Article Opinion <a

Article Opinion <a

Article Opinion <a

Article Opinion <a

Having a woman president is the change--not having another man even if he is black. Remember black men got the vote decades before women did. This country has a bias against women in power that is difficult to overcome. I think Hillary is the one to do it.

Hillary exclaimed in no uncertain terms "I'm your girl!".

The good people of Iowa were not amused.

Sounds like something that may be shouted in professional wrestling or by a desperate woman on the street corner...

My line would be a bit different than CC's. For Republicans:

1. McCain
2. Huckabee
3. Guiliani
4. Romney

That's right, McCain went down about 6 months ago only to bring his campaign back to the top spot here in January. Romney's loss last night hurt him badly, and McCain now leads in NH. I think McCain will win NH, leading to a win in Michigan also. With that momentum, McCain should be able to capitalize & win Nevada also. That's 3 in a row. Then in SC, Huckabee will be waiting. SC Senior Senator Lindsey Graham has endorsed McCain, & will stump for him hard there in SC. The other senator, Jim DeMint, endorsed Romney. Now, I will admit that Romney has a real shot of winning in NH. Although his lead has diminished and he's losing now. I think McCain is the front runner in NH, and if he wins there he will likely win 3 in a row: NH, Michigan & Nevada. SC will be tough b/t him and Huckabee if that happens. Florida will also be very competitive b/t Huck, McCain & Guiliani. If it happens this way, Romney will be done for & Feb. 5 will feature Guiliani vs. Huckabee vs. McCain. I think Romney is in alot of trouble, & McCain wins NH.

Democrats:

1. Clinton
2. Obama

Come on, is there really any use in ranking Edwards? Yes, he is way above the rest of the field. Does he have a real shot to win? No! NH will be a very, very nasty race. It will likely be close b/t Clinton & Obama. My prediction would be that Obama will also win in NH. So, why do I have Clinton ranked #1? B/c in the next state, Michigan, it's only Clinton vs Kucinuich vs. Gravel. As part of the protest & following the Democratic party's line, Edwards, Obama, Richardson, ect. never registered to run in Michigan. This means Clinton gets back on track with an easy win in Michigan. Then she goes to Nevada where Obama awaits, and likely wins in Nevada. Then in SC, Clinton really will likely use Obama's past & race against him, winning SC. Clinton will likely win Florida, also. FEb. 5 is up in the air, but I'd have to say the landscape favors a Clinton comeback, even if Obama is able to take NH.

Go Hillary! I will not vote for Obama in the general election. He's not a real Democrat.

Chris,

Why is it that the media hates Edwards and loves Clinton and Obama so much? I guess because of their making history right? Heres the thing, Edwards managed a great victory by finishing SECOND, not Clinton who is THIRD, and given how much she outspent Edwards it does not matter how close this third place is. Bottom line, you cannot count out Edwards until SC, Nevada, and Florida have been decided. Why? Because Clinton is not carrying any of those three states so it will be between Obama and Edwards (oh and maybe Richardson for Nevada, please cover the other remaining candidates and stop being biased towards those stupid media polls that are continually wrong). Clinton has no chance in any "red" state (except maybe Arkansas) because her "experience" message is not getting bought. Truthfully, she only has northern support because the Democratic establishment supports her and many have it in their head that they have to pick her to win. But she would lose to most Rs while Edwards and Obama would beat all the Rs. In the end the only "blue" states she will probably carry will be NY, NJ (just because that is her area) and maybe NH (which is kind of the northern conservative area anyway). If Iowa proved anything it is that "experience" is out the window (especially when your a conservative democrat, which is what Clinton is) and "change" is favored. Whether that change is "hope, working together" (i'm skeptic on being able to work with Rs) or "angry-populist, lets knock some corporate heads" (I do hate me those corporations) will be seen later down the road.

The most apalling thing to me is the media circus that is playing around the Iowa Caucus results, serving to further exaggerate their (unfair) weight in the nominating processes. In the first mplace, if anybody has taken a look at the RCP (real clear politics) poll average, both Huckabee and Obama had sizable leads in the average, so the "big wins" reported for these two by newspapers ranging from the Miami Herald to the New York Times are clearly misleading. Also, the impact of these wins has been grossly overstated by many analysts, including, surprisingly, the FIx. Anybody with a knowledge of past caucuses and how often they yield the eventual nominee would know that Iowans have shown a tendency to nominate candidates simply because they have professed an affinity for the "all important" Iowa voters. This brings me to another point: the redundance of the Iowa Caucus. Barack Obama outspent both Edwards and Clinton in Iowa in an attempt to ingratiate himself with voters that he would never use in contests other than the early ones. The media's one-sided interpretation of the Democratic caucus illustrates the stupidity of allowing a state with 1.3% of the nation's population to have such a great role in choosing the nominee. Finally, for all of the Obama supporters that I know have posted on this site and also for Chris Cizilla, please take a look at Dave LEip's election atlas. A very handy website, it provides the most current polls for each state's choice among the candidates. A quick look at the Democratic primary map shows that Hillary CLinton has commanding leads in all states other than Obama's home of Illinois and the early states. Since the candidates have effectively drowned the early states (Iowa, NH, and S.C.) in money and ads, those are the states that are currently competitive. I find that ranking CLinton number two is simply misleading, because her leads in the delegate rich states of NY, NJ, PA, CA, etc. are simply too big for Obama, who has relied entirely on the media to spin him and his victory as a victory for "Change," to overcome. Furthermore, if Obama were to win the nomination he would find it almost impossible to win the GE and not just because of his race. Any of the Republican candidates would a a big deal about the lack of experience and the lack of any clear plans for America, sayiing that he is unprepared to be president. To be frank, if John McCain were pitted against Obama, I would have no choice but to vote for McCain, who in his stints as POW and senator has come across as authentic and ready to lead America. I do not trust Obama to run a country and I doubt that a majority of America would. Winning back the presidency after eight years dominated by Bush is too important to stake all hopes on a freshman senator just four years out of the state legislature, whose lack of experience and policy proposals would persuade many moderate Dems to vote for a moderate to Conservative Republican. In a nutshell, Iowa has had their fun in the chaos of primary season but Obama and Huckabee are simply unelectable in the GE.

two points:

1. delegate numbers are only important until there is one candidate left. if obama wins the nomination, every single iowa, idaho, new hampshire, and california delegate will be his at the convention. super delegates would not stand in a mainstream candidate's way if he wins a plurality of the democratic voters.

2. mccain seems the best positioned - certainly much better than romney. on the war, taxes, abortion he's ok for mainstream gop. but the 60% evangelicals can't be that unusual in a republican primary. iowa isn't even in the bible belt. so huck will still be viable for a while.

LATEST CONSPIRACY NEWS!

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

I have read many of the comments posted here. I am impressed with many of them. However, I have an observation. I believe that Americans are going to be faced with one of three choices. Choice number one, a Republican. Choice number two, a Black man. Choice number three, Hillary Clinton. Based on those three choices, I believe America will choose the Republican,(God, please make me wrong), no matter who he is, or how less qualified he is. Unfortunately, for America, we will not vote for a Black president, no matter what positive qualities he brings to the presidency. We will not vote for Hillary because she appears to be devisive and a bit wishy-washy. Thus, America will vote for a Republican, even though the Republican party has wrecked our country, our economy, our way of life, our prestige overseas, sent our young men and women off to a war on false pretenses, etc., over the last eight years. It will take our country many years to overcome the damage done by Republicans who controlled the White House, and most of Congress for most of those eight years. However, most Americans will choose another Republican because in their minds, a Republican would be the "lesser of evils." Why, vote for a Black man...never. God, help America.

Why is no one, not even ready and alert Fix, paying any attention what so ever to Wyoming caucus of tomorrow?

ineerja.blogspot.com

Chris,

I thoroughly enjoy the Line. I agree with you concerning Edwards. Clinton needs him to stay in the race at least through South Carolina. He is trying to spin his .28 second place as a strong repudiation of the establishment. He seem to be the most establishment candidate.

He lost to Obama or Clinton in almost all demographics. Clinton and Obama tied the union vote, plus he lost the rural vote. He really has no place to go, bit since he has been running for so long, he may as well continue until he runs out of money.

In 2004 I was happy to vote for Edwards, but he has become so angry and belligerent, I do not know who he is anymore. Of all the candidates on either side, he gave the absolute worse concession speech of all.

Sen. Biden was my favorite candidate, and I am so sorry that he couldn't continue. He is indeed a statesman.Until last night I would have enthusiastically voted for any of the Democratic candidates. I am happy that Edwards will not be the candidate so I will still be able to vote Democratic. He is just too angry.

Just got home so am finally able to respond:

mcmahon10,

I did not feel demeaned, just irritated that you seemed to think I had a bubble that needed to be popped.

I'm very glad to hear that there is no / little feeling of pressure to move from a non-viable group, but it just seems hard to believe that that's true amongst all groups. Being hard to believe, however, does not mean its not true.

I do appreciate the information that you provided because it gave a glimpse into a few of the caucuses. The same kids that I teach to disagree politely were driving me nuts at the time and I don't think I properly worded my response. My apologies for any slur given.

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. 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 peoople don't have roads to get there, he said, threw Hannity off his game.

Overall, an excellent performance.

Joe Biden once said that all of Giuliani's sentences contain only "a noun, a verb and 9/11".

Well, perhaps.

I suppose you have to be mildly insane to run for POTUS.

'Rudy Giuliani, speaking about his sixth place finish in Iowa yesterday:

"None of this worries me -- Sept. 11, there were times I was worried."

As a GOP operative I know loves to say, the man has "9/11 Tourettes." Can't help himself.'

I can just imagine the next few months is he's nominee..

'Mr. Guiliani, what brand of toothpaste do you use?'

'On 9/11, I didn't have time to brush my teeth...'

Posted by: claudialong | January 4, 2008 02:31 PM

Hey....!!!! I thought all you great comedy writers were on strike ?? Glad to see you havn't lost your superb talent during the picketing. Keep up the great work

That's funny Mike, because my impression of Romney has been just the opposite. For me, he's been a huge flip-flopper throughout the Republican race. I could totally see him making anti-Mormon calls posing as McCain supporters in order to create a backlash against McCain.

Just goes to show that truth depends on your point of view at times.

From Mark's Article

"Campaigns in the past have used negative messages to elicit sympathy for candidates. For instance, Robert F. Kennedy was behind anti-Catholic phone calls and literature during his brother's presidential race."

This doesn't seem very likely.

And I like conspiracy theories.

I met Mitt Romney once; I think he's pretty stand-up. That doesn't mean anything, but there it is.

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

Mark: nice link, thanks. That would be delightfully ironic if Republicans got bit by push-polls...they would be "hoisted by their own petard" [as the old Bard would say].

I used to quite admire McCain, until the 2000 primary in SC, where Bush Inc. attacked McCain for his having a "little black girl daughter" [his adopted Vietnamese child]. McCain may have been gentlemanly about it, but I thought he should have pinned Bush to the wall by his gooey testicles--or at least pistols at dawn. One cannot doubt McCain's personal courage in life, but that incident spoke volumes to me about McCain, Bush, the Republicans a la Rove, and SC voters.

Which is also why I fear that Hillary may have success in SC. I hope I am asininely wrong.

vbhoomes:

I'm not going to comment on whether Jeb would or would not make a good president at this time, since he isn't currently running.

But seriously, can you imagine the apocalypse that would befall this country of having a Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush matchup in 2008? I mean...wow.

If you think that Democrats putting Hillary at the top of their ticket would boost conservative turnout, you cannot even begin to imagine would the response would be by liberals to Republicans giving them the big old metaphorical middle finger by nominating another Bush after the last 8 years of Dubya.

Brr. I just got a vision of doom with those two up against one another in the race. It was if 250 million moderates died screaming in agony, and were suddenly silenced forever.

RadPat - I saw some of your DMR posts. Yes, I think the IA caucuses, unrepresentative as they are, have done both parties a favor.

Have you been following the "push-poll" posts?

Here is another clue from the SLC Deseret-News, one that will make drindl say
"aha".

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

Mark-in-A: Did you notice that we had consecutive entries in one of the Des Moines Register columns last week? I think it was the one on the feedback to the Editors for their corporate-sponsored endorsement of Hillary. What was the response there--something like 8 or 9 to 1 against the Editors?

Anyway, I am sorry your Biden did not make a better showing. Perhaps we can have an Obama-Biden ticket. That would be very powerful [and intelligent]! With jolly old Bill Richardson as Secretary of State, maybe.

It's obscene that IA has had such an influence so far on the nomination process, as will NH, while we here in big ole TX are just about impotent. But I am grateful for the results so far. It's the first step in the right direction.

Mitt Romney is best for our national economy. He knows how to generate jobs and create economic strength. And most of all, HE WON'T RAISE TAXES! As we edge toward recession, a vote for Romney is a wise move for the wallet!

And MDH is not only the best stand up pol on the R side, he is the most natural of the pols on either side.

No, not my choice to be Prez for reasons I have discussed. But his personality shines, he is no dummy, and as Brooks wrote this morning, he is a good thing happening.

"And with a 'bump' from IA will the 'tie' no longer be virtual?"

Pundits talk about the IA bump lasting 4 or 5 days. That may be true for polls, but is it true for primaries? Who can say?

I'll say it again:

A LOT is riding on the Sat night debate.

No pressure!

mlalliso,

I did see your post re: conspiracy theory.
It was brilliant, as my English son-in-law would say.

I have been meaning to waste more time on the Great Mystery myself. Work intruded, briefly.

"Huck has 9.5% to McCain's 31.3%."

Yeah, rfpiktor, Huck's numbers in NH have sucked for weeks (months?). That's why he needs to do something different to make use of the tailwind blowing in from IA.

Forgot about that song, bsimon. Not my favorite but not bad.

This from the LATimes http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-independents30dec30,1,7800241.story?coll=la-politics-campaign&ctrack=2&cset=true

"Among the state's registered Democrats, the survey found Clinton led Obama, 35% to 28%. But among independents who plan to vote in the Democratic primary, Obama led, 37% to 24% -- turning the contest into a virtual tie."

And with a 'bump' from IA will the 'tie' no longer be virtual?

Jeb Bush was a pretty good governor. He certainly handled disaster responses far better than his brother's administration handled Katrina. Listening to him speak, you would never guess he and W are related.

But, in many ways, he is just a more intelligent and competent version of his brother. He is not like his father ideologically. He is an extreme social conservative who kept meddling in the Terry Schiavo case and pandering to the most extreme religious conservatives.

Oh yes. Jebbie is a great man. I would do anything for him.

Sincerely,

Katherine Harris

vbhoomes, my dad has been touting Jeb for years now. He thinks he or Condi would be a great VP pick....

Why contract the Republican side of the Line if none of the Republicans dropped out after Iowa?

And how does Rudy stay on the Line, but Thompson and Paul (who both finished well ahead of him in Iowa) get dropped?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Heck yea, Claudia, Jeb Bush is the best person we have to be POTUS. Jeb is more like his father, whereas GWB was more like his mother. Ask the people of Florida, most people think he did a great job as Govenor. Forget the last name, this guy would make A great president.

CJMiva, thank you very much. Glad to add some grooviness to the occasion. ;-)

judgecrater writes
"I'm mostly impressed that he's not just playing the same one bass guitar note over and over again."

Does he play for the Presidents of the United States of America??

Regarding your earlier post on the Cult of Personality, I wanted to point out that, eventually, Love Rears Its Ugly Head.

Judgeccrater 4:02PM

As we speak, Huck has 9.5% to McCain's 31.3%.

Romney 29.8%, Giuliani 10%, Paul 7%

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nh/new_hampshire_republican_primary-193.html

"I'm mostly impressed that he's not just playing the same one bass guitar note over and over again. And he made this change in his campaign overnight - literally. Not bad."

Giuliani's 9/11 flavored toothpaste just came to mind.

As well as Romney's relentless optimism, McCain's express train to nowhere, and Thompson's sleepwalking.

Obama and Huckabee are the dynamic players.

Another congressman announces his retirement.
Any bets on his party affiliation?

http://www.therealdemocratstory.com/blog/comment.cfm?entry_id=305

Mark, on the NH push-polling, did you see my conspiracy theory speculation on the other thread? It's way to close to "Dr. Evil: Bwahahahahaha...." to be rational but, like you, the whole thing puzzles me--there really does seem to be no rational explanation.

On the subject of "hope", that was Bubba's mantra.

Obama is about change and unity.

I have no idea why these two words seem to work. It probably has to do with the messenger.

I have no idea why this guy makes me believe but I do believe. And he has the incredibly large funds and Iowa votes to keep me on believing.

proud writes "For the past 36 years, a candidate, Republican or Democrat, who wins in Iowa and New Hampshire has always won the nomination."

This is not really true, especially if you mean a candidate who wins both Iowa and New Hampshire.

George McGovern lost both to Ed Muskie in 1972.

Bill Clinton got 3% in Iowa in 1992 (Tom Harkin was running and the other Democrats conceded Iowa to him) and finished second to Paul Tsongas in New Hampshire.

George H W Bush defeated Reagan in Iowa in 1980.

Gary Hart defeated Walter Mondale in New Hampshire in 1984.

Bob Dole defeated George H W Bush in Iowa in 1988.

Pat Buchanon defeated Bob Dole in New Hampshire in 1996.

John McCain defeated George W Bush in New Hampshire in 2000.

Yes, the FairTax has some FairlyBigHoles in it but what recent tax plan hasn't been mind bogglingly stupid from the standpoint of true financial conservatism? For example, has anyone seen any massive spending cuts that should accompany GWB's massive tax cuts?

My point is Huckabee's trying to appeal to the NH audience instead of the IA one. Yes, it's the same something-for-nothing tax plan that would never actually work. However, don't those have strong emotional appeal to people who HATE paying taxes/supporting America?

I'm mostly impressed that he's not just playing the same one bass guitar note over and over again. And he made this change in his campaign overnight - literally. Not bad.

I have to add that I forsee a landslide of Reagan-size proportions.

The people are truly fed up with Washington's paralysis.

ssomo says:
"On Obama: Swinging independents and women is the story here."

Let's hear it for this year's hot voter block - Swinging Independents! Now THAT sounds like the caucus to attend.

(Just kidding, your point was clear, I was unable to resist twisting the phrase.)

optimyst 3:39PM

Great post. Too early for clintonistas to read it but the rest of Dems should memorize your plan.

I have the feeling it will pan out as you describe it. Not so sure about congressional numbers.

bsimon, yes, I meant the GOP convention.

Thanks for the correction. (Must've been Freudian: I like St Paul better.)

Is there any word on what the campaigns are putting out today? proud mentioned Edwards/Trippi's new message, is there anything out of camp Clinton? I know she's been trying lately to pick up on the 'change' theme; I wonder what her message will change to as proof?

rarignac 03:35 PM

Stop obssesing about delegates. This baby will be signed, sealed and delivered by Feb 5.

Although the internal mechanics of the parties are designed to favor professional climbers, the vote of the people trumps all arcane machinations.

Exhibit One: Iowa.

Good arguments all day. The Super Dooper Tuesday in early February will sort it out for all of us.

Assuming Obama closes this out in short order, and the republicans take a while sorting their laundry, I see the opportunity for Obama to add great energy and effort to Howard Dean's 50 state strategy in 2008. Since Obama is all about creating a movement and tone down partisanship, he'll want to work hard to build his majorities in the senate and house. I see him criss-crossing the country working hard for Dem senate candidates, even the long shot ones.

The best way to compromise with your adversaries is to have them outnumbered. By getting independents and a few republican stragglers to buy into the message of hope, Obama has a real chance to end the gridlock and get things done in DC.

This is where his strategy is superior to the partisan wars envisioned by Hillary or Edwards. They think it is a top down struggle with them sporting brass knuckles, while Obama is working on a bottom up movement which will take the teeth out of his adversaries before they get to the negotiating table. Obama's creating an electoral populism, letting voters voices again be heard by ending gridlock and limiting lobbyists' influence.

If he gets a big head start, maybe the goal of 60 seats in the senate isn't so crazy after all. He may have a powerful coat tail effect. And, don't be surprised if he gets an electoral landslide. The republicans don't have much fight in them for 2008 and whatever is left seems to be directed to forming a circular firing squad.

He will also blot out the doings of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi since there will no longer be a vacuum in party leadership and the mixed messages that can tarnish the party image. They'll get in line and follow the sheet music. Look for Reid's tenure to be short-lived after the swift one he pulled on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment. Chris Dodd would make a great majority leader.

rhayward
I do not believe I was demeaning to you. I too was giving information, info from inside the caucuses. And you factually had it wrong that "there is most likely an incredible amount of pressure to move one way or another" - which there isn't.

And comparing me to your kids was low. I have commented on this thread for over a year. I do see how some people get ugly here. Please do not put me in that group.

More and Better Polls,
Should we only have better and more moral pols. I did exaggerate, more or less unintentionally. I was only considering the threshold of 2000 some odd delegates needed to clinch the nomination and the fact that there were some 800 odd super-delegates available to the party favorite. While these officials are admittedly all free agents technically, we have seen the force of the Clinton imprimatur in endorsements thus far this cycle. There is what might be described as a Clinton machine (otherwise how would HRC have become the junior senator from NY?). It will be extraordinarily difficult for anyone to overcome HRC's position over the course of the next 30 days, particularly considering the institutional advantages that seemingly devolve upon her candidacy.

ssomo

Good point about McCain's post-NH gameplan.

(or lack thereof)

I just don't see it. Sorry Mark, Bsimon.

"Better now than in Sept in Minneapolis"

psst... ssomo- the Dems are meeting in Denver. The GOP is in St Paul, though everyone says Minneapolis. St Paul Chamber of Commerce is said to be somewhat frustrated by this ongoing confusion.

vbhoomes | January 4, 2008 03:14 PM

Your trepidation is well funded. 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 his hammock in Florida.

Not my definition of excitement.

judge - good observation. Huck understands how to appeal to a different audience. We'll see if it works.

Going by Mark's numbers, fair tax can't work.

But I have to say the book is pretty compelling.

Boortz is writing a 2nd one due out in a couple months - in defense of the fair tax. We'll see what it says.

On Huckabee:
Likable, sure, but he wigs out many in the GOP: Corporate types and anti immigration types. The GOP is a sourthern-based party. He'll have strength w/o cash from that base. As a Dem, I hope he wins the GOP nom.

On McCain:
Why is Huckabee's organization and funding a question mark but not McCain's? Where does he go after NH? The anti-immigration crowd despise him. As a Dem, I hope he does not get the GOP nom. As an American, I hope he does.

On Romney:
Who likes this guy? Not the Fundies & not the libertarian wing. Only the corporatists: Yes, he's made of money, but 100% phony & people everywhere see it. I hate to say it Chris, but you've over-estimated Romney for a year now. Time to join reality.

On Hillary:
Obama & Iowa voters found her glass jaw. Better now than in Sept in Minneapolis. Thank you Iowa.

On Obama:
Swinging independents and women is the story here. Time will tell if the youth factor is real or not. Believe it when I see it, but I'm glad Obama did so well. The kids know class when they see it.

On Edwards:
I like him best, but 2nd isn't good enough, especially if taking public funding. Like McCain, where does he go? I think it's over.

judge: The FairTax is the dumbest thing to come down the tax pike in years. It will help crush the Huckster. It's totally moronic.

bhoomes - Jeb Bush? No, no, no, no. Do you really think the country wants another bush in office for 4 more years? Seriously? Talk about dynasties.

This from a real Politico:

"Clinton's speeches were laundry lists of issues designed to win over voters.

In one speech she gave in Ames a few days before the caucus, she spoke about global warming, health care, Northern Ireland, the Medicare "doughnut hole," student loans, job training, "the plight of American translators in Iraq," diabetes, dairy farming, country-of-origin labeling, food production standards, the high cost of land and manure disposal. And that is just a partial list.

Obama's speeches were much more simple, much more emotional and much more direct."

http://www.politico.com/rogersimon/

'Here's a dirty little secret that the liberal blogosphere will probably try to flush down the memory hole in the coming weeks - they didn't like Barack Obama. '

The liberal blogosphere, like the Democratic party, is not monolithic. There were just as many lefty bloggers for Obama as for Edwards - although few for Hillary. Koz has a tremendous following, but he's one guy. And people even on his site disagree about much. Chris Dodd was actually the favorite candidate.

And, of course, Obama has raised quite a bit of money through the blogosphere as well.

Does anyone know how that California initiative funded by a Guiliani supporter, to split the electoral vote, is doing?

I heard on NPR that Huckabee is now wandering around NH talking about his Fair Tax proposals. Smart. They obviously don't have enough evangelicals there so talk about taxes, taxes, taxes and you'll get a different set of R voters paying attention to you.

rarignac,

You misstate the value of super delegates. The Democratic office holders have about 19% of the tickets to their National Convention; voters control 81%. The 19% are not Sen. Clinton's; most super delegates maintain an uncommitted status in order to be able to support the eventual nominee.

I hope you were not counting on office holders to boost your candidate.

Yours truly,
MoreAndBetterPolls

I am starting to root for an open republican convention where Jeb Bush could end being our nominee. Unless Hillary screws Obama out of the nomination I just don't see my side winning this year.

Sorry to burst your bubble.
mcmahon10

I have no bubble to burst, however you seem a bit defensive. I intentionally used wholly fictional numbers (with the exception of the final statewide numbers) for the sole purpose of education.

Please use these forums for the purpose of learning and intelligently submitting your own thoughts and comments. My children are taught how to politely disagree with others, but there seem to be a few on this board (although in the definite minority) who skipped this lesson growing up.

GordonsGirl | January 4, 2008 02:41 PM

The debate formats are so lame and rigged to draw no blood that they might as well be "getting to know you" corporate affairs.

Hillary has no oratorial skills, no connectedness with the public, no more than a managerial script she parrots to "stay on message".

Obama is the heavyweight here. Hear him roar.(Which means he will peep not a squeak)

CC said "If he can win the nomination, and that remains a MAJOR "if," Giuliani will have fundamentally altered the calculus of how nominees are chosen in the modern era. It's a major gamble, however, as the race could well be all-but-decided before the nation's attention ever turns to Florida."

Chris, I disagree with this assesment, even if Guiliani does pull it off somehow. My take on it if he manages to pull it off is that his tactic was brilliantly time to take advantage of there being no clear front runner. If he manages to pull it out, it will mean that the races up to Florida get split by prob at least 3 candidates, with an opportunity for Hizzoner to sweep them all under the table with his $$ muscle in Florida. I don't think if his strategy wins that it says anything about the intelligence of skipping the early races, just that it worked under this current lack of cohesion on the R side.

Yikes! I retract my argument about Idaho v. Iowa delegates. For some reason I assumed Iowa had a smaller population just because there are no big urban centers. Turns out I was way off :)

I was also getting at the fact that Idaho delegates will more than make up for the difference in Iowa, which was my key point. The fact that California has 370 delegates is what puts this into real perspective. Momentum will gather Obama more delegates in the following states than Iowa could even fathom.

proudtobeGOP, it's nice I agree with you on something! Edwards is so whiny; it's never going to get him through a general election. His anger and passion does nothing but motivate a small chunk of angry blue-collar Democrats, which is why I said in a comment yesterday that he would be a great DNC chairman or other party position but he'll never be the man for a general election job. He is more of the Howard Dean in this election than Obama by a long shot.

As far as the debates go, here's my prediction:

Clinton will hog the microphone if given the chance. She's the true spinmaster here and she's going to have the entire three hours to spin if she's going to make a case for herself in NH.

Obama doesn't like debates so he'll be fine sticking to his usual "stay above the fray" position. He simply needs to remain disengaged from the mundane banter in which Edwards and Clinton will drag up. Just drop a few lines in here and there that have to do with a broader message than whatever Clinton is complaining about at that given moment and he'll be fine.

On the GOP side, it's going to be really ugly.

Romney will be angry and defensive.
McCain will be optimistic and shining.
Huckabee is glowing and surging.

Thompson is the most negative of all of them, plus he's got to show himself if he's to have any dying breeze left in his sails. Giuliani will be on the defensive, constantly parroting his "national strategy" that he thinks is going to save him in February.

No one will be above the fray. Huckabee will simply have to engage in the rhetoric because he's seen how badly it has hurt him to ignore it. Thompson and Romney will try to drag him down with every last breath. It's going to be a bickering match of epic proportions.

And I'll be glued to the television with a bag of chips and a rum and coke, laughing my, uh...butt off.

Might this election hang on Oprah?

Her gig in IA and SC may well have won those states for BO, taking HC's women away.

Seems she gave him a virtous circle: with her ladies in his mix, he's now electable because ... he's electable.

If the Opster then does stadium affairs in Jacksonville, Tampa, Orlando, does that give BO Fla? And thus the nomination?

Bill Clinton first said "don't underestimate Mike Huckabee" and yet The Fix has kept doing exactly that.

proud, you and I both are as sure as we can be that BHO wins SC on the D side. But HRC can make a race through stupendous monster Tuesday, anyway.

I listened to L. Graham this noon on POTUS '08 and he thinks McC is very well positioned. He also continued the "no negative" campaigning idea.

Did you see the posts about the push polling?

I found a SLC Deseret-News story that said it was done by a Utah outfit. McC not only denied he had done it but asked for an AG investigation. It is very strange.

the actual quote is "

I'd rather be dead than singing "Satisfaction" when I'm forty-five"

And, as a recently moved Iowan, there is no "pressure" to do one thing or another. In fact, you do not want to "pressure" somebody because that person would then be more apt to go to the opposite candidate. You definitely do not understand how caucusing works in Iowa.

hawkeyes | January 4, 2008 02:43 PM

If the Obama landslide materializes, a concession by the vanquished contenders solves the problem.

Democrats all over have to be asking themselves how bad they want the White House. How bad they want the Iraq fiasco to end once and for all, etc., etc., ...

In terms of a candidate's number of delegates, HRC, with her clear dominance of the party machine, only needs a small portion of the delegates up for grabs over the next few weeks and she's done; it's in the purse. Obama can keep on winning delegates the old fashioned way, but the Clinton machine most likely already has over a third of the delegates needed via the old party pros. The game isn't fixed, but it is not open, free and fair either; it is a party controlled operation designed to fend off insurgencies when it deems to do so. Obama needs People Power, because the rest of the power resides where it always has, with those who can talk the walk. He has to make it politically impossible for the Clintons to pocket the election by winning publicly and consistently in state after state after state. It's hardly a done deal.

Here's a dirty little secret that the liberal blogosphere will probably try to flush down the memory hole in the coming weeks - they didn't like Barack Obama. They had reason not to. When they stamped their little feet over Obama doing something like having a Gospel singer with views on social issues that are anathema to progressives campaign for him, Obama ignored them. That particular storm caused Markos Moulitsas to declare the Obama campaign in the throes of a full meltdown.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Weblogs/TWSFP/TWSFPView.asp#3812

Special note to Democratic politicians: If you don't feel like it, you don't have to keep attending the Yearly Kos. Your time would probably be better spent raising money or kissing babies.

If Obama wins the NH primary, he will become the prohibitive favorite for the D nomination. For the past 36 years, a candidate, Republican or Democrat, who wins in Iowa and New Hampshire has always won the nomination. If New Hampshire doesn't cinch it for Obama, South Carolina, where half the Democratic voters are African-Americans, may.

rhayward:
Sorry to burst your bubble. I was texting with friends in Iowa during the caucus. I had 4 in rural/small town caucuses, and 2 in large cities (large for Iowa). In the 3 of the 4 rural ones, Obama was the clear winner of the first vote (normally around 50%) and Hillary was second by a small margin over Edwards. Edwards was able to get second because of this sales pitch: you don't want Hillary to get second. In the other rural precinct, it Clinton had 2 more people than Edwards and 4 more than Obama. In both of the large cities, Obama had over half of the people there. When it comes down to it, if it was pure numbers, Obama would have won by even more, and Hillary might have got second.

proudtobeGOP | January 4, 2008 02:38 PM

Edwards has to keep up his spiel because he has no plan B.

A sure sign he is ready to quit.

proudtobeGOP writes
"The 'fighter' language is all Edward's has left in his arsenal, and personally I find it pretty ineffective and tiresome."

I agree. NPR had him on the phone this AM & he said basically what you attribute to Trippi. In my opinion, the problem faced by both Edwarsd & Clinton is the 'fighting' theme. Edwards wants to fight a class warfare battle, while Clinton wants to keep playing the politics of 50% +1. Americans don't want either, which is why the messages of Obama and Huckabee are winning.

thecrisis - Are you SURE ID has more delegates than IA? IA has twice the pop.
Or did you just mean to predict that ID's few D delegates would all be BHO's?

Some of you are underestimating MDH - he is the best stand-up pol on the R side and that is worth more than money in the bank. I suspect he will acquit himself well Sat.

The 6 person R format will not work as well as the 4 person D format.

JRE should go after HRC if he wants to gain votes - always pick off the wounded, first.

the crisis: I don't know where you get your numbers on delegates to the convention. Idaho does not have more delegates than Iowa, they only have 23, less than half of the number for Iowa.

And, of course, in the end the number of delegates is all that matters in the nomination.

I believe Iowa and New Hampshire have been gradually having less impact, now that most states have presidential primary and so many have front-loaded so that 31 states will have made their choice after February 5. For example before Bill Clinton no one had gone on to take the presidency without winning the New Hampshire primary. Now the last two presidents have gone on to win their first term without finishing New Hampshire.

These are still important, just less so. Iowa has taken Huckabee from an also-ran to a top contender. But on February 5 so many states are voting that it will take money to put on a competitive race in each state at the same time.

Obama has the money, so does Clinton. Edwards does not.

Romney has the money, but McCain and Huckabee are far behind. Now Huckabee has successfuly proved he can move the evengelical Christian vote and that brings him an army of volunteers in each state, similar to those that flocked to the Iowa caucus. That could turn into a big time fundraising movement now that he's a winner. If McCain holds on to win New Hamshire, big money could start flowing his way too.

I don't see any of the major competitors dropping out before the February 5 super primary. It's just that those with money can spread it around all the super primary states.

'Mr. Guiliani, what brand of toothpaste do you use?'

'On 9/11, I didn't have time to brush my teeth...'

hah

Organization had a LOT to do with Obama's win in Iowa. Over the last few months, amongst comments on various blogs, I've read reports that his campaign already has their national organization in place - far larger than any other candidate.

On the other hand, Edwards clearly miscalculated - from putting virtually all his eggs in one Midwest basket to centering on working class voters. I respect that man and seriously considered giving him my support, but his campaign suffered from increasing tunnel vision. Also, I'm tired of anger.

As for Clinton, I certainly expect her to start throwing the mud around. She does so at her own peril. For one thing, it has a serious whiff of desperation. Also, they've already tried it, with Obama floating like a butterfly and stinging like a bee. If this plan doesn't work, she very well may have done her part in lifting him to the White House. She'll have only primed him for the GOP assault.

If Obama trips at all, it will be in tomorrow's debate. Most interestingly, I've read that Gibson plans on allowing a free-for-all with the candidates for maybe as long as 30 minutes. With assumedly only Clinton, Edwards, Obama and Richardson in attendance, things could VERY interesting... Will there be blood?

claudialong | January 4, 2008 01:22 PM

Hillary exclaimed in no uncertain terms "I'm your girl!".

The good people of Iowa were not amused.

I apologize in advance for any difficulty in ease of reading this. Comments can not be left with blank spots, so I had to use periods as spacers. Some of this also may have already been covered by other writers while I was trying to make this readable, so again, I apologize if I'm making the same point as one or more others.

I'd like to remind everyone that on the Democratic side, no one really knows how many people stood for which particular candidate (except for the folks in any given caucus site and the national party --- and they will never tell). Its possible (but highly unlikely) that Edwards had the most votes originally with Clinton and Obama tied behind him, but that only Edwards, Clinton and Obama met the standard of viability (15%).

Lets go with this starting scenario. Pretend for the sake of my math that there are 100 people in the room and that they are exactly representative of every caucus in the state:

Biden . . . . 10 . . . . Gravel . . . . . 6
Clinton. . . .20 . . . . Kucinich . . . .4
Dodd . . . . . 7 . . . . Obama. . . . .20
Edwards. . .25 . . . . Richardson . 8

Now the horse trading starts with the voters for the five candidates without "viable" candidates and we get the final tally (which is the actual total statewide)

Biden . . . . . 1 . . . . Gravel . . . . . 0
Clinton. . . .29 . . . . Kucinich . . . .0
Dodd . . . . . 0 . . . . Obama. . . . .38
Edwards. . .30 . . . . Richardson . .2

With this scenario movement voter pickup could potentially look like this:

. . . . . . . . . . .Obama . . . . . Edwards . . . . Clinton

Richardson. . . . . 6. . . . . . . . . . .0 . . . . . . . . .0
Kucinich. . . . . . . 4. . . . . . . . . . .0 . . . . . . . . .0
Biden. . . . . . . . . 6. . . . . . . . . . .1 . . . . . . . . .2
Dodd. . . . . . . . . 2. . . . . . . . . . .1 . . . . . . . . .4
Gravel. . . . . . . . .0. . . . . . . . . . .3 . . . . . . . . .3

As you can see from this scenario, any of the top three could have started on top with the "second choice" folks dramatically changing the landscape. Please also keep in mind that none of this is confidential and that there is most likely an incredible amount of pressure to move one way or another.

"Will they all pile on Obama? Or will Edwards go after Clinton & try to take her place in the race v Obama?"

Edwards' consultants are already piling on Obama, calling into question his message of unity and bringing people together. Joe Trippi was on t.v. this morning trying to make sarcastic remarks about Obama, how "they think theat they can sit down at the table with these people and negotiate; silly, silly Obama...you can't talk to these people, you have to fight them".

The 'fighter' language is all Edward's has left in his arsenal, and personally I find it pretty ineffective and tiresome. What does it actually mean? To quote Eddie Vetter, I don't think it means anything.

Why doesn't Edwards be a little nmore honest with people, what he is really saying is the he'll raise taxes like crazy on the evil corporations and non-poor folks.

Americans just do not like Hillary.Never have, never will.

Given an opportunity they will gleefully show this dislike.

The true story is how Hillary fooled so many in the media for so long.

Hillary is perfectly inevitable...until voting begins.

'Rudy Giuliani, speaking about his sixth place finish in Iowa yesterday:

"None of this worries me -- Sept. 11, there were times I was worried."

As a GOP operative I know loves to say, the man has "9/11 Tourettes." Can't help himself.'

I can just imagine the next few months is he's nominee..

'Mr. Guiliani, what brand of toothpaste do you use?'

'On 9/11, I didn't have time to brush my teeth...'

Obama transcend race, so it will not be a factor in the general election(could actually work in his favor) Claudia I have no problem with McCain and Thompson going to old folks home. I still believe at the end of the day, Mitt will be our nominee because the rest of them just are not acceptable to most of the republican base. Fred is a acceptable if he could get his mojo back but the guy has trouble just putting in a 8 hour day, I do not how he could take the rigors of a national campaign.

rfpiktor- I'm looking forward to the debate & expect the strategies you predict. Senator Clinton will feel pressure to make something happen; that is the kind of situation that produces unforced errors. I'm no expert on running a campaign, but if I were running the Clinton campaign, I would be focusing on the debate, and making sure the candidate was fully rested & on her game. The debate format will be different from everything they've participated in thus far; the candidate who can best think on their feet & respond to unscripted moments will do best. There's no time limit, and they'll all be sitting at the same table. The Obama-Clinton race will be the focus, with Edwards trying to claim a spot as the #2 candidate & Richardson trying to figure out how to be relevant. Will they all pile on Obama? Or will Edwards go after Clinton & try to take her place in the race v Obama?

It seems to me that if Edwards is seen to have faltered, the votes he drops will fall naturally to Obama rather than Clinton. Have any pollsters asked Edwards supporters who their second choice is?

The Iowa numbers, among Independents (Obama 41%, Clinton 17%) and among under-30s (Obama 57%, Clinton 11%), completely explode the argument that Clinton is the stronger candidate in a general election.

On the contrary, Independents clearly dislike her and so does the coming generation of voters. She's not wanted, and that's that.

'According to polls, half of the Democrats were looking for change, and 57 percent said they were attending a caucus for the first time, which were two key factors in propelling Obama to victory. On the Republican side, Huckabee was definitely helped by the fact that 60 percent of caucus-goers described themselves as evangelicals.'

Interesting... especially Huckabee. Is there another state where 60% of voters are evangelical? I don't really know, but it may ultimately speak to his electability.

Hawkeyes, it doesn't matter if Hillary takes more delegates from Iowa. No one cares about Iowa's delegates. California has 370 Democratic delegates.

Even my state of Idaho has more delegates than Iowa and we're heavily, heavily slanted toward Obama over Clinton, especially now. Obama's breadth of support in Idaho is astonishing. We'll alone more than make up for the difference in Iowa.

Momentum is what Obama won. Give all of his delegates to Clinton. Or Edwards. Or Huckabee. It's simply irrelevant.

bsimon | January 4, 2008 12:47 PM

Sen. Clinton has been on several debates and has a memorable cackle to show for.

All Obama has to do is show up and be his positive old self and enjoy himself immensely.

Muhammad Ali called it the rope-a-dope strategy. Let the suckers punch themselves out silly and then sting like a bee.

Remember the Obama "I'm counting on you advising me" line?

BTW, Maybe Chris should run a separate line for President just to keep things in perspective. For the Democrats, only HRC and Obama have any chance in the general election. For the Republicans, only McCain, Romney, Giuliani and, maybe, possibly, Thompson.

If HRC has triangulated too much, Edwards has backed himself way too far into a far-left populist corner. He's pitched himself as an angry revolutionary. Entertaining for the primaries but a big, scary turnoff for the moderates who decide presidential elections. George Bush could probably beat Edwards in his current incarnation.

Ron Paul, despite his, ahh, enthusiastic supporters, has the same problem only on the right. Come to think of it, I may have overstated the case above: Edwards could probably beat Ron Paul in a general election.

Huckabee is sort of . . . Ron Paul lite. Less scary than Paul and Edwards, perhaps, but policy-wise, almost as out there. His Baptist preacher persona might squeek him by in a few states in the south. But he will take nothing in the north, east, midwest and nothing or almost nothing in the west. Remember, Democrats get to vote in the general election, too. I bet not one will vote for someone who freely admits he doesn't believe in evolution.

It's strange that the Fix is not reporting how the delegates to the Democratic National Convention split in Iowa. According to CNN, Obama won 16 last night, Clinton won 15 and Edwards 14. There are also 12 superdelegates. I don't know who Iowa's superdelegates support, but the Post has reported that Clinton has a big advantage nationwide. It's entirely possible that Clinton will get most of Iowa's delegates at the national convention.

The primaries will provide more of a separator on delegates since many of them are winner-take-all.

"Clinton 2??? Come one with a 21% lead in the polls nationaly, and the most money of any candidate."

Obama has matched her dollar for dollar, and will get a huge influx of $$ after Iowa. National polls are name recognition at this point. I live in a Feb. 5 state and virtually everyone I know was undecided but leaning Hillary just because they had heard of her. Until last night.

"There were solid reasons for his win in Iowa that may not translate elsewhere. Richerdson snet his supporters over which cant happen in a primary state. lots of independents and republicans showed up, which cant happen in closed states. Obama has campaigned there for a year, Edwards for 4."

Most on the ground info suggests Richardson did no such thing. Obama's ability to pull indys and reps makes him a formidable GE candidate, and he still won Dems too. This is a debate Obama would love to have. And Clinton has campaigned very hard for Iowa.

"Feb 5th isnt going to break that way."

We won't make it there unless Clinton wins NH solidly.

"INteresting to note Obama has actually spent more than her by 4 million dollars, and the person who spent the most in Iowa won the state, for the dems. He can't keep doing that."

He can and he will. His army of half a million small donors will see to it.

"There is also an undisputed sexism in Iowa politcs as they have never elected a women to anything, unlike most states."

The Lt. Gov. is female. Obama just won a state that is 95% white by a decisive margin. I know Clinton, being a second-wave feminist, believes this, but it's a bad conversation for them to have.

"Oh yeha dont you think the rest of the country might just have their won say in who they want as president and might not want to be told the race is over in Iowa?"

They've just started to pay attention. And trust me, they will like what they see in Obama as much as Iowans did.

well said Miata7. This is why I call her a republcain. Also, with the gop point ing to clinton to justify everything they do. What if they couldn't point that finger? Altough they are still to blame. Clinton and his wife look a lot more like moderate republvains, than democrats. To stary in is to sabotage the democrats. Why would she do that? Who is as right as her in the dem feild? She is a gop sabotuer. Fear the yale plan.

Last post. I can't help myself. You know I was boucning off the walls last night, right? :)

"All U.S. presidents since 1989 have been Yale graduates, namely George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton (who attended the University's Law School along with his wife, New York Senator Hillary Clinton), and George W. Bush. Vice President Dick Cheney attended Yale, although he did not graduate. Many of the 2004 presidential candidates attended Yale: Bush, John Kerry, Howard Dean, and Joe Lieberman.

Other Yale-educated presidents were William Howard Taft (B.A.) and Gerald Ford (LL.B). Alumni also include several Supreme Court justices, including current Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
"

r

u

In 1951, the states ratified the 22nd amendment to the constitution limiting the service of a president to two terms in office. This vote by the American people was meant to prevent a too powerful president who could upset the separation of powers provided for in the constitution. I believe the citizens of the great state of Iowa have spoken on behalf of this principle by sending Hillary Clinton to the back of the line. The abuse of power we have witnessed in the current Bush administration, is a direct result of President Bush's ascendancy to his father's throne. If you think that is scary, just wait to see what happens if we put Bill and Hillary back in the White House for four more years.

USMC_Mike and Kirk:

This is why mcCain can count a tie for third as a win in Iowa.

** He was given up for dead
** Everyone knew who the top two finishers would be Mitt and Huck. McCain spent NO money or time in Iowa, and yet did as well as Thompson and better than Rudy. The time and money he saved in Iowa he has successfully invested in NH to be the current polling leader, BEFORE the Iowa results.

His startegy worked, yeah it would have been better to get 10 more votes and be officially third, but that is small potatoes.

Hillary really should start caring about the Democratic Party - if she continues and starts with the mud - she will divide and hurt the party. The best thing she can do for all is to bow out early instead of losing New Hampshire, losing South Carolina and making the party endure her through the February 5th contests.

It is so clear.

Hillary is on the verge of wrecking the party AGAIN. She already did it in 1994 - when on her single minded quest to become the next FDR, she single handedly lost both Houses of Congress. NOW that is her one and only FIRST. She is about to destroy the Democratic Party again.

She has to leave.

It is better for everyone if she does it sooner rather than later. Bill will either look like a statesman or a baffoon when all of this is over.

Hillary really should start caring about the Democratic Party - if she continues and starts with the mud - she will divide and hurt the party. The best thing she can do for all is to bow out early instead of losing New Hampshire, losing South Carolina and making the party endure her through the February 5th contests.

It is so clear.

Hillary is on the verge of wrecking the party AGAIN. She already did it in 1994 - when on her single minded quest to become the next FDR, she single handedly lost both Houses of Congress. NOW that is her one and only FIRST. She is about to destroy the Democratic Party again.

She has to leave.

It is better for everyone if she does it sooner rather than later. Bill will either look like a statesman or a baffoon when all of this is over.

"Non-combatants are not in the forfront of politics. "

Now that is. Meaning, poor politic choices by our "leaders" led to innocent americans dying. Soldiers are one thing one foreign soil. children and women are compleatly differant. The odl rules do not apply any longer.

This is not play time. Time for the american people to take back the country. Fear the yale plan. they funnel money criminaly to their cult. They choose other influences over the good and will of the people. tiem for that to end. Not because I say so. But becaue the american people say so..

Racism is dead. Now if we can continue the fight and take out the rest of the ism(s). We will have a truly free america. Without the authoritarian fascists sabotaging teh gaem plan. The future is now. Change is at hand.

ONE PEOPLE ONE WORLD

Nice job, thecrisis. By the way, the Firefox dictionary is stored on your computer, so you can modify it. To add "Obama", right-click on the word as you're posting a comment, and select "Add to dictionary". Just like in MS Word.

Sure, Clinton may like the idea of a closed primary here in Florida, but her lead may be illusory now that Obama is getting results and traction. I was an independent for many years before I decided I HAD to participate in the 2008 primary. I switched my registration to democrat the week Obama formally entered the race on that frigid Springfield day last February.

I have an Obama yard sign, bumper sticker, tee shirt, etc. I've never seen any Hillary signs, though Ron Paul signs abound. I get a lot of positive comments, mostly from younger people (I'm 54) when I'm out and about in my Obama tee shirt, and never a negative comment. Even my 23 year old son thinks I'm cool again!

Once Floridians start focusing, I think you'll see them catching the approaching Obama wave. The margin will be closer because of the huge retiree population down here, but this is not as safe for Hillary as the pundits might assume.

'While Matthews has a crush on Arthur Branch, my most successful and politically active gay business client says "the preferred candidates" are HRC and RG and that their candidacies are the ones that will make Halloween '08 "so very festive".

Did you know in NY's long-time gay/boho stronghold Greenwich Village, there's a HUGE Halloween parade, festivity [definitely not for children] - a lot like mini Mardi Gras, and Guiliani used to march in the gay parade in drag while he was mayor, so he was very popular with those folks. Not that there's anything wrong with it...

I just always wondered how people aound the rest of the country would feel about that if they knew.

"If we're still doing this in our 40's, someone should shoot us."

jimd -- maybe someone should. I saw a clip of them performing recently and they look like animated beef jerky..

and remember The Who 'Hope I die before I get old' -- not so much now.

The gop betting on racism terrorism and criminality. Please continue. Please continue the racist claim. The year is 2007. you people are living in the 60's.

After 9/11, the old rules no longer apply. Non-combatants are not in the forfront of politics. Why? Incopentance or criminality from our leaders. In takign the country back, the old rules no longe apply. The feelings, the old political rules/laws. They are done.

"The youth vote will not come out"

If the old folk, who have always ran polticis in this country ("war is old men tlaking and young men dying"), did their job and selecting on facts issues and america, rather than elementary school jones effect bully tactics, the youth vote would nto be needed.

Do not blame obama or edwards for the suppor they garner. America has feel off the track. Many elderly are the reason. Stop poitning the finger and take responsiblity for your actions. That is the only way to move forward.

Oh and remove those that divide us for personal profit (ie rush fox savage hannity coulter malkin and so on).

Change is at hand. America and it's values are on one side, a new america police state is on the other (fascism). Iowa made their choice. Now america chooses. But make no mistake. The grip the fascist propoigandists had on old folks, is broken.

ALL POWER BACK TO THE PEOPLE.

R

U

F

U

S

One more argument to put to sleep:

5. "McCain doesn't have a chance."
Some people here seem confused that CC puts McCain atop the list (albeit in a tie).

McCain is now the only remaining GOP establishment candidate. He also has tremendous bipartisan support, and is the only person stopping Obama from sweeping the entire Independent vote in a general election.

McCain is more viable in a general election than any other GOP candidate. If Giuliani had played his hand better, he could have held this title. But with the surge of evangelicals now moving behind Huckabee, there will be a counter-surge of support for the last voice of conservative reason within the GOP and that voice belongs to John McCain.

Who would lose handily in a general election to Obama.

Okay, I'm putting to sleep some arguments I've seen here.

1. "Obama can't win because of his race."
Iowa is all white and all rural and they overwhelmingly - including moderate Republicans and Independents - threw their support to him. Less white and less rural states will jump on the momentum bandwagon to an even greater extent and Obama is literally going to destroy his competition from here on out. His closing Iowa speech, post-caucus, was one of the greatest speeches given by a politician in the past 50 years, if not ever.

2. "Edwards still has a chance."
Edwards is trying to ride Obama's "change" coattails but he's forgetting that he finished only .3% above Clinton and 8% below Obama. He is the establishment in Iowa and he was rejected to virtually the exact same extent that Clinton was. Now Edwards is done with his strongest state and his lack of money, organization and momentum is the nail in his coffin.

3. "Romney is still a viable candidate."
CC, here's where I completely depart from you. Romney has been plummeting in support in the polls and in general popularity for a few weeks now and his abysmal finish last night sealed the deal. He's as cooked as burned hash and you can consider him as good as dead in the water. Quote me on that.

4. "Huckabee is too evangelical for a general election."
Wrong. End of story. The fact is that national GOP polls have put him even with Giuliani and McCain for nearly a month. He had almost no name recognition and even less money to spend and he still reached that point, pre-Iowa. His surge now may not carry him to a NH victory (in fact, it won't) but his national support is going to put him cheek-to-cheek with McCain after he (McCain) wins NH handily.

I'd like to add a personal testament that now has extreme relevance after Obama won Iowa.

I live in Idaho, which is a Super Tuesday state. We are a severely libertarian state (that leans heavily Republican) and it's not uncommon to hear people talk about how Obama being a Muslim is going to make his campaign difficult (not whether he's a Muslim, they consider that fact in these parts).

Of course, for the record, Obama is not a Muslim.

Yet Obama has sweeping support from our state's Democratic voting bloc. In fact he's raised almost twice as much money in contributions compared to Clinton. If I'm not mistaken, the only candidate to raise more money from Idaho is Romney and that's because the Mormon population is gargantuan here.

Obama is going to take Idaho in a way that makes Iowans blush. We don't have many delegates but Obama's choice to put a campaign office in every Super Tuesday state - no matter how conservative - is going to really prove to be a tremendous success on Feb. 5.

Believe it.

"Also, count me as one of the people puzzled about how McCain comes out of Iowa such a big winner."

McCain spent no money and almost no time in Iowa. Thompson focussed his campaign, such as it was, there. So McCain's effective tie for third looks pretty good, especially compared to Giuliani's embarrassing results.

This, coupled with Romney's loss give McCain a big boost going into New Hampshire. So Iowa came out about as good as could reasonably be hoped for for McCain.

The issue is not that McCain comes out of Iowa a winner, but Romney comes out a loser. Since McCain has been surging in the polls and since Romney is his main opponent, a weakened Romney aids McCain.

As for the aging rock star comparison - I can remember Mick Jagger saying in the 1960's - "If we're still doing this in our 40's, someone should shoot us."

Congratulations to Iowans who voted with their minds and not their hearts.

In winning Iowa, Obama has shown he delivers on his message of being the uniter. He brought out young voters who normally do not participate in the political process; he brought in the Independent voters; he brought in the disgruntled and disenfranchised Republican voters; and he bridged the divide of racism by winning in a state that has never elected a black candidate. Obama has demonstrated good judgement throughout his campaign. Good judgement is what Americans have been longing for in a leader for a long time.

Hillary will not recover from this defeat because her message is that she is soooo ready to lead but has failed to show leadership. People are wary of people with blind ambition and that is what is propelling her continue on - she has always wanted to be president and would do anything to get it - that makes for a bad leader, a person who will make false promises and do almost anything to get what they want. If she slings mud at Obama, it will only drive voters to the Obama camp. Look at what negative ads and comments got Romney.

Huckabee won because of the evangelical votes, but on a national scale they don't have enough votes to catapulte him into the presidency.

One need to look back to Obama's riveting speech at the last DNC which propelled him into the national spotlight, a spotlight that he continues to dominate. At this year's DNC he will again be on stage, only this time to accept the party's nomination for PRESIDENT!!!!

"It's a lot harder to buy into the racism argument when Obama just won a rural state that is 93% white."

Once again, I hope I'm wrong, but the white population of Iowa is hardly a reliable indicator of racism or the absence thereof.

When HRC gave he speech last night, she had Gen. Clark, Sec. Albright, and of course (a seething) Pres. Clinton. The scene reminded me of some rock and roll super group, made up of the previous generations stars, now playing to the ipod generation... sure they made great music, maybe some of the best, but no one is listening anymore... the kids are not only alright... they've moved on.

The Ron Paul angle in NH is worth considering. Though I have no idea what his impact will be. I suspect that between RP & BHO, McCain might not do as well in NH as he has in the past.