I am dismayed by what you describe as Obama's unflappable demeanor in last night's candidate exchanges. I did not hear anything of substance from him, as opposed to the substantive comments heard from Richardson, Clinton and Edwards. I did hear lots of platitudes. But what put me off was that I saw an Obama who looked disdainful of the other candidates, and who spoke in a condescending tone of voice; all in all I felt I was watching a rather arrogant individual on the podium.

With respect to Clinton (Richardson also falls into this description), I am non-plused that the post forum comments did not address the premis that change requires an ability to work with a variety of views, personalities and particular interests. Both Clinton and Richardson alluded to this fundamental verity of the American political system. If change is the mantra of this election, then it surely is relevant to inquire how each candidate proposes to accomplish change. Richardson's and Clinton's legislative and political experiences provide a clear picture of how they are likely to proceed from the oval office. Edwards likewise has laid out an approach although I do not agree with his approach of framing things in terms of what is best for the middle class.

Obama, last night, did not provide even a glimpse of how he would bring about change. More tellingly, he did not even acknowledge that often (perhaps too often for most Americans), change is incremental, and is spawned from compromise.

Surely, the press is capable of this kind of analysis, or at least to ask the 64 dollar question - how are you going to implement change; are you willing to compromise; are somethings too important to compromise, etc.?

JP Rome, Wilmette, ILlinois

rkpiktor,

No worries, it happens to the best of us. Inetersting, I pretty much agree that Florida will be the large determinent. However, I think SC will be a bit more important, mainly b/c the winner will have momentum and frontrunner status (although in both parites that means squat this election). And that will be a McCain charging in SC against a conservative elctorate that is divided between Thompson and Huckabee, with Romney making inraods. Considering McCain has a base of support from 2000 and momentum, I think he will win SC, and thus Florida becomes a race between all 5, with McCain at the helm. By Super Tuesday, it will be McCain v. Guiliani v. Huckabee.

My predictions were all totally wrong. I predicted Romney/Clinton wins. I was very, very pleased with the actual results, however.

f_krueger

As the internet gremlins would have it, I was about to post this reply to your comment when the internet connection failed. This morning it is back up and running. I apologize for seeming rude. This is what I think the GOP race will look like:

As things stand, McCain is acceptable to a majority of Republicans. Romney looks nice, can't deliver.

Giuliani is the national front runner but by single digits. Low, single digits. Last poll I saw he is one point ahead of McCain.

Huckabee looks to me like an amiable dunce. He will have to defeat McCain to have any real impact in the long run. Against the Democratic field, he has no chance of winning the national election. Of course, that might all change as suddenly as he clobbered Romney.

We all have to wait until McCain, Giuliani, Romney and Huckabee face each other in Florida.

Thompson is looking for a soft spot on the ring mat to take a dive.

I previously wrote this about the GOP field:

" Republicans up to this point have a Singing Pastor-in-Chief wannabe, a Ken Doll neophyte, a lagging septuagenarian and a Nosferatu-like sexagenarian rocking in his hammock in Florida.

Not my definition of excitement."

In conclusion, I see a Giuliani - McCain fight for the nomination.

LATEST CONSPIRACY NEWS!

http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080104/FRONTPAGE/801040302

drindl, your report was somewhat confirming of the experience I had of meeting my first Jewish neocon, who was in his early 80s. But you had told me that divisions were more than age related.

I understand that reform and conservative and reconstructionist [sp?] Jews are all modernists. So they would not have the fundamentalist beliefs about the Holy Land that - oh - fundie Christians have, too.

I think that all my Jewish friends are conservative or reform. Or unaffiliated.

The Republican Party is a sick joke, and the people of this country are fed up with them.
From Nixon to Bush, and from Scooter to Larry "Toilet Stall" Craig, the Republicans have proven themselves to be a bunch of lying, corrupt, evil, perverted, over-spending crooks.
When you look at all the money Bill Clinton left this country, it makes us all cry to know that Bush spent it all.
When the money was gone, Bush went to China for help.
Just think, we owe money to China!
That is the Bush way.
Cheney is no better.
You can't trust either of them.
No one does.
Why are we in Iraq?
The war should be on terror, not in Iraq.
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and yet Bush has spent all that money to fight "his" war.
Yes his, because many Republicans have backed off from the war.
By the way, the war in Iraq has cost the U.S. almost five hundred billion dollars.
Forget Rudy.
Rudy Giuliani is no hero.
While he is often called the hero of 9/11, the truth is that Rudy was a terrible leader during his years as mayor of New York City.
He made bad decisions and took a girlfriend while being married.
In fact, he even wanted his lover to live in the same house with his wife.
Most people would call this perverted.
New Yorkers were so sick of his antics, that they wanted him out of office.
Then came 9/11.
The only reason people call Giuliani a hero today, is because he just happened to be NYC's mayor during that bad time.
Any mayor would be looked at as a hero if they showed their face under those circumstances.
If there was no 9/11, Rudy would have become a joke.
This is not the kind of leader we want in the White House. In closing, the New York Post reported in their paper on April 23, that Giuliani spent more than $48,000 dollars of campaign money on posh hotels while claiming to have spent the least of all the Republican candidates.
Rudy is a good time leader, and does it with other people's money.
Forget Mitt.
His ads look bad.
He can't seem to get his facts right, and will say things to make himself look good.
Red flags go up around him.
I spoke with his son Tagg at the New Hampshire debates back in June (2007), and while he seemed like a nice man, Tagg could not get his facts right either.
The worst Republican as of late, though, is Larry Craig.
He is a lying pervert who wanted gay sex with a strange man on a dirty toilet seat.
He pled guilty, then said he was not guilty.
Say what?
He is another Republican moron.
Did you hear about Washington State Republican Rep. Richard Curtis?
He offered $1,000 to a young man for unprotected sex while dressed in women's lingerie.
This sort of thing just goes on and on with them.
Remember Mark Foley?
Here is a letter I wrote that was in many newspapers and Web sites:

Once again, the Republicans have turned my stomach with shocking and repulsive behavior.
Mark Foley, a Republican member (now ex-member) of Congress, has sent many e-mails with perverted sexual content to a sixteen year old boy.
This is the same man who while in Congress, backed a bill that was meant to protect children from child predators.
Foley himself, is a man who preyed on a child with lust.
What is also incomprehensible, is the fact that some Republicans knew of Foley's behavior, and yet, did not take a hard stand against this until it became public news. If I had a teenage son and/or daughter, I would not want them to go near any Republican leader for fear of either or both becoming a victim of a sick Republican pervert.

George Vreeland Hill

There were more than three hundred such letters in newspapers in 2007 alone.
Many of them in New Hampshire.
There are thousands on the Internet.
No lie.
THOUSANDS!
This does not even include articles, ads, radio, TV and other areas where the public takes notice.
In fact, one Republican in California wanted me stopped once, because I was hurting some Republicans in their elections.
I just want to do my part in helping to get rid of every Republican scumbag.
From phone scams to the Union Leader (NH) covering up for Republicans, the garbage never ends.
But the Republican Party will end.
Did you know that George W. Bush once made fun of the issue of Weapons of Mass Destruction?
He did, and in front of some shocked people during a black-tie event in 2004.
He said.... (While looking under a piece of furniture) "Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be here somewhere."
Then, while pretending to look out of a window, Bush laughed as he said..... "Nope, no weapons over there."
While he was laughing, there were men and women fighting and dying in Iraq because of WMD.
George W. Bush should be removed from office because of that alone.
Face it, Bill Clinton lied about having sex, and was impeached because of it.
George W. Bush however, did far worse, as he laughed at the very people who are fighting for the United States of America!
That about sums it all up!
(By the way, this Bush/WMD was part of an article and letter I wrote as well.)
This leads us to John McCain.
All he seems to do is attack other candidates.
His Woodstock ad against Hillary Clinton was boring and without the facts.
He tells of Hillary wanting to spend a million dollars on a museum while he (McCain) supports spending more on the war in Iraq.
He wants you to believe that the Democrats are the big spenders, while it is McCain's Republican Party that has spent all the money Bill Clinton left us to a point where Bush had to borrow money from China.
Think about that again.
We owe to China.
That is the Republican way.
Also, it must be noted that McCain even laughed at war.
Remember when McCain changed the words of a Beach Boys song to Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Iran?
McCain even laughed when he was done.
He thought starting a war with Iran was a laughing matter.
That is the real John McCain.
He just can't be trusted.
He is another George Bush, and you know what we got with him.
The Republican Party is a mess, and getting worse.
People do not trust any of them, and we are all tired of their act.
I am doing my best to make sure that no Republican wins an election.
Thank you for your time.

George Vreeland Hill

drindl, on Friday mornings I eat breakfast at Nau's Pharmacy on West Lynn [all people with a history in Austin know this landmark institution]. I meet 3-5 other guys, one of whom is black. Freddie and I played city league softball on the same team in '72 and '73, one of his daughters is an MD, his grand son is a wideout at OK. He is two years my senior and he worked two jobs most of his life to get his kids through college. He's a deacon in his church and he danced once with Tina Turner in 1966.
He is 6'3 and he still remembers Tina as tiny and light on her feet. Freddie's wife died in September and there was an article about his church and her funeral in December in the Austin American [I could send you the website if you wanted to pursue this].

I am trying to give you a feel for my friend Freddie. This morning he was thrilled. He really never thought BHO had a chance. He compared it with seeing a guy land on the moon. Its the happiest he has been since Nannie Mae died.

And he also thought MDH was "OK for a Republican". It was more the "nice guy" thing than the "Baptist" thing.

Two other guys showed up this morning.

George, an IBM engineer, is apolitical.

David is a retired NASA engineer, a McCain guy, who volunteers as a tech teacher in a non-profit non-sectarian charter school and
runs a "Great Decisions" [foreign policy] group.

George and David gave MDH points on cleanliness but both have little patience for a guy who does not believe in evolution. George kinda likes BHO. David thinks BHO is a clean pol and has dreaded HRC v. RG, and recently, HRC v. WMR. So he was relieved. Although he thinks BHO has no foreign policy chops, he thinks that about everybody left standing except McC.

Thus ends my report.

Amazing how few "experts" had Huckabee as the winner.

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

Claudialong,

B/c of her death, the best, albeit, still bad, option would be Nawaz Sharif. I think, somewhat oddly, that Musharraf has to stay in power for 2 reasons: 1. becuase the elcetions in Feburary only deal with the Parliament, not the Presidency. Anything that gets rid of Musharraf right now would be destabilizing mainly b/c it would not be done in a democratic fashion. and 2. B/c the person taking over would be weak (Sharif has family connections ot opium dealers, and Bhutto's husband is polarizing even within the PPP).

However, Sharif should be PM, becuase it would still be a symbolic step towards Pakistani democracy, and at least for now, him as PM and Musharraf as President might serve to cancel out the disadvantages of each of them until a new Pakistani president is elected.

'That was definately surprising. And extremely unfortunate. Lets hope the elections in Feb. break Musharraf's hold.'

fkreuger,

Interesting. Certainly I agree. We are supporting a military regime that is dismantling democracy in Pakistan. And I appreciate your observations as a Republican... that you would vote for Obama over Guiliani. I have certain reservations about Obama too, but there's something about the man that makes you want to believe.

But who do you see replacing Mushareff? Certainly, he is tremendously unpopular with the Pakistani population, being seen as a US tool, but what are the alternatives?

Rfpiktor,

That was definately surprising. And extremely unfortunate. Lets hope the elections in Feb. break Musharraf's hold.

Obama's game is nice and working. He reminds me a bit of RFK, and even as a Republican, I can appriciate that. I honestly do not mind Obama. I sure do not agree with him on certain issues, but he sounds like someone I can stomach. I would also vote for him if he went up against Guiliani.

That being said...who do you think on the GOP's side?

I'm sick of people attacking Huckabee for his tax record. Who cares if taxes went up a little? What I care about is what he did with the taxes. All government is not bad government, no matter what the neocons say. It's just a lame wedge issue that the GOP uses every time they get in a pinch and can't come up with any real criteria to go by. Kind of like how the GOP is trying to pitch going from one Christian right presidency to another as "change."

They're not fooling anyone. Americans believe in equal rights and equal treatment under the law and until the social conservatives get it into their heads that bigotry can never be part of the American Constitution, they'll never truly be Americans.

'There is something in the water in Hope, AK, that breeds fast footed pols.'

Yeah, Mark, what are the arithmetical chances that two guys out of this small town would be presidential candidates in this short span of time?

Huck also mentioned that Reagan raised taxes in his second term -- the most verboton of all heresies. I thought I heard Sean gasp. He said," Reagan cared about lower taxes, but also about balancing the budget. As Governor of Arkansas, I had a mandate to balance the budget."

Sean was nearly speechless. Heresy upon heresy! So I say, Huck has pluck, no doubt.

At the gym -- the older more conservative Jews like either Guiliani or Clinton, who they feel have the closest ties to AIPAC. This is all about Israel. The re's another faction that would vote for Hillary but never Guiliani. They were disappointed. There is a certain mistrust in the older Jewish community for black politicians, going back to the time when, I think it was Jesse Jackson, called NYC Hymie-town.

The young and Reforms, however, love Obama, so very mixed --and interesting.

rindl, luv to hear the JCC "focus group" and you see what I mean about MDH. There is something in the water in Hope, AK, that breeds fast footed pols.

fyi, Mark and USMC Mike:

Anybody hear Sean Hannity's interview with Huckabee this afternoon?

I have to say, I don't support him for a number of reasons -- but as my daughter would say, he has 'mad skills.' He whupped Hannnity, who wants him to just go away. Hannity ranted for a while, clearly shaken by Obama's victory, because the rightwing really was praying for Hillary or Edwards to win. Obama is a much tougher opponent.

Mucho harder to demonize. Hannity was raving about higher taxes, socialism, blahblah. He attacked the party, because he can't attack the man. Talked about how important it was to elect either Rudy[whom he did a 5 minute ad for] or Mitt or Thompson. McCain, out of the question.

Then he brought Huck on and tried to nail him. Brought up first of all '1000 pardons' of 'murderers' etc. Went on for five minutes. Finally Huck broke in and started defending some of them -- kid who was busted for writing a bad check in college, then went on to serve in the Marines, couldn't get a job because of record, etc. Hannity hit him hard with Wayne Dumond -- Huckabee parried by blaming it on Bill Clinton. Disingenous, but will work with the base.

Then he attacked Romeny for NOT pardoning these two border guards who were charged with shooting a non-doc -- a cause celebre among the right. So he managed to turn it into a talking point about immigration. Then he siad he had executed more people than Romney -- apparently now something to brag about. Hannity kept using the conservative technque of refusing to allow argument by talking over him, but he refused to stop talking and Hannity had to shut up.

Then about rasing taxes as Gov. Huck said he used it to build roads -- you can't have jobs if people don't have roads to get there, he said, threw Hannity off his game. I've never heard anyone handle him better. Hannity said would he debate Romney on the show, and I could hear Huck smiling over the radio. Mitt won't do it--he'd be a fool.He can't match this guy -- he's like a boxer, really fast on his feet.

Overall, an excellent performance.

I also did an impromptu focus group at my gym, Mark, which is in the Jewish Community Center -- let me know if you want to hear about that. Everyone was watching CNN and commenting.

I would rather be in Obama's shoes now then Clinton's- but things are not so bad for Clinton either.

The Iowas caucus will deliver 16 delegates to Obama, 15 to Clinton and 14 to Edwards.

Clearly, the Clinton people understand the mechanics of political positioning better than the others do.

Clinton can survive such losses in the early primaries and still is likely to win big on February 5.

Nevertheless, the Democrats need Obama and the excitement he generates to build a progressive governing coalition.

Clinton must avoid a negative campaign against Obama.

She can demonstrate that her incremental approach to effecting change is the most effective method and win the nomination.

No matter what she must not antagonize Obama and his supporters and must conduct herself in a way that they can back her enthusiasticly and wholeheartedly in the fall.

Senator Clinton WILL pull it off.

Well Mark, Rudy has hired PR folks who are closely linked with Rove, so that is why I had my suspicions. Rove was seen by Dana Milbank doing a PowerPoint presentation for Rudy more than a year ago, so....

f_krueger,

It's amazing that Mrs. Bhutto died exactly one week before the Iowa caucuses.

I grant you that anything can happen and nothing is a sure bet.

Other than that, I am extremely pleased that Mr. Obama is beating all his rivals with his game, which I find sensational.

"I've been through election nights that brought a political earthquake to the country. I've never been through an election night that brought two.

Barack Obama has won the Iowa caucuses. You'd have to have a heart of stone not to feel moved by this. An African-American man wins a closely fought campaign in a pivotal state. He beats two strong opponents, including the mighty Clinton machine. He does it in a system that favors rural voters. He does it by getting young voters to come out to the caucuses.

This is a huge moment. It's one of those times when a movement that seemed ethereal and idealistic became a reality and took on political substance.

Iowa won't settle the race, but the rest of the primary season is going to be colored by the glow of this result. Whatever their political affiliations, Americans are going to feel good about the Obama victory, which is a story of youth, possibility and unity through diversity -- the primordial themes of the American experience.

And Americans are not going to want to see this stopped. When an African-American man is leading a juggernaut to the White House, do you want to be the one to stand up and say No?

Obama has achieved something remarkable. At first blush, his speeches are abstract, secular sermons of personal uplift -- filled with disquisitions on the nature of hope and the contours of change.

He talks about erasing old categories like red and blue (and implicitly, black and white) and replacing them with new categories, of which the most important are new and old. He seems at first more preoccupied with changing thinking than changing legislation.

Yet over the course of his speeches and over the course of this campaign, he has persuaded many Iowans that there is substance here as well. He built a great organization and produced a tangible victory.

He's made Hillary Clinton, with her wonkish, pragmatic approach to politics, seem uninspired. He's made John Edwards, with his angry cries that "corporate greed is killing your children's future," seem old-fashioned. Edwards's political career is probably over.

Obama is changing the tone of American liberalism, and maybe American politics, too.
"

DAVID BROOKS

R

K

"Bush says financial markets 'strong, solid'"

"Captain Smith says Titanic 'strong, solid'"

"Mets manager says lead over Phillies 'strong, solid'"

I meant the "South Carolina Campaign in 2000" up there not 2004.

I was disappointed that McCain lost the Republican nomination in 2000, but I was much, much more disappointed with him personally since.

Watching him, literally, hug and kiss the very same man who allowed the South Carolina campaign in 2004 was a ghastly image of just how far McCain would sink in order to try and be president. Observing as McCain put on a good show for the cameras and then later compromised with Bush on the issue of torture was even worse for me to watch. If anyone should have made a clear, firm, and decisive stand on that issue it is a former POW.

Frankly, McCain sunk originally because he tried to be something he is not: a Republican in the same mold as Giuliani, Romney, etc. It was only after he returned to being himself, complete with scorn for the religious right, and the rabid fringe calling for illegal immigrants to be marched into the sea and drowned en masse that he started rising in the polls once again.

The lesson of this entire campaign season so far is that voters are paying attention and are spotting the phonies this year. Each time a candidate has tried to reinvent who they are, be they Hillary on the Democratic side or Romney on the Republican side, they've been hammered for it big time.

So who did the two parties nominate in Iowa? Obama and Huckabee: who have run on more or less the same message, whether you agree with it or not, since day one.

"[deseret news] implicates the noun-verb-911 campaign by innuendo and without making a direct accusation."

I've seen that implication before - shortly after the push polls were first conducted. As far as I recall, it wasn't long after the imbroglio that the RG campaign's numbers dropped in NH & he moved on to greener pastures. If history holds, the more he campaigns in such places, the more his numbers will fall.

He probably feels the need to stay in the news cycle while not participating in the early contests; look for some sharp words from him tomorrow.

P.S. - Received a short "thank you" email from JB that did not reveal any plan beyond returning to the Senate.

rfpiktor:

I see where you are coming from, but IMO I think those gaffes were made before most started to pay attention. However, even when Obama made mistakes, it hurt him (right after his Pakistan comment, his poll ratings sunk).

In SC, let's not assume. There is a good deal of time, and SC seems to be a stub in the road for NH's momentum. (I do think Obama will win NH, although if he screws up in the debates, then all bets are off).

mlalliso, mike, bsimon, drindl -

Consistent with mlalliso's conspiracy theory and drindl's darkest thoughts, we find:

http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695230357,00.html

which implicates the noun-verb-911 campaign
by innuendo and without making a direct accusation.

Conspiracy Theory: the truth is out there...

f_krueger 05:00 PM

Obama has made mistakes and tripped, like Reagan, faux-passes seem to slide by him. This guy is a natural.

S.C. is in his pocket, all he has to do is win by any margin in N.H.

Count on the heavy black vote to carry him.

The real test for Barack Obama will come in South Carolina. That was where Bush stopped McCain, and it is where Hillary will run less interference from the indepdendent vote.

Also, there, at some point, will be a blowback against Obama. His strength is also his weakness. He will need specifics, and if he screws up like Huckabee, Clinton is back in.

The fascinating question about N.H. is Obama enjoying a domino effect or not.

Will the "debates" matter, will the candidates positions on the issues matter.

Will the good people of N.H. see the Obama Iowans saw.

Well, why the hell not. The guy is likable, eloquent, inspiring and gracious.

If young people and independents do their little number again, if women reject Billary and cut her/him to size, well Mr. Obama will have a very pleasant and merry ride on his Change express.

(Bill was summoned to campaign in N.H. by the Hillary brainiacs. Good luck, Hill)

thecrisis: Like the Huckster's doppelganger Gomer Pyle says, Sha-ZAM!

Hillary couldn't beat a house plant

by Uncle Randy

In the Buckle of the Bible Belt, Iowans went for Barack and the Baptist.

And they reminded us that in Blue Collar America, Hillary couldn't beat a house plant in the Heartland.

With the Iowa caucuses over last night, Iowans today are sitting by the phone like a fat girl on prom night, waiting for someone to ask their opinion on either the affairs of state or the state of their corn crop. It also means that the hordes of television reporters have returned to Los Angeles and Miami, and Iowans no longer have to listen to them whine that Midwest is cold in the winter - which is one of the features of areas that do not have indifferent weather, like New Hampshire where they're headed next.

It seems an awful fuss for nothing. No delegates are awarded, no one gets elected.

It carries all the real world importance of elections for the Homecoming Queen. But if the criteria for winning the Iowa Caucuses is looking good in a formal gown, Rudy Guiliani would have won in a landslide.

E-mail http://www.mybluecollar.com/blog/postsuncle_randy@mybluecollar.com, or go to

"...you weren't the first to do so."

hahahahahahha awesome.

Obama-Dodd 08

willseattle writes
"Dodd/Biden - hoping that Obama will choose them for VP, and they both have better shots than Clinton for that, but Edwards will give them a run for the money with his SC results."

If the Obama juggernaut keeps rolling, he won't pick one of the competitors as a running mate. Edwards is damaged goods, Clinton is too much of a lightning rod, Dodd & Biden don't add much, beyond years. Well, Biden perhaps for foreign policy, but I picture him as being more valuable in his current role or as sec o' state.

I saw that crisis. almost on the dot. I guess that gives you much credibility with the republcains here, since they are rarely correct. :)

That's the way it works right? Those that continue to be correct get the credibility, those that do not are liars and or propogandists, or merely ignorant. Either way their word deminishes. Unless you are bill kristol bill o'liely hannity rush savage. The good news is, the above are now irrelevant with those that matter. I cannot ask for more than that. I don't not want to silence free speech. I wish they would get off the air for the good of the nation. But this is america. they have their right. As long as they're marginalzed as liars and propogandists. Kinda like this site.

I wasn't so blod to put percentages, but if I did I would have been higher than Obama edwards did get

"Obama

Edwards

clinton

Huck

romney

Mccain

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 3, 2008 12:43 PM
"

r

Every day I come to WaPo to read Dan Froomkin, but now I read Chris Cillizza every bit as religiously. This really is superlative coverage, thunderous applause!

I predicted

1-Obama +4
2-Edwards
3-Clinton

1-Romney +3
2Huckabee
3-Thompson

I was closer than thecrisis on Dems, wrong on GOPs.

I mostly had the order, the exception being Thompson's shocking showing. Obama's numbers were higher than I expected; I cut my gut feel in an attempt to moderate emotion with realism.

Dang!

Oh, well, I predicted something like Obama 32, Clinton 31, Edwards 30 when I posted on the Seattle weekly Stranger SLOG as my prediction, so I still wouldn't have won this anyway. Even if Chris is my Facebook friend ...

The interesting thing is the fallout. I'm going to make some better predictions right now:

Obama - most likely similar results in NH.
Edwards - most likely similar results in NH.
Clinton - most likely similar results in NH.
Dodd/Biden - hoping that Obama will choose them for VP, and they both have better shots than Clinton for that, but Edwards will give them a run for the money with his SC results.

OK, enough with the party of the 21st Century, on to the party of the 18th Century (or if Huckabee wins the nom, the 8th Century):

Guiliani: damaged by his abysmal ranking which was lower than both Ron Paul and Thomposon - but may still have a shot in NH where it's not so partisan, expected to improve to double digits but still lose.

Huckabee: guaranteed to get lower vote numbers, but might pull off a 2nd or 3rd which is all he needs. Best bet for crossover Dems looking for a spoiler to send the GOP into the wilderness for 40 years.

Thompson: dead. Just doesn't know it yet.

Ron Paul: not going away no matter how much you shout at him - will probably improve his 10 percent vote to get 3rd or 4th place in NH, as the last Republicans who care about America fight to retake their party from the radical extremists who are destroying it. Won't win tho.

Romney: likely to improve his standing but still only pull 2nd place or tie for 1st. It's the Mormon thing, and we all know it.

The rest of the GOP: dead, just don't realize it yet.

"And I nailed Huck on the head."

Based on some of his nuttier beliefs, you weren't the first to do so.

Here were my predictions from before Iowa:

Demos
1. Obama 36%
2. Edwards 33%
3. Clinton 31%

GOP
1. Huckabee 35%
2. Romney 29%
3. McCain 20%
4. Thompson 16%

I almost nailed everyone except for McCain and Thompson. And I nailed Huck on the head.

Check the comments on the original "predictions" blog. I was correct in predicting both lineups (I had McCain and Thompson flip-flopped, though) and was more accurate than any of your guys in my numbers guess. I guessed Obama 37, Edwards 33, Clinton 31, if I remember correctly.

Eat that, pundits.

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.