Obama is a Democrat. First and foremost. He is not an Independent. If Hillary gets the nod, Obama will throw his support to her not to whomever the GOP candiate is...

And the overwhelming majority of Obama's supporters will support the Democratic candidate over any Republican.

And you are right -- and we agree on this one point -- "the GOP would have a very hard time in this election".

adrickhenry writes
"have you noticed the 'raw' numbers in Iowa and New Hampshire -- as far as turn out or Dems v. Repubs? ... all those new, 1st time voters Obama is bringing in are not joining the republican party..."

I have noticed. It has been my suspicion for some time that the GOP would have a very hard time in this election, all things being equal. As things move forward and we can use real names in place of generic candidates, that equality also goes away. Many who post here have noted, for some time, that the biggest potential driver of turnout for the GOP is if the Dems nominate Sen Clinton. I am in that camp. I also note, in your observations above, that it is not the Democrats who are inspiring 1st time voters and/or independents to show up for their events - it is one candidate, Senator Obama, that draws them.

all those new, 1st time voters Obama is bringing in are not joining the republican party...

of course that should've been turn out OF dems vs. repubs.

bsimon,

have you noticed the 'raw' numbers in Iowa and New Hampshire -- as far as turn out or Dems v. Repubs?

AdrickHenry-
Its not about political toughness, or the ability to hit back. Its about who will draw more swing voters to their side. In a McCain v Clinton matchup, the race starts with a McCain advantage in that set of voters. That has been his problem in winning the Repub nomination - he appeals more to moderates & independents than to his party's base. Clinton doesn't have that 'problem' - she's doing well with her party's base, but not so well with the independents & swing voters. This works to her advantage in pursuing the nomination, but against her in the general election.

bsimon; I don't see any "Backpeddling" and as to 'clarify' she is only answerering question about the 'misconception' created by the Media.

bokonon: "I do not see Hillary beating McCain."

Don't underestimate the political toughness, sagacity and tenacity of the Clintons. HRC would never allow herself to "swift-boated" and this is one of the reasons so many Repubs hate her. She hits back. Harder.

She is no Kerry or Dukakis and they know it. It scares the hell out of them.

As for McCain, I like him. Like I've said, I disagree with him on Iraq and health care but I think he exhibits courage on immigration and stays clear of pandering. As we all know, he is not afraid to tackle difficult issues openly.

Like matter and anti-matter, McCain is the anti-Romney candidate. Exactly opposite.

claudia asks, about the GOP
"the real hard core base hates mccain. don't you think th at will make a difference?"

To whom will they turn instead? So far, it looks like 1) not Mitt, 2) not Rudy, 3) not Thompson, 4) maybe - big maybe - Huckabee. The GOP base is probably more likely to make a cold, unemotional assessment and pick the person most likely to win the general, wherease the Dem base is not. In the case of the GOP, it appears that more and more are realizing that their best chance is McCain, not flip-flop Mitt or any of the others.

Lyle, I think the initial comment in which she tried to disparage the Obama message by saying, effectively "dreamers are great, but it takes a President to get the job done" is when she shot herself in the foot. She has since been backpedaling furiously in an attempt to 'clarify' what she meant. I didn't watch MTP, nor any of the commentary since then. I'm talking about my perception from last week, when the comment was first made.

the real hard core base hates mccain. don't you think th at will make a difference?

bsimon: I don't think we watched the same programs about how you see "Hillary shot herself in the foot by the MLK comments." 1. MTP, Hillary put Russert in his place. 2. Johnson, of BET, told it like it is, blacks are not stupid. 3. Obama calls a press conference to say "I, or my campaign had not made a comment about the MLK flap." yesseeree. 4. This is most important, Created by the Media, who has a "Love Affair" with Obama, and Hillary is the other woman.

boko

Watch out, lyle will accuse you of being a bad Democrat.

JimD, agreed. I do not see Hillary beating McCain.

Mark,

Like you I cannot imagine voting for Clinton or Edwards but can imagine voting for Obama. I also cannot imagine voting for any R other than McCain. It is far easier for me to support McCain knowing that a Democratic Senate is a near certainty. I agree that he is not a neo-con but I think he is of the mindset to support the mission if our troops are sent into action. Many Vietnam veterans hold that belief strongly. I also think that Iraq would not have turned out anywhere near as badly if McCain's advice had been followed.

The VP choice is going to be critical. I expect there would be a lot of pressure on him to pick Huckabee - that would be a real turn off for me. I think it would be easier for him to withstand pressure from the hard right if Clinton is the Democratic nominee.

bsimon & mark

I was not advocating Condi Rice for VP with McCain. I was speculating that he might pick her to get a 2fer in making history to offset the Dem ticket which will certainly be headed by either a woman or an African-American. I don't think she has anywhere near the familiarity with domestic issues and her performance as national security advisor shows poor management skills. McCain's VP must pass a high test for presidential qualifications. Considering McCain's age and the Republican tendency to nominate the person with the highest positional authority, his VP would be odds-on favorite for '12 nomination if McCain wins. (really doubt he would be running for re-election at 76).

BUT, a female running mate is a real likelihood to offset the Democrats. An African-American would too, but only Colin Powell comes to mind as an African-American Republican of sufficient stature. Powell is 70 and I would bet that McCain is going to pick a much younger VP.

One problem with the female VP is that most prominent Republican women are considered 'squishy' on pro-life issues. McCain is not that popular with the base and picking a moderate VP might exacerbate that problem. However, if Hillary gets the nomination, I think McCain doesn't have to be quite as accommodating to the base as if Obama is the nominee. McCain can win the battle for the independents against Hillary and the base won't have anywhere else to go.

JimD--if you're on:

'A heckling radio ham known as the Filipino Monkey, who has spent years pestering ships in the Persian Gulf, is being blamed today for sparking a major diplomatic row after American warships almost attacked Iranian patrol boats.

The US navy came within seconds of firing at the Iranian speedboats in the Strait of Hormuz on January 6 after hearing threats that the boats were attacking and were about to explode.'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2240533,00.html

'for which McCain would I be casting my ballot, if I were to choose to do so?'

mark and bsimon -- that's exactly it. lot about the guy to like. says things i appreciate. then embraces leiberman, who wants to bomb Iran more than anything in the world and i think i cna't do it.

but his choice of running mate will tell us what we need to know.

Mark, as usual, your observations on the McCain candidacy are spot-on. The reason I'm waffling on him, or that I am less excited about him as a candidate than in 2000, is that I'm forced to speculate on where he stands vs. where he appears to stand. I suspect he is pandering, somewhat, to the social conservatives, but its hard to tell. I suspect, as you do, that he would not pander to the 'theocons' with SC Justice appointments. Like you, I think he's pandering the base when he sings tunes like 'bomb, bomb Iran'. As a neutral observer, I can see how he might feel like he has to remain vague on such issues in order to win the nomination. But as a voter, lt leaves me a bit unsettled - for which McCain would I be casting my ballot, if I were to choose to do so?

rpy1 writes
"I think if turnout is low, she's likely to win."

That is an astute observation. Though it reeks of cynicism & speculation based on negative assumptions, I wonder if the Clinton campaign has run the numbers and come to that conclusion: that going negative will drive down turnout & benefit their candidate.

Thanks, everyone, for addressing my question about what is going on for the Ds. I get it.

Boko and bsimon - I will state my reservations about "my guy".

He will not, except on Charlie Rose, seriously address the need for a political solution in Iraq, he throws too much red meat out to the neocons [Colin thinks he IS one, but he is not], he might play along with the theocons on Supreme Court nominees [but I do not think he will], and he must have a Vice President who is also neither a pale imitation of a mannequin [e.g., Quayle, Miller]
nor a nutcase, because mortality stats are meaningful at 72.

His commitment to Congress's role is strong. I think that would balance his Court nominees, who will in any event be conservative. I think that commitment, as well as his demanding straight intelligence, will keep us out phony wars, even if it does not get us out of Iraq as quickly as we might want.

bsimon suggested that Rice would not be up to the VP job, and I think he is correct. She is a Russian political expert analyst, and she should be used as such by any Administration. I think she has been in over her head for a long time, although she has shown signs of "developing".

JimD's suggestion of Whitman is very interesting. There is no red meat for conservatives there, Jim, nor with Snowe. OK with me, the one who never pix winners, of course.
------------------------------
So for those reasons, and because I would not likely vote for another R, I remain interested in the D race.

In that race, I would favor Obama over HRC over Edwards, now, but I do not know what would get me to vote for either of the latter two, as I write.

Moreandbetterpolls asks me (11:05) if my vote in the Florida democratic primary was a waste of time. The answer is probably yes, but it sure felt good. I guess it's effetively a straw poll.

With no candidate appearances or advertising, I have little hope that Obama will beat Clinton given the polls to date.

There is going to be a state convention where the delegates will be chosen. I have sent in the application to be an Obama delegate. I have no idea what the mechanism is, but I'll do my part for Obama above and beyond today's feel good vote.

boko - regarding Clinton not needing to be positive, I think if turnout is low, she's likely to win. Obama's message seems like it is (at least partially) to those who haven't been involved in politics in the past fifteen years. If Clinton is able to bring up enough questions about Obama to lower turnout, I think she'll win.

Of course, it doesn't mean that the converse is true, or that it would work in the general. But I think it is a big issue in the primary.

Do you think OJ would rate weeks upon weeks of continuous front page coverage in 2008?

if the same thing were happening? of course. if anything the media has only gotten worse in its celebrity fixation. could you have imagined in your worst nightmares how much press a poor deranged kid like brittney spears would get?

i didn't mean you boko, i always think your posts are reasoned. i would still support any democrat, even hillary [and i agree that she acts a tad entitled] over any R, altho I have to say that McCain's recent remarks started to remind me of how he ran in 2000, and I'm liking it. However, he and Hillary both, i'm afraid, are still too enthsiastic about attacking Iran, instead of dealing with the real dangers we face -- Pakistan, and eventually China. And what about our pals in Saudi Arabia, home of the 9/11 suicide bombers, who intend to buy a nuclear weapon from pakistan? Nobody in the press even mentions that...

bsimon, based on what I have heard of Dr. Thompson, completely possible. He did whatever he wanted to in Aspen, and they loved him for it. Rolling Stone had a tribute when he died, in which they quoted Johnny Depp - who was staying with Dr. Gonzo in preparation for filming 'Fear + Loathing in Las Vegas' - as saying that he found an ashtray, which Thompson had been actively using, sitting on top of a full keg of gunpowder. Of course Hunter had not realized, and when Depp pointed it out, he just laughed. And moved the ashtray, of course.

this is a terrific article for nayone who's interested in why MI may well not go for Mitt:

" In December, the Detroit Free Press printed the list of properties delinquent on property taxes in Wayne County (the county that includes Detroit and many of its suburbs). The list of 180,000 properties ran 121 pages.'

He pledges to do for America what he did for corporations when he ran Bain Capital's private equity business. But these days, private equity is a dirty word for many Michigan voters--even the Republican members of the managerial class. Private equity doesn't signify profits and fortunes. It signifies Cerberus, the new owner of Chrysler, which is presiding over huge job cuts.

Like Rudy Giuliani, Romney has painted the world's Muslims and Arabs as an undifferentiated mass of bloodthirsty terrorists. "This is about Shia and Sunni," Romney said last year. "This is about Hezbollah and Hamas and al-Qaida and the Muslim Brotherhood." Michigan is the state with the highest concentration of Arab-Americans in the nation."

http://www.slate.com/id/2181847/

drindl, the thing is, while never a supporter of hers, I had been open to supporting her in the general if she were the nominee. Now I'm not, and it's a function both of distaste at seeing the Clinton machine in action and yes, a sense that she is an insufferable egotist - whose policies do not differ that much if at all from the remainder of the Democratic field, always excepting Mike Gravel. She thinks she deserves to be president, and I can't get over that. I don't "Hate" Hillary, but she does not strike me as a good leader, and as far as her "experience" goes, I'll give her a term and 1/2 in the Senate. The Clintons micromanagement of the 1990s worked then, but those were simpler times. Do you think OJ would rate weeks upon weeks of continuous front page coverage in 2008?

bok- I'm about where you are on who to vote for. Interesting aside re: the late Mr Thompson. Upon news of his death a friend of mine sent out an email that recounted a recent HST encounter, along the lines of "two weeks ago I was pushing HST through downtown Aspen in a shopping cart." True? Untrue? I don't know; the odd thing is the story is entirely plausible.

Can someone put the friction among the Ds in a nutshell for me that does not reduce to "I think HRC is a [very bad person]?"

it just seems like pavlovian reflex to me, mark. if you don't like her, don't vote for her. all the hysterical ranting mystifies me.

JimD, I stand corrected.

from the NYT:

"In a press release today, the campaign announced its fourth-quarter cash totals. As of the Dec. 31, the campaign had $12.7 million on hand, with $7 million available for use in the primaries."

pamela & JimD - thats how I take the comments; Romney is misinterpreting McCain's comment & trying to scare voters into the Romeny camp. The question is whether it will work...

Mark in Austin asks
"Can someone put the friction among the Ds in a nutshell for me that does not reduce to "I think HRC is a [very bad person]?" "

You took the words out of my mouth! Ok, hillary-bashing aside, the friction among the Dems amounts to getting lost in petty bickering rather than discussing policy. Their hard core supporters aren't going to change views, the question is how the arguments impact undecided voters. My personal opinion is that HRC shot herself in the foot with her comments re: MLK v LBJ last week. Perhaps it played will in NH, but will not in SC. At the same time, I think the Obama camp is overplaying their hand in keeping the issue in the press - its forcing the campaign into the street (though not yet the gutter). I'd rather see the Dems have a discussion of firstly policies & secondly the style of leadership they'd like to see in the next President. Instead, they're breaking into factions and tearing each other down with (deliberate?) misinterpretations of statements & out of context quotes. Its hard to tell who will come out less damaged; which is to say that neither will emerge untarnished. When it comes time for the general election, the Dem victor will likely regret this turn in the campaign.

mark, it seems to me that the Clintons are playing a little dirty, hence the animus toward them (from some of us) seen here. Of course, Obama is a rookie, and might not have expected the Clintn teams at the polls, the robo-calls in re: choice (in NH), the continuous rehashing of his past (while somehow Gennifer Flowers, Lewinsky, Whitewater, health care etc. are all off limits), the tearing up in self-pity, and so on. (aside to rpy1 - why do you think Clinton doesn't need to seem positive? It's her negativity - combined, of course, with her sense of entitlement - that has led me to the firm decision that I am not voting for her no matter what.) It's not pretty, and it will be a shame if Clinton's public histrionics prevent us from having a chance to vote for Obama, who I still see as a once-in-a-lifetime politician.

My ideal matchup would be Obama-McCain... I know McCain is your guy, Mark, but I am a little nervous that he would be persuadable by social cons to toe their line(s), and I am made a little uncomfortable by how aggressively I think he would use the military - in Iran, for instance. That said, if he were president I would feel that the country was at least in competent hands, and that he would be willing to listen seriously to, if not always to agree with, points of view that were not his own.

Obama-McCain would be a win-win and probably also a clean or at least cleanER campaign than any involving Hillary, Romney, or Giuliani. If Clinton gets the D nod and McCain is NOT the Republican nominee, I am hoping for a Bloomberg independent candidacy. If not, I can't in good conscience support anyone else running... I might write in Hunter Thompson.

'And with Clinton, we could be treated to some candide photo's of after hour partying by the "lady" groupies of the LPGA tour, plenty of tesimony by women who claim to have had been groped by Ms. Clinton, '

i can't beleive anyone beleives this crap...

boko - you must mean millions not billions

Mark, I don't know if what I have to contribute will help out in understanding the D side, but I'll give it a go...

I was against the war from the beginning, concerned about Guantanamo and the dismantling of civil liberties, and felt (at that point) very alone politically in that. When the Patriot Act passed, only one senator (from my state!) voted against it.

At that point, I felt like I'd never vote for any of the folks who (in my mind) rolled over for this. While Clinton and Edwards talk about how they'll stand up to the folks on the right, while Obama just wants to hold hands, I have a hard time hearing it. One important note is that I disagreed with the free trade agenda that (Bill) Clinton had during the 90's, so I didn't have an automatic pro-Clinton feeling.

I'll let the Clinton supporters give their side of the story, but I would guess that a lot of it is that they believe that the direction we're heading in right now is exclusively the fault of Bush's administration. I'm not ready to let Dems off that easily.

"He [Romney] tries to differentiate himself with McCain by criticizing McCain's comment that some MI jobs are permanently gone. Which line will voters find more credible?"

bsimon, My impression over the weekend was that McCain was trying to clarify this message - more like, the old jobs are gone (that's the "straight talk") but Michigan can rebound. I would think if voters hear that message, they'd recognize it as realistic and truthful - Romney sounds like neither. I can't imagine why anyone who voted for McCain in 2000 would consider Romney now.

boko - If RG has $8B his failure to pay staff will be more than merely ironic.

bsimon asks "Do MI voters 1) remember Gov Romney (the elder) fondly, and 2) do they equate the son with the father? He tries to differentiate himself with McCain by criticizing McCain's comment that some MI jobs are permanently gone. Which line will voters find more credible?"

Well I am certainly not a Michigan voter, but I read that the elder Romney's Lt Governor and successor as governor, William Milliken, is supporting McCain. Milliken is 85 and has been out of office for 25 years, so I am not sure how active he is and how much influence he retains. I thought that was interesting and the article I read described him as George Romney's closest political ally. However, Milliken belongs to the long since vanished "Rockefeller Republican" wing.

As for the Michigan jobs all returning, that is one of the most ridiculous things I have heard in this campaign. Replacing the lost jobs with new ones is possible, thinking that you can actually get the same jobs back is delusional.

The Mittster must know that so this is one more example of his shading the truth. He is a combination of Bill Clinton's propensity to tell people what he thinks they want to hear and Gore's history embellishing (although in Gore's case that was more a press distortion than the real case).

jimd, bsimon, drindl, blarg, proud - New Yorkers may be (some) richer than Bostonians, but I'm sure you all saw the bit over the weekend about Giuliani's staff taking a "voluntary' month w/o pay so as not to strain the campaign's budget. He's down to 7 or 8 billiion, somewhere in that range, and supposedly will need at least 20 to be competitive in the rest of the primaries.

and in re: Romney winning MI, Thompson SC, and Rudy FL - I will second jimd (I think he was the one who said this) and say that last I heard, McCain was tied for the lead or leading in all 3.

Jim [and proud, and bsimon] I am hopeful that McC can become the R nominee. As Jim wrote last week on one thread, and I on another, it appears that four Rs may still be viable after Feb. 5. If the Rs go with wanting Indie votes to have a chance to win, A McC lead will speak well for him. But I fear the Rs can easily self-destruct, too.

I had come to see Biden as the best of all the candidates by the time he was totally eliminated by D voters. My sense that McC is now the best of all the candidates will not be persuasive to anyone.

Can someone put the friction among the Ds in a nutshell for me that does not reduce to "I think HRC is a [very bad person]?"

I'd guess that the current style of campaign on the D side favors Clinton over Obama. Obama has a hard line to walk between a fair critique of Clinton while still seeming positive, while Clinton doesn't need to seem positive at all to win the election. It will be hard, however, to get back a big part of the party if she's keeps this up on Obama.

mark

one more thing, I was looking at the Real Clear Politics summary of polls. McCain is in the lead on each poll taken after NH results in Florida and South Carolina. The Michigan polls are all over the place, from Romney up 8% to McCain up 7%. That race appears volatile. But, if McCain does pull it out, that would put him in very good shape for SC and FL since those states definitely seem influenced by the bandwagon effect of the NH results.

pamela asks "what happened to all the Ds who were happy with the entire field and felt they could support any Democratic candidate?"

Any Dem candidate except Clinton, that is. She who failed to read the NIE herself, yet claims to have superior judgement. She who called Petreaus a liar, and just yesterday stood by that characterization saying "That's right". She who attempts to ride her husband's coattails while accusing Obama of inauthentically riding King's.

The country deserves to be liberated from the Clintons and their brand of politics.

The level of discourse we see in the media since NH is, indeed, what Hillary meant when she said "Well, now the fun part starts".

proud, thanks for the translation service.

Andy - I do not think that NV's D caucus is of any significance nationally - NV issues [Yucca Mtn, regulating offshore gambling, water] overwhelm everything else. But I want to hear from our resident Nevadans on this.

I have been listening to McCain speak in MI in the background on POTUS '08, and I have agreed with every single point he has made.
I swear I am not that easy. But then, how would I know? He spoke of pushing for job retraining and [federally] supporting alternatives to petroleum, as an environmental, economic, and national security issue. He quoted George Washington on the notion that each generation that is asked to serve will look at how the previous generation's veterans were treated. GW is an underused resource.

Posters here have made it seem that the Ds are in self-destruct mode. I have not actually been following as closely as usual because of pressing concerns, but I wonder if it appears that way to the other independents who have been paying closer attention than I?

claudialong - And with Clinton, we could be treated to some candide photo's of after hour partying by the "lady" groupies of the LPGA tour, plenty of tesimony by women who claim to have had been groped by Ms. Clinton, more-more-more tales from former interns, etc. and Bill Clinton, a a revival of those investigations that Kenneth Star was forced to abandon because of Clinton White House stone walling, etc. Prepare for a steady stream of baths in the cesspool of the Clinton's lives.

mark

It looks like McCain has moved into the lead in South Carolina and Florida in most recent polls. Situation is very fluid and could change but if he pulls it out in Michigan, that could propel him over the top in SC and FL.

bsimon: re: Romney's money versus Giuliani's money. Romney has a $250 million personal fortune and can self-fund. He also has extensive business contacts and access to a network of wealthy Utah and Mormon contributors. Giuliani's fade in the polls has to be hurting his fundraising.

pamela, good questions on the Romney-McCain race in MI. Do MI voters 1) remember Gov Romney (the elder) fondly, and 2) do they equate the son with the father? He tries to differentiate himself with McCain by criticizing McCain's comment that some MI jobs are permanently gone. Which line will voters find more credible?

A similar question comes to mind in the Dem race. We all have our biases, and mine are in favor of Obama over Clinton. As the two campaigns amp up the rhetoric, will the undecideds move one way or the other, or just get fed up with the race & gender baiting?

I wonder if the new polls showing McCain "leading" nationwide will give him momentum in Michigan? Even though Romney leads there, is his support deep enough so his supporters will actually go to the polls? I think SC will be close (McCain and Huck) too.

And on the Dem side, what happened to all the Ds who were happy with the entire field and felt they could support any Democratic candidate? Might the acrimony between the Clinton and Obama camps - intensified by HRC's MTP appearance - spell trouble for the Ds, especailly, since McCain (plus a Democratic Senate) is seen by many (myself included) as a plausible choice?

I suspect that many would remember Rice and Mushroom Cloud..

i wonder how many other papers have a similar stance?

'The mayor is a tough-talking New Yorker - a little too tough for our tastes.

In a conversation with this editorial board, he said the way to end terrorism is: "You get rid of the nation states that support it," opening the door to a host of possibilities.

He casually dismissed the National Intelligence Estimate, a consensus by the nation's 16 intelligence divisions that says Iran suspended its nuclear ambitions in 2003. Iran deserves microscopic scrutiny, no question, but Giuliani should understand that Americans will not support an invasion based on gut instinct.

Giuliani's posture on Iran is worrisome because he says that even knowing what we know now, he'd still invade Iraq. He says the war wasn't about weapons of mass destruction, but about getting rid of a regime that sponsored terrorism and defied the United Nations.

Now hold on a minute, Mr. Mayor. Americans did not support this war to create regime change in Iraq. They supported this war because our president and his administration told us they imminently feared a mushroom cloud over cities like yours.

While national security remains paramount in selecting the nation's next leader, with unemployment reaching a two-year high and job growth stagnating, Giuliani sounds too much like a single-issue candidate. Sen. Joseph Biden Jr. said it best when he said that for Giuliani, a sentence was "a noun, a verb and 9/11."

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/jan/11/giuliani-presidency-would-represent-more-same/

If you believe President Bush has us on the right path, Giuliani is your man. He stands for more of the same.'

JimD wrote on Saturday
"if it is McCain versus Clinton, I would expect McCain to pick a female running mate. The question is would he look for a running mate to appease the base or to reach out to independents. Should he chose the latter and select, say Christine Todd Whitman, Olympia Snowe, Governor Jodi Rell of CT. He might even ask Condi Rice."

Jim that is interesting speculation. However, if McCain were to win the nomination & pick Rice as a running mate, I would lose all faith in his judgement. While Sec Rice has acquited herself reasonably as SOS, she was, in my opinion, promoted beyond her ability into that position. To nominate her as a VP candidate would be compounding that error.

It looks to be an interesting week. I don't know if I can differentiate between what I think will happen and what I want to happen. What I want to happen is that McCain & Obama solidify leads. Whether they can pull it off or not is less clear.

Blarg- on Romney's money v. Giuliani's, there is a lot more money in NY than there is in Mass. Not that MA is 'poor' per se, but NY is very very rich.

Drindl, Romney generally doesn't have much support in MA. He's not very popular among the people who he governed.

http://opensecrets.org/pres08/geog.asp?id=N00000286&cycle=2008
Here's a page about Romney's fundraising. 9% of his money was raised in MA, compared to 12% in Utah and 19% in California. Not very impressive. Compare that to Giuliani, who raised 23% of his money in New York; at least some people there support him.

Hillary Clinton came bouncing out of New Hampshire purportedly having found her voice after a long and at times desperate 35 year search.

But on Meet the Press the new Hillary voice sounded a lot like the old Hillary voice - harsh, unfriendly, confrontational. A benumbed MTP audience must have stared agape, wondering what happened to that kind woman who grew weepy over her immense concern for America's children. The interview was a grim slog.

Richelieu aptly described the interview as "a long display of nasty stares, parsing, mad cackles, and shameless re-inventions of history."

The latter refers to Hillary's ludicrous claim that her rhetoric on the campaign trail frightened the Iraqi government into passing de-Baathification legislation and thus all credit for the recent progress should go to the fearless senator rather than ineffectual bystanders like David Petraeus and 160,000 members of the American military.

This attempt to shamelessly take credit for something she actually worked against provides a needed and timely reminder: No matter how grating their style may be, when it comes to the Clintons their substance is always much worse.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Weblogs/TWSFP/TWSFPView.asp#3985

The Clintons just can't seem to remember that, in politics, you live by the game and you die by the game. Bill is living in his own fairy tale of moving back into 1600 Penn Ave.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D51ff3fkPPo&eurl=http://www.weeklystandard.com/Weblogs/TWSFP/TWSFPView.asp

optimyst - No one could question your dedication to your civic responsibility or your - je ne sais - oh, yes, optimism. But is it not true that a vote in the Florida Democratic Primary is a complete and total waste of effort?

'drindl, that's Bill Richardson. Sometimes mark's proclivity for acronyms is a little off putting. lawyers, go figure. :)'

thanks proud. i do sometimes go dyslexic with mark's acronyms!

Is Romney really done if he loses Michigan?

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

And Florida early voting started at 10 AM EST today. The poll workers had no doubt about my intentions since I was wearing my Obama tee shirt. There was more activity than I expected.

re "Who is BR?"

drindl, that's Bill Richardson. Sometimes mark's proclivity for acronyms is a little off putting. lawyers, go figure. :)

"How is Romney a "native son" of Michigan? He hasn't lived there in about 30 years"

Good question, blarg. If Mitt Romney cared so much about the folks in Michigan and their economy, then why didn't he run for Governor there instead of some northeast liberal state? If he had been governor of MI, he'd be much better able to help his fellow native sons and impact the economy of his home state than he would as president.

The funny thing is, Romney appeals to me, and I suspect a lot of Rs on an economic/ managerial level...but all his pandering and shifting positions render him untrustworthy. He is the least electable R in the race, imo.

I think Romney is in real trouble. A win in Michigan will just be a blip on the radar of the folks in SC. They have already written him off if you ask me. He naturally doesn't sell well there, and his whole strategy was to enter SC with wins in the first three major contests without that momentum he doesn't have the people in place nationwide to capitalize on a win in Michigan for the Feb 5th states.

I think Obama needs a victory in Nevada this weekend. The Hillary camp is pulling out all the stops and he needs to show that he can weather the storm. I think he is up to it, but the Clinton attack machine is in full swing because I think they realize if Obama wins South Carolina (especially if he wins a large portion of the white vote) it will put to rest some of the doubts people have about his electability and he could win the majority of the Feb 5th races.
It should be a fun week.

blarg -- you live in the same burb as romney and there's no support for him? that says a lot.

i expect it's like bloomberg. people in the city like him pretty well but the neighbors of his teenage daughter's horse ranch in norther nwestchester can't stand him -- because she keeps 50 thoroughbreds on a parcel zoned for 2. they think of him as another martha stewart [who's lives in bedford too].

SC - Do we have any SC posters, D or R? I suspect the D primary holds no surprises and that BHO will win. And I assume MDH will win, too. Does McC seem to be running fairly well? Will FDT get some "love"?'

Who is BR, Mark?

I expect BHO and Huckabee to win in SC too. I am not liking the rhetoric coming out of either HRC or BHO's camp either. Ugly on both sides and very divisive and damaging and unnecessary.

On the R side FDT is suddenly running very negative/attack dog and ripping whole sheets out of Rove's demagoguery playbook--running as a caricature of R rhetoric, it is said orchestrated by his wife.

How is Romney a "native son" of Michigan? He hasn't lived there in about 30 years.

I live in Belmont, the same Boston suburb as Romney. I haven't seen a single Romney sign or bumper sticker. Even his neighbors don't like the guy.

angrydoug1,

Thanks for the heads up on Michigan. Too many primaries in too short a period of time. Thanks for keeping me honest.

Chris

'Romney has used a two-prong attack to fight his way back to contention in Michigan -- a strong emphasis on his "native son" appeal and the "Washington is broken" message that his campaign unveiled in the wake of his Iowa caucus loss.'

romney is an unfunny joke -- a parody of himself. 'washington is broken?' -- who broke it? republicans. so a republican is going to fix it? by doing everything exactly the same as bush?

someone tell me one aspect of 'policy' or should i say ideology, where romeny differs from bush?

there's no difference whatsoever. romney is perfectly symbolized by bain capital, the company he created. the whole purpose of it is to help foreign governments buy out american companies and fire american workers.

'The original $37 million fund was raised entirely from private individuals in mid-1984, led by Ricardo Poma, a Salvadorean businessman.

On November 16, 2006, Clear Channel Communications agreed to be acquired by Bain Capital and Thomas Lee Partners for nearly $19 billion.

=Clear Channel -- largest rightwing propaganda network in the country btw

On September 28, 2007, Bain and the Chinese networking company Huawei Technologies acquired 3Com for $2.2 billion in cash.

And then there is his lying about his residency...

While Romney kept his house Belmont, Massachusetts after 1999, it is debatable whether that was his primary residence from then until 2002, as for most of that time he lived at house in Park City, Utah and worked there also.

Further complicating the issue was that in while living in Utah, Romney had filed taxes as a Utah resident, receiving a $54,000 tax break (reserved for the "primary residence" of Utah residents) on his $3.8 million home in Park City. Additionally, in 1999 his Massachusetts state tax return listed him as a part-time resident and his 2000 tax return listed him as a full-time Utah resident.

In April 2002, after returning to the state and deciding to run for governor, Romney altered his 1999 and 2000 tax returns, changing his residency status for those years to Massachusetts resident from Utah resident.'

Romney is a perfect example of everything that is wrong for America today.

Something very interesting may happen in the GOP nominating process; if Mitt wins MI, Thompson wins SC, and Rudy wins FLA (none of these outcomes is all that unlikely), we'd have 5 different winners in the first 5 contests.

Not sure what that means, but it must be some kind of record.

MI - Do any of our MI posters have a clue about the R primary?

NV - NevadaAndy and rufus - are you caucusing? Are there yard signs in your neighborhoods? Do either of you have a clue as to how the D caucuses will work? Do UNLV and NVReno kids get involved this time? Is it difficult or ez to get into the caucus - when did you have to declare?

SC - Do we have any SC posters, D or R? I suspect the D primary holds no surprises and that BHO will win. And I assume MDH will win, too. Does McC seem to be running fairly well? Will FDT get some "love"?

BR bowed out gracefully and pointed to his long time friendly acquaintance with MDH and remarked, offhand, that McC was the only candidate left with foreign policy experience or a real southwestern interest in immigration. But that he was supporting the D nominee, in any event, of course.

You've listed Michigan on Jan. 14th, I believe it's tomorrow, Tuesday the 15th.

Fine column, though.

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.