation) would be needed at the federal level. The courts get involved in enforcing the constitutional federal limits of power. This vision also implies strong non-governmental entities to do what they have been charted to do. This means churches, ministries and other charitable agencies doing for themselves and more for their communities and spheres of influence. Practically, it begins with you and those around you, acting and participating as concerned citizens. By thinking globally and acting locally (as the cliche goes), changes can get percolated up to where we wouldn't have to look to Washington DC for all of our needs, whether real or perceived.

[Autumn]

I'm not seeing him getting the press and attention of any of the frontrunners, but I wish more attention was being paid to Bill Richardson. He has the best resume I've ever seen for a presidential candidate, and it'd be nice if we picked somebody by qualifications for once. I don't agree with all his politics, nor do I agree with all of anyone's politics, but he certainly should be able to handle the job as he's already experienced international politics, federal level politics, the Congress, and running a state.

Plus I think if he could get the attention he would run better against the Republicans then any of the front runners.

[Greyroofoo]

I think you have to poll in the double digits before the media starts paying attention.

[Autumn]

Well, it's the chicken and the egg. People don't have any reason to choose candidates until they find out something about them, something that for most Americans happens through the media. So, while you're correct, it doesn't mean it should be that way.

[JPhillips]

Richardson is a terrible campaigner. No way in hell he could win the general.

Buc: I'm not going to argue the merits of economic libertarianism with you as we've threadjacked enough already. If you can make it work, good luck. I honestly think that you'll put your money where your mouth is unlike a lot of libertarians who only see it as a way to keep more money in their pockets.

[astrosfan64]

Actually, yes. Here's the vision. The big fallacy that the Libertarian Party has been making, as well as what liberals attack, is that such policies cannot and should not be implemented top-down. In other words, you do not make wholesale changes at the federal level and then let the chips fall where they may. The implementation must start at the grassroots levels (starting at a personal level), then working its way up. That, in turn, will allow for me accountability and resources available at a more local (however you want to define local) level. Consequently, more taxation would have to occur at the local level to fund the added (i.e., constitutional) mandates. It would be the hope that as more is taken care at the level where it can do more good, the less reliance (and taxation) would be needed at the federal level. The courts get involved in enforcing the constitutional federal limits of power. This vision also implies strong non-governmental entities to do what they have been charted to do. This means churches, ministries and other charitable agencies doing for themselves and more for their communities and spheres of influence. Practically, it begins with you and those around you, acting and participating as concerned citizens. By thinking globally and acting locally (as the cliche goes), changes can get percolated up to where we wouldn't have to look to Washington DC for all of our needs, whether real or perceived.

I am a 1000% behind you.

What you describe is what made America great in the beginning.

[JPhillips]

AF: I don't know if you're purposefully changing history or are just ill informed. But at no time in American history have things operated as Buc describes. The poor were left to starve and freeze in the cold. The indigent were left to die alone or if they were lucky in a hovel filled with other dying people. The orphans were herded into warehouses and forced to work before they were teenagers. And those with dark skin were beaten, enslaved or killed.

That didn't happen to everyone, but it was the general rule until the twentieth century. It may have been better for those on top, but those on the bottom were treated far worse than they are now.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

I'm not seeing him getting the press and attention of any of the frontrunners, but I wish more attention was being paid to Bill Richardson. He has the best resume I've ever seen for a presidential candidate, and it'd be nice if we picked somebody by qualifications for once. I don't agree with all his politics, nor do I agree with all of anyone's politics, but he certainly should be able to handle the job as he's already experienced international politics, federal level politics, the Congress, and running a state.


I think Richardson was looked at as a potential top tier candidate by the press coming into the race, but then he showed up for the first few debates and sounded like a complete idiot and no one has paid him much attention since.

[StarBuck]

I like Obama, and I like Hilary, but we need the Clintons in. They have the experience and that is what will be needed to clean up this 8 year mess (if it even can be repaired.)

[chesapeake]

As a Republican, I feel betrayed by GWB and the Congresses of the 2000s for pulling this fiscal crap. We were the party of fiscal responsibility, and for all of his faults, you'd never see leadership under Newt pull this pork spending spree crap.

Au contraire. This "fiscal crap" and "pork spending spree" started under Gingrich. Gingrich opened the Departments of Labor/HHS/Education Appropriations bill, the largest domestic spending bill, to earmarking for the first time. Same to the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill, although that one is comparatively tiny.

Granted, wild earmarking was refined into an art form under subsequent leadership, but the trend was gleefully started by none other than Newton Leroy Gingrich.

[chesapeake]

I think significant portions of both parties like and respect libertarian ideals. I know I do. But I think many in those same segments also recognize that the real world needs safety nets, because those ideals ignore those folks on the bottom end of the spectrum. History shows quite clearly that the rich and powerful won't take care of the folks on the bottom tier unless someone makes them do it.

The tough part is finding the right balance, and that is what most of the arguing is over.

[flere-imsaho]

Update the week before Christmas, and Obama's continuing to make inroads on Clinton. There's also a mooted possibility of Edwards taking Iowa, which would shake things up a bit.

It's unclear to me whether Obama's "surge" is real, or is wishful thinking, despite what the polls say. As of now, I still think it's Hillary's to lose, and I expect her to exit Super Tuesday with 2/3 of the delegates as opposed to Obama's 1/3.

[Warhammer]

History shows quite clearly that the rich and powerful won't take care of the folks on the bottom tier unless someone makes them do it.

I'm not sure I agree with this. What is Warren Buffet doing with his fortune? What did Bill Gates do with a good chunk of his fortune? These are the two highest profile examples, but not all rich people need to be forced to help the poor.

Heck, for the sake of argument, why should the rich help the poor?

[Cringer]

Heck, for the sake of argument, why should the rich help the poor?

That's so simple a truck driver could figure it out. Though there are so many reasons individual people do the things they do and usually it's a combo of many things. The simple, general reasons are that tossing the poor enough bones once in a while keeps them happy enough not to organize, rise up, and revolt. The other reason is that most people in my eyes like to help other people, either to make themselves feel better or simply to help. Also, helping raise the poor enough creates new markets for business, creating more money for the rich. Three general ideas, usually it's a combo of all of those I would say.

I'm no professor though.

[flere-imsaho]

I'm not sure I agree with this. What is Warren Buffet doing with his fortune? What did Bill Gates do with a good chunk of his fortune? These are the two highest profile examples, but not all rich people need to be forced to help the poor.

The plural of anecdote is not data. There are a number of studies from the past 10 years or so that the working poor give a greater percentage of their income to charity, for example, than the rich.

Do the rich, as a whole, tend to not give as much as they could to charity unless they're forced to do so (be it through taxes, tithes, etc...)? A look at history tends to indicate "yes", but the answer also depends on your defition of "as much as they could", I suppose.

[st.cronin]

An historical look at that question would, I suspect, not provide a coherent answer. Different societies have had wildly different philosophies of generosity and philanthropy.

[chesapeake]

I'm not sure I agree with this. What is Warren Buffet doing with his fortune? What did Bill Gates do with a good chunk of his fortune? These are the two highest profile examples, but not all rich people need to be forced to help the poor.

Wonderful things these two guys are doing. Both fortunes combined don't pay for Social Security or Medicare for very long. And for every rich person that dedicates him/herself to philanthropy, I'll show you 1000 greedy bastards that just give money for the tax break.

Heck, for the sake of argument, why should the rich help the poor?

Seriously? Well, for folks brought up in the Judeo-Christian or Muslim tradition, you should because God's prophets and/or only begotten son said it was the right thing to do. Most other major and minor religions include similar tenets.

For the aforementioned greedy bastards who worship only money, because rich people don't have enough feet to keep on everyone's throats in perpetuity. Every so often, the poor realize that they have power, too, and it can end badly. Check out wikipedia's entry for the French Revolution.

[Cringer]

hump

[Cringer]

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/07u6uffKvpA&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/07u6uffKvpA&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

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

[Joe]

I am voting for Obama.

[Young Drachma]

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

[Grammaticus]

Ha. Just because you boinked the President and piggybacked your way into the White House, doesn't make you qualified....

So, I guess Monica is out of the question.

[ISiddiqui]

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

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

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

[Jas_lov]

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

[ISiddiqui]

Obama has NH wrapped up

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

[Jas_lov]

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

[Vinatieri for Prez]

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/07u6uffKvpA&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/07u6uffKvpA&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

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

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

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

[Schmidty]

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

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

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

[Schmidty]

Dola.

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

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

[Jas_lov]

Dola.

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

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

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

[Jas_lov]

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

[Big Fo]

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

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

"I didn't hear these kinds of attacks from Senator Clinton when she was ahead," Edwards said. "Every time he speaks out for change, every time I fight for change, the forces of status quo are going to attack -- every single time."

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

Clinton 45 -> 36
Obama 23 -> 35

Poll source on CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/05/nh.poll/index.html)

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

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

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

[Schmidty]

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

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

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

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

[Warhammer]

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

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

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

[DaddyTorgo]

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

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

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

[Calis]

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


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

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

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

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

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

[Jas_lov]

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

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

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

[ISiddiqui]

I feel confident that Obama will get a boost from NH independents and defeat Clinton in NH. I know you're Hillary's biggest fan, but it might be time to move on.

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

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

[Young Drachma]

Article about Obama from 1995 from the Chicago Reader (http://www.chicagoreader.com/features/stories/archive/barackobama/). Interesting stuff.

[mrsimperless]

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

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

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

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

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

[lungs]

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

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

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

[flere-imsaho]

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

[ISiddiqui]

Actually, the whole "getting down and dirty" tactic that Hillary has seemingly tried to employ on Obama and also some on Edwards looks to have backfired on her. I think that is precisely the kind of politics that the public is tired of and part of the reason they seem to be looking for change.

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

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

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

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

[path12]

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

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

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

[Warhammer]

That's what I said! More big government! The Bush Administration has doubled the size of the department of edcuation, started a massive beauracracy known as the Department of Homeland Security, a needless war costing hundreds of billions of dollars, prescription drug bill, etc. etc!

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

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

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

[Dutch]

I think that Obama's surge and performance has got to greatly trouble the Republicans who still think that McCain or someone else on their side can capture the center.


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

[albionmoonlight]

We need a good candidate to run and we don't have one.

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

[Dutch]

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

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

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

[Jas_lov]

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

[Honolulu_Blue]

Hillary is bitter and scared right now. She'll try anything, including crying to get sympathy.

Of course, Hillary looks like she's about to self-destruct as I watch her crying on ABC.

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

Blow it out your collective asses.

Jeeze Louise...

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

[Warhammer]

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

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

[Honolulu_Blue]

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

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

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

[Warhammer]

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

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

[Young Drachma]

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

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

[path12]

Why is change so important? Which body of the government has a lower approval rating than Bush? Congress.

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

[path12]

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

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

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

[Young Drachma]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Buccaneer]

That's just too much overstepping and too any good intentions that could lead us to a host of New Deal-esque policy decisions that my generation will have to pay for the rest of our working lives.


Hmmm.

[Young Drachma]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Buccaneer]

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

[Buccaneer]

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

[Jas_lov]

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

[wade moore]

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

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

[JPhillips]

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

I believe that's a fat lady singing.

[Jas_lov]

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

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

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080104/UPDATE/801040426

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

[Buccaneer]

Forgot about that.

[wade moore]

Interesting.

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

[Young Drachma]

Dark Cloud, as much as I can understand the appeal of Obama because his name is not Hillary Clinton, do you think he will run as a moderate, esp. when he has to support the traditional Democratic platform?

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

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

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

He will be forced to answer the race issue unless he wants to keep a noticeable percentage of voters at home.

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


Also, I have said frequently that McCain will be the safe choice for the GOP but Obama, in today's poll, show him even with him despite the wave (he is well ahead against the other candidates, which is no surprise). Finally, I just saw that Hillary will likely win Michigan (they're saying 85% chance) - that might erase IA and NH.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Vinatieri for Prez]

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

[flere-imsaho]

Nice post (#151), Dark Cloud.

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

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

The guy is wonkish and has more than an affinity for spending too much time in the minutia of boring issues that don't fit well into soundbites.

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

That's just too much overstepping and too any good intentions that could lead us to a host of New Deal-esque policy decisions that my generation will have to pay for the rest of our working lives.

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

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

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

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

while I know this has been beaten to death, experience does count for something, esp. in foreign policy nowadays.

The past 8 years have certainly proven that.

[Schmidty]

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

[Alan T]

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

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

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

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

[Buccaneer]

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

[Butter]

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

[Young Drachma]

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

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

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

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

[Honolulu_Blue]

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

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

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

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

[Butter]

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

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

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

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

[Jas_lov]

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

[Jas_lov]

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

[Jas_lov]

13% reporting. Hillary has a 4% lead.

[Jas_lov]

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

[Jas_lov]

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

[Young Drachma]

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

[DaddyTorgo]

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

:confused::confused:

John Titor...is that you?

[Jas_lov]

46% reporting. Hillarys lead up to 4300 votes.

[QuikSand]

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

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

[QuikSand]

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

[Young Drachma]

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

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

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

Oh look, a Ralph Reed sighting.

[Jas_lov]

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

[DaddyTorgo]

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

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

edit:

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

[Neuqua]

Jas really does get excited rather quickly, eh?

[Jas_lov]

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

[DaddyTorgo]

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

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

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

[DaddyTorgo]

dola

cnn.com has called it for billary too

[QuikSand]

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

[timmynausea]

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

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

[ISiddiqui]

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

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

[Jas_lov]

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

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

[Swaggs]

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

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

[QuikSand]

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

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

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

[ISiddiqui]

With that in mind, does anyone want to take a stab at picking out which states, that Gore and Kerry did not win, that Obama or Clinton would win?

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

[Jas_lov]

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

[timmynausea]

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

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

[Thomkal]

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

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

[QuikSand]

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

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

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

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

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

[ISiddiqui]

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

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

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

It's all about framing the story.

[QuikSand]

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

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

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

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

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

[timmynausea]

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

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

[JPhillips]

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

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

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

[ISiddiqui]

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

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

[SirFozzie]

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

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

Delegates won in NH tonight

Republican
McCain 7
Romney 4
Huckabee 1

Democrats
Clinton 9
Obama 9
Edwards 4

[Vinatieri for Prez]

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

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

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

[Jas_lov]

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

[Jas_lov]

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

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/index.html#val=NHDEM

[Peregrine]

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

[Jon]

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

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

[molson]

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

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

[flere-imsaho]

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

As others have said, no worries man, as long as you realize that you're pretty constantly jumping to conclusions - it's entertaining. :D

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

Only on the Democratic side. Republicans still have a secret ballot in Iowa for the caucus.

[path12]

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


This makes a ton of sense to me, even more so when you figure in the overall unlikeability of Romney.

[Young Drachma]

Can Hillary Cry Her Way Back to the White House? (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/09/opinion/08dowd.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin)

[flere-imsaho]

This is going to sound silly, but I don't think the crying thing is going to be good for her in the long term. I think part of the bias against having a female executive is the belief (correct or not) that they'll fold under the highest pressure and/or become emotional at the wrong time. You look at females elected to the highest positions in their countries (Thatcher, Bhutto, Meir, Merkel) and they've pretty universally put forth an image of being pretty tough and unemotional.

[chesapeake]

I'm on the other side of that one, flere. For years, people have wanted to see a human side of Hillary, and the crying incident did that. And we're only talking about misty eyes, not an all-out Muskie blubbering.

I'd be curious to know if any of the Hillary-haters on the board think she isn't tough because of this.

[Dutch]

This is going to sound silly, but I don't think the crying thing is going to be good for her in the long term. I think part of the bias against having a female executive is the belief (correct or not) that they'll fold under the highest pressure and/or become emotional at the wrong time. You look at females elected to the highest positions in their countries (Thatcher, Bhutto, Meir, Merkel) and they've pretty universally put forth an image of being pretty tough and unemotional.

I pretty much think Hillary sucks. So forgive my bias.

Look -- Obama, McCain, Huckabee, Romney, and Edwards are all out there pretty friggin' exhausted, working hard, doing everything they can for a vote and all of them have been down far worse than Hillary at times...and if any of them started crying there campaign's would be over. Period. Hell, at least wait till the end to cry, if you find out you don't win, that's cool. But to cry because you're losing? The fight is still on and I don't think crying is the right national TV strategy to get votes. It worked this time (amazingly) , but I think it's crap.

The standard for President of the USA should be the same for men and women. If crying on national TV is a PR disaster for a man, it should be a PR disaster for a woman.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I pretty much think Hillary sucks. So forgive my bias.

Look -- Obama, McCain, Huckabee, Romney, and Edwards are all out there pretty friggin' exhausted, working hard, doing everything they can for a vote and all of them have been down far worse than Hillary at times...and if any of them started crying there campaign's would be over. Period. Hell, at least wait till the end to cry, if you find out you don't win, that's cool. But to cry because you're losing? The fight is still on and I don't think crying is the right national TV strategy to get votes. It worked this time (amazingly) , but I think it's crap.

The standard for President of the USA should be the same for men and women. If crying on national TV is a PR disaster for a man, it should be a PR disaster for a woman.

Is getting misty eyed when talking about one's country a PR disaster for a man? I don't think so.

I didn't get the sense she "cried" because she was losing. Here are the exact words she spoke:

“I couldn’t do it if I just didn’t passionately believe it was the right thing to do,” she said here in reply to a question from an undecided voter, a woman roughly Mrs. Clinton’s age.

Her eyes visibly wet, in perhaps the most public display of emotion of her year-old campaign, Mrs. Clinton added: “I have so many opportunities from this country, I just don’t want to see us fall backwards. This is very personal for me — it’s not just political, it’s not just public.”

I have no problem at all if someone, man or woman, gets visibly moved by something they believe passionately in. If anything I think it's a hallmark of a good leader, though perhaps not a good politician. (Sadly, the qualities that make a good leader are rarely found in a good politician).

We see men get misty-eyed all the time when "overcome" by emotion. It's pretty common place in sports when a team wins a championship or a player announces his retirement from a game he played since he was a boy and loved passionately. These are never "PR disasters". In fact, these guys are lauded for it.

[mrsimperless]

I'd be curious to know if any of the Hillary-haters on the board think she isn't tough because of this.

Quite the contrary, I'd say it was an extremely effective and calculated move. It's obvious her prior strategy wasn't working, and it was the just right show of emotion at the right time.

As others have already said, it wasn't an all-out ball-fest. Not enough for others to think she may be too emotional, but just enough to show that she does have emotions.

Her corporate funded political strategists seem to know exactly what they're doing.

[Buccaneer]

A lot of you do not remember the Clinton years because you were in HS/college and/or didn't care like you do now. I have followed the whole Clinton years in the same way most of you have been following the Bush years. What you may not remember from Clinton was the widespread belief of fake sincerity. Even the major media outlets picked up on it and made references/jokes about it (e.g., the biting of the lip, the sorrowful eyes, the purposeful hand jestures, etc.). He was the Selfish (or Self-Centered) President whom every action was to draw attention to himself or to draw criticism away from himself. Hillary is being coached in everything she says or do and that's where the problem lies because she not personable, charismatic or young/hip. While Edwards come off as a huckster, Obama and McCain (and Huckabee) are coming off as more real. After the years of Clinton phoniness and selfishness, and years of Bush arrogance and secretiveness, voters for both parties want something more real.

[JPhillips]

I pretty much think Hillary sucks. So forgive my bias.

Look -- Obama, McCain, Huckabee, Romney, and Edwards are all out there pretty friggin' exhausted, working hard, doing everything they can for a vote and all of them have been down far worse than Hillary at times...and if any of them started crying there campaign's would be over. Period. Hell, at least wait till the end to cry, if you find out you don't win, that's cool. But to cry because you're losing? The fight is still on and I don't think crying is the right national TV strategy to get votes. It worked this time (amazingly) , but I think it's crap.

The standard for President of the USA should be the same for men and women. If crying on national TV is a PR disaster for a man, it should be a PR disaster for a woman.

Was it a PR disaster when Bush cried? Or LBJ? Or Churchill?

[ISiddiqui]

It worked this time (amazingly)

Why "amazingly"? Clinton is seen as an ice queen (as most female leaders have been in the past... Thatcher, Meir, etc.). Emotion would help sway people into questioning that stereotype.

If you had a male "ice king" crying, I think it may help him as well. But the men in this campaign (or most any really) aren't seen that way.

[Young Drachma]

If Hillary wins the Dem nomination, Mike Bloomberg gets in the race and that means, the GOP might have a much better road to keeping its clutches on the White House.

[Young Drachma]

Dola --

I hadn't heard about the hecklers who said "Iron My Shirt" in the background of that one Hillary rally.

I think that they were plants. But even still...she's going to turn this into Hillary against the men. Smart move, really. But will it work? I don't think America is opposed to a woman President.

I just think lots of people are opposed to her. There is a big difference. But we'll see what happens in the coming weeks, after people wipe their faces and catch their swooning breathe from both of the leading candidates on the Dem side.

[JPhillips]

The Iron my shirt guys were a stunt from a radio morning show. I think they were from a Boston station, but I don't remember.

[Young Drachma]

The Iron my shirt guys were a stunt from a radio morning show. I think they were from a Boston station, but I don't remember.

Yup, seems to be the case.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/01/07/video-the-obligatory-iron-my-shirt-post

[Galaril]

I wonder with Richardson dropping out who does the roughly 4-5% he had go to? It could be a deal if alot of the hispanic voters go over to say Obama. It lloks like it will be a close race between Clinton and him with Edwards far back in the rear siphoning votes from Obama mostly .

[QuikSand]

Richardson voters were, by and large, persuaded that he was strongly "qualified" for the job, more than anything else I heard. My guess (and it's little more than that) is that many Richardson supporters will look to Clinton as their default next choice, and not Obama.

[ISiddiqui]

Richardson and Clinton were very close (and there is strong assumptions that Richardson may get Clinton's VP position if she wins the nomination), so I think most of Richardson's support will flock to Hillary.

This is a dropping out that Clinton likes, unlike say, if Edwards were to drop out, because I'm positive that most of his support would flock to Obama in that case.

[Galaril]

Richardson and Clinton were very close (and there is strong assumptions that Richardson may get Clinton's VP position if she wins the nomination), so I think most of Richardson's support will flock to Hillary.

This is a dropping out that Clinton likes, unlike say, if Edwards were to drop out, because I'm positive that most of his support would flock to Obama in that case.

God, Richardson as the VP. I hope not. I would love to see a Obama/Edwards ticket.

[Racer]

Richardson and Clinton were very close (and there is strong assumptions that Richardson may get Clinton's VP position if she wins the nomination), so I think most of Richardson's support will flock to Hillary.

This is a dropping out that Clinton likes, unlike say, if Edwards were to drop out, because I'm positive that most of his support would flock to Obama in that case.

I heard through the grapevine that Indiana Senator Evan Bayh thinks he has a really good chance of getting Clinton's VP position if she wins the nomination. There might be some truth to it since he is really high up in her campaign.

[flere-imsaho]

NPR reported this morning that Richardson is likely dropping out today.

[chesapeake]

I think I got the answers that I expected from the anti-Hillary folks. They mistrust her motives but it helped more than it hurt.

Richardson voters were, by and large, persuaded that he was strongly "qualified" for the job, more than anything else I heard. My guess (and it's little more than that) is that many Richardson supporters will look to Clinton as their default next choice, and not Obama.

A colleague of mine and a former Richardson staffer who was modestly active in his campaign tells me that she is inclined to support Hillary. But she's a little too disappointed right now to be very excited about it.

My sense is the same as yours, QuikSand, that the plurality of Richardson supporters will likely move to the Clinton camp. I'm not sure how big of a blip it is on the radar screen, however.

[mrsimperless]

How does everyone feel about where Ron Paul's supporters will land when he finally drops out? I really like him, although my support currently is for Obama. I'm wondering if a Ron Paul drop out could be an Omaba / Edwards boost, assuming most of his supporters are moderates and independents?

[flere-imsaho]

If Paul drops out, his supporters will spend the next 11 months trying to get people to write him in, in November.

[SFL Cat]

If Hillary does get elected, I wonder if she finally jettisons Bill. Actually, I guess she waits until re-election time...after that, THEN she kicks him to the curb.

[flere-imsaho]

Fear leads to Anger, Anger leads to Hate, Hate leads to Suffering, SFL Cat. I'd say you're in Step 2 already. Don't fall into the dark side.

[Dutch]

Fear leads to Anger, Anger leads to Hate, Hate leads to Suffering, SFL Cat. I'd say you're in Step 2 already. Don't fall into the dark side.

Thanks for the tip, Lord Vader. :)

[flere-imsaho]

Thanks for the tip, Lord Vader. :)

It's what I do. ;)

[flere-imsaho]

John Kerry officially endorses Obama today. I'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing.

[Dutch]

John Kerry officially endorses Obama today. I'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing.

This will make sense months from now but...

"I voted for Obama before I voted against him."

:D

[flere-imsaho]

You're on fire today, Dutch. :p

[Honolulu_Blue]

Fear leads to Anger, Anger leads to Hate, Hate leads to Suffering, SFL Cat. I'd say you're in Step 2 already. Don't fall into the dark side.

I prefer Obama for Hillary and, if I had an actual Democratic primary in my state, I'd vote for him. That said, there really is something very appealing about the idea of Clinton becoming president, beyond the fact that she'd be the first woman president.

I would just so enjoy watching all those haters, of which there are legion, go absolutely apoplectic. They'd finally get a little taste of how the rest of us have felt over the course of much of the last eight years and it would be glorious. :)

[Alan T]

I prefer Obama for Hillary and, if I had an actual Democratic primary in my state, I'd vote for him. That said, there really is something very appealing about the idea of Clinton becoming president, beyond the fact that she'd be the first woman president.

I would just so enjoy watching all those haters, of which there are legion, go absolutely apoplectic. They'd finally get a little taste of how the rest of us have felt over the course of much of the last eight years and it would be glorious. :)

What about those of us who didn't want Bush in the last 8 years, and who don't want Clinton in the next 4 or 8? I guess I could move to Canada like my sister did :) (She didn't move for political reasons)

I'm really really hoping that my choice in at least one of the two parties is chosen, but I am not holding my breath as I am far too moderate for America

[Honolulu_Blue]

What about those of us who didn't want Bush in the last 8 years, and who don't want Clinton in the next 4 or 8? I guess I could move to Canada like my sister did :) (She didn't move for political reasons)

Collateral damage.

[SFL Cat]

I prefer Obama for Hillary and, if I had an actual Democratic primary in my state, I'd vote for him. That said, there really is something very appealing about the idea of Clinton becoming president, beyond the fact that she'd be the first woman president.

I would just so enjoy watching all those haters, of which there are legion, go absolutely apoplectic. They'd finally get a little taste of how the rest of us have felt over the course of much of the last eight years and it would be glorious. :)

Oh we already know...we had to put up with eight years of Bill. :p

If Hill gets in, it would be just like a bad rerun - minus the oval office bj.

[albionmoonlight]

John Kerry officially endorses Obama today. I'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/01/a-political-con.html

[Dutch]

You're on fire today, Dutch. :p

If only I could draw stick-people, I'd be a legend around here. :)

[albionmoonlight]

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_010908/content/01125100.guest.html

Remember this: the Democrat machine candidate always wins; the upstart insurgents never do. It's all you need to know. Forget all the polls.

It's been a while since I've been able to say this, but I agree with Rush Limbaugh. At the end of the day, I think that it will be Clinton. Never bet against the house.

[flere-imsaho]

It's been a while since I've been able to say this, but I agree with Rush Limbaugh. At the end of the day, I think that it will be Clinton. Never bet against the house.

Sophistry, in my opinion. The only election in recent history for which this is a meaningful statement is 2004. Gore obviously was sitting VP in 2000, which is a massive advantage, and Clinton was the incumbent in 1996. Are we sure Clinton was the "machine" candidate in 1992? Elections further back aren't particularly relevant to today's electioneering.

Along the same time frame, let's look at the Republican candidates. Bush over McCain in 2000 was a victory for the "establishment". Dole was quite clearly the "establishment" candidate in 1996.

[Thomkal]

So I wonder if Kerry supporting Obama puts the nail in Edwards coffin (campaign)? I mean the guy can even get the man who he ran with in the last election to support him for this one. I don't think you can put any positive spin on that.

[albionmoonlight]

Sophistry, in my opinion. The only election in recent history for which this is a meaningful statement is 2004. Gore obviously was sitting VP in 2000, which is a massive advantage, and Clinton was the incumbent in 1996. Are we sure Clinton was the "machine" candidate in 1992? Elections further back aren't particularly relevant to today's electioneering.

Along the same time frame, let's look at the Republican candidates. Bush over McCain in 2000 was a victory for the "establishment". Dole was quite clearly the "establishment" candidate in 1996.

Oh, I think that the Republicans do it too.

[Greyroofoo]

Looks like Dennis Kucinich wants to challenge the New Hampshire primary results (http://www.dennis4president.com/go/homepage-items/kucinich-asks-for-new-hampshire-recount-in-the-interest-of-election-integrity/)

[chesapeake]

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_010908/content/01125100.guest.html

It's been a while since I've been able to say this, but I agree with Rush Limbaugh. At the end of the day, I think that it will be Clinton. Never bet against the house.

James Earl Carter

[GrantDawg]

. Of course my whole worldview has changed in the last eight years from pretty far right, to where I'd now consider myself left of center.

So, I'm not the only one.

[Crapshoot]

I find a good rule to be that Rush Limbaugh is full of shit. If I want intelligent commentary on the right, talk radio isn't the place to go. This is the 3-times married guy and pill-popper who rants about the "sanctity of marriage" or how "drug-abusers should be jailed"? His audience is the Michael Moore of the right - they don't want to think, they want to be lead.

[chesapeake]

Are we sure Clinton was the "machine" candidate in 1992?

Clinton was an unknown yokel from just west of nowhere in 1991-2. The Democratic "machine" had no candidate. It wanted Cuomo, but Bush the Elder looked unbeatable after the successful prosecution of the Gulf War, so he stayed out. Most institutional Democrats kept their powder dry until it was pretty clear that 1) Clinton was going to win or 2) their state was up and they couldn't really hold out any longer.

Anyway, I would argue that the "machines" are far less powerful today than they ever have been. They have some value for fundraising, but are not necessary to succeed in raising money and certainly no longer directly translate into votes.

[Buccaneer]

I strongly disagree that Clinton wasn't the machine candidate in 92 - it was just a newer machine. Clinton's coming out was the 1988 DNC and the machine was the DLC, which was started shortly before that. It steadily rose to prominence by 1992, so much so that it rapidly replaced the old guard machine as the primary force in the party.

Now we might be witnessing the passing of the DLC as the old guard into something new. After all, we have an old, white woman as the old guard and the young, black man as the new order.

[bhlloy]

So, anyone think that the "pointless" primary will end up hurting the Dems in MI in the presidential race? Seems to me like there could be 2 factors at play here:

1) If I don't get to have a say in who runs for president, screw the Dems I either won't vote or vote the other way out of spite
2) I voted in the Republican primary (a ton of independent and democratic people are reported to be doing this because it actually means something), now I'll see it through and vote for "my" candidate in the real thing

I don't know anything about Michigan historically, so it may be that this won't be the case, but logically the above makes sense to me.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Chris Matthews suggested that when push comes to shove, they'll let Michigan have delegates at the convention who can actually vote to avoid this possibility. But more so for the base/volunteers to motivate them to get out the vote in the presidential election.

[larrymcg421]

So, anyone think that the "pointless" primary will end up hurting the Dems in MI in the presidential race? Seems to me like there could be 2 factors at play here:

1) If I don't get to have a say in who runs for president, screw the Dems I either won't vote or vote the other way out of spite
2) I voted in the Republican primary (a ton of independent and democratic people are reported to be doing this because it actually means something), now I'll see it through and vote for "my" candidate in the real thing

I don't know anything about Michigan historically, so it may be that this won't be the case, but logically the above makes sense to me.

Michigan is so firmly Democratic at this point that the highly unpopular Dem Governor Jennifer Granholm easily won re-election in 2006. All the Dems had huge leads in the most recent polls (December) that tested matchups in Michigan. I think there's virtually no chance that Michigan goes red, unless the Dem nominee drives to a rally in a foreign made car and then gets out to take a piss on an American made car.