The real GOP losers? The true conservatives.

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/why-conservatives-are-losing/

Vote Romney!

Rudy may have made a serious tactical error and it looks like signs may be showing that to be true. Senior staffers going unpaid, for instance. But a case could be made for Giuliani's strategy even at this late date.

There are quite a lot of people out there who are not happy with a demographically unrepresentative Iowa and NH having such influence on prospective nominees.

Giuliani seems to be tapping into that sentiment and the "King of Florida" may actually, in one of the oddest Republican primary elections, use that to his advantage. It is quite unconventional and daring but just might work.

More thoughts on the subject for those interested...

http://thepoliticalpost.wordpress.com/2008/01/11/giuliani-senior-staff-to-go-without-pay/

Romney does have two silvers and don't forget 1 gold (Wyoming)

Esmerelda,

Thanks for the compliment. I think Rudy has made a huge tactical error in sitting out the early contests. I really do. I think he and his people assumed that McCain was history back in the Summer and that if he just sat back, he could let Thompson, Romney, and Huck rip themselves to shreds fighting for the "true conservative" yokels and then he could sweep in and scoop up all the moderates to win the nomination. What he didn't figure on was a huge turnaround in Iraq and a resurgent John McCain.

If McCain falters in SC (I think he could lose Michigan and as long as he comes in a strong 2nd, he'd be fine. Romney absolutely can NOT lose Michigan), then that might open the door for Rudy in Florida and on Super Tuesday. But if McCain sweeps both Michigan and SC, then I think he's going to have too much momentum for Rudy to overcome.

For the record, I like Rudy a lot and he would be by 2nd choice behind John McCain.

"Yes, if Obama had won the New Hampshire primary on Tuesday, he would have opened up real distance between himself and Clinton. But, no, his loss does not diminish his long-term chances of winning the nomination."

I just want to point out that the second sentence is ridiculous on its face -- just as saying that losing Iowa did not diminish HRC's chances of winning. Of COURSE both candidates' losses decreased their long-term chances; the race is now regarded as more or less a tie, either candidate going 2-0 would have made them a clear favorite.

Interesting analysis danram. I'm curious: where do you put Giuliani? I am terrified he will pull out this nomination with a win in Florida.

Oh, and "Buzz M" you're a raving, foaming at the mouth idiot.

3. John Edwards: Unless he contradicts the conventional wisdom and wins states like Alabama, I see him more as a hindrance to the party. I Like him a lot. But he's down for the ten count.
1.{tie} Hillary Rodham Clinton: My predictions were way off. I thought she was toast in N.H. This reveals that I'm as impressionable as the next. It's humanizing. I just don't think I can watch Hillary get beat up and or psychoanalyzed by male tv pundits. That crying thing proved how awful television can get. But Clinton has enormous support. Her husband is the titular head of the Democratic Party. Its most recent winner. Important to note: She's strong in states where it is imperative to be strong. I could see her winning. But I hope she doesn't.
1.{tie}Barack Obama: Alright. I live in New York City. Obama turned out 25,000 people at Washington Square Park last summer. If he can win the major cities in this country. We've got a winner, girls.

1. {tie} John McCain: Clearly the most sensible decision for Republicans, but can they stomach it. I have no clue.
1. {tie} Mitt Romney:I hope this campaign never ends. Mitt Romney is the funniest candidate ever. I think I find him endearing. I get the impression Mitt would tell me anything for my vote. Nothing like a little fascism to charm me. Stay in it Mitt.
2. Rudy Guiliani: If you plan on voting for this guy, I just ask that you go over to the corner and count to ten......Okay. Now that we've got a hold of ourselves, let's re-think that one. Voting for this jingoistic joke is just a cruel thing to do. I'm in New York City, the mainland doesn't deserve this windbag.
3. Who cares. Republicans are going to bed at nine.

Eugene Debs '08

Nice column, Chris. I totally agree with your analysis of the Democratic field. I think it will be a knock-down, drag-out fight between Obama and Clinton right up to the Democratic convention, and will be finally decided there.

If I had to bet right now, I'd put my money on Hillary. Obama's ultra-liberal voting record as a U.S. Senator hasn't really been scrutinized yet. Once his voting record and his uber-left positions on the issues start getting serious media attention, I think you'll see Hillary edge ahead and seal the deal at the convention. Edwards is toast. His only relevance now revolves around whom his supporters will chose to support once he drops out (which, given his ego, may not be for quite a while yet.)

But on the Rrpublican side, while I definitely agree that McCain holds down the #1 slot, I would probably put Huckabee ahead of Romney at this point. Sure, Mitt's fat wallet will allow him to stay in the race as long as he wants to do so. But his candidacy is seriously compromised now as the result of two straight defeats in states where he invested heavily and he is now widely seen (quite correctly, I think) as a flip-flopping opportunist who can't be trusted. If he loses in Michigan to McCain, he's done for.

Huckabee, on the other hand, seems to be emerging as the consensus choice of the Bible-thumpers. This probably comes primarily at Romney's expense, since both, along with Fred Thompson, are contending for the Republican Right as opposed to "moderates" like McCain and Giuliani.

I think that what will happen is that John McCain will squeak out a narrow win in Michigan, effectively ending Romney's candidacy, and then ride that momentum to a solid win in SC over Huckabee. Fred Thompson will drop out after finishing 4th in SC and will then publicly endorse McCain, giving McCain huge momentum going into Super Tuesday.

I'd put the odds of McCain being the Republican nominee at about 65%. And if you're a Republican, that's good news because McCain is the only guy you've got who can attract enough independents to win the general election in November.

Yes, Mr. Edwards, please get out of the race. There may be 99% of voters still left to vote in 48 states, but it's apparent to most of us non-paid political advisers (i.e., the people of the voting public) that you're not going to win the nomination. And while I admire you're enthusiasm and conviction, you just seem to be pissed off about something all the time, the effect of which leads most of those who are not voting for you to believe that you will not be able to work with those across the aisle, which is something this Country is in very bad need of right now. Please, Mr. Edwards, please consider getting out of the race now. (In response to Cillizza's question, I believe Edwards staying in the race hurts Obama's chances of becoming the nominee.)

I wouldn't worry about Obama in N.V. The country is beginning to shake the mob-fest Obama-anointing from its silly wishful thinking and take a harder, more objective look.

And when even the near-Nazi Charles Krauthammer - yes! Krauthammer - has figured out the glaring contradictions intrinsic to Obama's "vision", and the even more glaring naiveté of his supporters, then we know that people are saying, "Yeah, but, hmmm, wait a minute . . ."

from Krauthammer (of all people!).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/10/AR2008011003245.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

". . . [As if Obama's] soaring rhetoric and personal biography will abolish the ideological divide of the 1960s -- as if the division between left and right, between welfare statism and free markets, between internationalism and unilateralism, between social libertarianism and moral traditionalism are residues of Sgt. Pepper and the March on Washington . . ." and Obama's non-partisan, GenX'r desires, on behalf of the country, will automatically make all the old obsolete bitterness magically disappear.

"The freest of all passes to Obama is the general neglect of the obvious central contradiction of his candidacy . . ."

Exactly! Which is that he's going to make nice with the religious-right and the neocons and the hard-right, in order to make a blissful non-partisan country. And they're just going to cooperate, lay down their weapons, dispense with their fanatic ideologies, and Obama will get everything he wants; amiably. Because he's nice.

Well, yeah, if Rapture comes and the rest have fatal heart attacks en masse. Yeah, sure he will . . .

I agree with the general consensus that Romney's 2nd placement is absurd.

I said Romney was done on Jan 4, after losing miserably to Huck in Iowa. McCain was creeping up/overtaking him in NH before the primary even took place and now that Rom lost his first two states that should have been locked up, he's done. Now he's in the position where he's got to "come back" in states where he's never even had a lead. He had stomping leads in Iowa and NH and lost them; there's no way he's going to come back in the next states.

Look at his Wyoming win. One: why did WY not get more attention, and two: WY did zero/zip/nada for Romney.

Lastly, Romney sucks. He's a horrible politician. We feel compelled to say that he's a good politician because he has a nice haircut and smile.

But he's a horrid politician because it's so painfully transparent. It was from day one. The first time I saw him I thought "Man, what a sleeze. He doesn't have a chance."

Pile on the ridiculous policy problems with him and it's surprising he ever was considered "viable." He's changed his mind not on small issues like other politicians but on huge party-platform positions. Pro-life/pro-choice. Pro-gay rights/anti-gay rights. Pro-health care/anti-health care. He essentially went from being a secular liberal Republican to a bible-thumping fascist neocon in what, a year or so?

Romney sucks and has never been viable. He was popular for a while but the popular kid is not always the prom king. Not when they're a two-faced phony who doesn't understand that people hate hypocrites.

errinfamilia needs to get a grip.

1. If you think Cilliza is a chump why are you reading this blog? I've watch and read a lot of the establishment press and he is among the better ones.

2. NH goes for insiders? Buchannon over Bush Sr. McCain over Shrub. McCain over Romney -- the first Mass. Governor or Senator to lose in NH!

Wow!

New Hampshire went for the insider. It went for Gore in 2000, Kerry in 2004, and Clinton in 2008. ALL those candidates where the most inside players in Washington DC at the time, and the choice of the Democratic establishment.

All that proves is that New Hampshire voters aren't very independent, and instead the state's primaries are dominated by the party machine. Just look how the two most Beltway-beholden candidates won last Tuesday.

Hillary's experience includes being a supporter of the status quo that has led to the Iraq war, 9 trillion dollar national debt, oil at $100 abarrel, the dollar losing a third of it's value, and Social Security being ransacked by the older generations leaving the younger generations with nothing. Is that the experience you want to vote for? Hillary may not be the source of all those bad things that have happened to our country, but she has been part of the problem more than she has been part of the solution. That's why she barely eked out a victory in a New England state dominated by the Democratic establishment, and only after receiving non-stop media coverage the day before the vote. Let's see her win a state wherein the DC insiders hold little sway.

What a chump this Chris Cilliza guy constantly shows himself to be.

Edwards still has plenty of momentum, because the only reason he didn't do well in New Hampshire is because he is from the South. None of the Southern candidates did good in New Hampshire. In fact, they did the worst in the NH primaries. And clueless Chris can't figure out that it has a lot to do with New Englanders not being all that cozy with the South. Duh.

Because both Edwards and Obama are vying for the mantle of "change" it is easy to assume that Edwards siphons voters away from Obama. However, if you look at who they attract, Obama does better with the "starbucks professional class" whereas Hillary does much better with those with only a high school degree and the "Wal-Mart class". Edwards message is actually geared for the Wal-Mart class and therefore he is taking votes away from Hillary not Obama.

I think democrats better be careful what they wish for. I think Huckabee is the real deal. I am a moderate, Christian democrat (yes there are many of us like that- e.g. Pelosi and Carter), person of color, and while I don't agree with all of his positions, I actually like Huckabee and I have not liked a republican candidate in a long time. I also like McCain, but my point is that Huckabee is the kind of Christian that Christians have been looking for. He cares about the poor, the working class, etc. Yes I am aware about his shortcomings on choice and evolution, but to many that will actually be seen as authentic. I expect he will do extremely well in the south and may do well in states like California because of the strong Christian communities that exist in S. Cal and the Catholic Latino vote were his message of faith and helping the poor fits like a glove. By that logic I guess he will do well with the Republican Latino vote.

Finally, cam8 you write, that Hillary undermines Organized labor by not going along with their endorsement of Obama and fracturing their endorsement by enlisting the support of Hispanic politicians. What is she supposed to do? Roll over and give the state to Obama? By this logic Obama has undermined the Democratic Party because more prominent democrats support Hillary. While I deeply respect labor, are you saying Hispanic politicians should be seen as less representative of Hispanics than Labor?
Obama has a great chance to win Nevada based on union support, his war chess, and his organization. However, Hispanic voters are more conservative than traditional democrats and if the above analyses of Obama's Starbucks versus Hillary's Wal-Mart appeal holds, the demographics actually favor Hillary.

'Conventional' wisdom....

How about this - it comes down to the 'Conventions.'

Predictions: None. Period. Nada.

Except this one: Democrat Takes the White House.

Re. superdelegates -- They get to change their minds as often as they like so they can switch if the tide turns.

On Obama support from Republicans: Previous assertions are exaggerated but I did hear a lot of McCain supports say they like Obama and many Obama supporters (this was NH) say they like McCain. These are non-ideologs who like anything but the establishment candidate.

I am happy Hillary not only beat the spread but pulled out a victory in NH but I believe one crucial reason was precisely the wide lead projected for Obama over Clinton. A lot of indipendents thought Obama had it done and went to vote for McCain.

Should be an interesting ride. Will Edwards now dis Obama when he drops out because Kerry dissed Edwards?

I don't get how you can discuss the Democrat race without mentioning the superdelegates. The evidence is that being drawn largely from older, experienced politicians, Senator Clinton will be first choice for enough of them to overturn a small Obama lead.

These guys who are supporting Obama are mostly Republicans...

Posted by: bjoseph1 | January 11, 2008 01:46 PM

That is the most ridiculous thing I ever read in WaPo.

Your comment proves you are lacking any grip on reality.

"The Fix" should ask Mitt Romney why he seemed so enthusiastic about the 2005 McCain-Kennedy Immigration Reform plan in an interview with the Boston Globe in November, 2005. Even though that plan was being attacked by conservative critics as "amnesty", Romney called the plan a "reasonable proposal" and said it clearly wasn't amnesty. Here's an extract from a recent Boston Globe article with Romney's comments from that interview, contrasted with quotes from recent Romney attack ads (link below):

"That's very different than amnesty, where you literally say, 'OK, everybody here gets to stay.' It's saying you could work your way into becoming a legal resident of the country by working here without taking benefits and then applying and then paying a fine." Romney did not specifically endorse McCain's bill, saying he had not yet formulated a full position on immigration, but called the efforts by McCain and Bush "reasonable proposals." Link: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/08/amnesty_issue/

Cam 8
Thank you for the link on the repercussions and implications of the culinary union endorsement. I wish they had stayed neutral.

But to your specific point..Clinton is making overt appeals to Hispanics and ultimately those voters should have the right to vote their conscience. Obama will have the greater benefit of the organization leadership and all that goes with it. The rank and file of this or any other union should still be receptive to pro-labor candidates who can make their cases not solely on the local's official endorsement.

There is only one gender card in the deck and Hillary just played it for all it was worth. What's she going to do now?

Clinton vs. McCain is the one and only matchup which could see the GOP sneak back into the White House.

Why vote for Warmonger-lite Clinton when you can get the real deal with McCain?

If these percentages are right, how in the world can they be believed?

I will repeat - the pollsters appear to have gotten Obama right - his 36% is a few points off the 38% of realclearpolitics average and can be explained by votes going to McCain.

However, there is no corresponding drop-off in Obama's support to compensate for Hillary's 9% jump from 30% to 39% - there has to be something wrong.

I agree with Chris' asseesment on Romney -- but only if Romney wins Michigan or gets a very close second. But if Romney wins the nomination, it's going to be because he's an acceptable second choice for most Republicans, not because he's a first choice of most. It would be a strange way to get a nomination.

And I'm still wondering if Giuliani might see some success with his unorthodox strategy. He'll probably win New York, a winner-take-all state (although McCain is quite strong there), and if three other candidates stay in a race they could split the social-conservative vote, leaving Giuliani with plenty of delegates heading out of Super Tuesday. If that happens, the race will come down to Giuliani vs. someone else, and I can imagine scenarios where that someone else is McCain, Huckabee or Romney (in that order).

These guys who are supporting Obama are mostly Republicans, who want him to be the nominee, so that Republican nominee will have a cake walk like 2004. Remember Kerry and his "I voted for the war before I voted against it" comment. Obama has made very similar comments recently, inresponse to Bill Clintons attck on him for his 2004 statement that he did not know whether he would have voted for Iraq war. He said taht he did not want to contradict the President a and VP nominee. So, he will change his tories as required. He voted present in Illionoise senate number of times to preserve status Quo. The chameleon that he is, now claims he is change agent and Hillary is for status quo

I am a Democrat, but if it is Clinton vs. McCain. I am voting for McCain.

I think that anything can happen. However as of today, my thoughts are: If Hillary can keep the appeal to women, she has a chance. There are specific age groups who will vote for her no matter what. And if the MSM and blogs continue to denigrate her or comment on anything other than policy, she will get the nomination via reaction. I think she is qualified but I cannot imagine we have no other person qualified for the presidency other that a Bush or a Clinton.

I think that Obama needs to calm down with the soundbites. They are great and inspiring but people need more. They are about to start listening closer and he needs to start talking, not preaching. I am not convinced that he has enough experience.

As a Democrat, I used to love John McCain and would possible have voted for him way back when. However his evolving from a straight shooter to a follower of Bush policies was very disappointing. I don't consider him a candidate for me.

Same as Romney. I have a friend, Democrat, who lives in Mass and she loved him. He is not the same person it appears. Same with Huckabee. Liked reading about this "nice" guy from AK but did not know him I guess.

Bloomberg...I might consider Bloomberg if he runs and Edwards drops out. If you can govern NY, you can probably govern a nation. But I' ll probably read in the Post or NYT something that I can't accept and ...Oh well.

I am going to continue to read, listen and converse with friends.
As of now, as a Democrat I see this race as wide open.

An example of the politics that this country doesn't need more of:

Hillary Clinton is attempting to reduce the damage done by failing to get the endorsement of the Nevada Culinary Workers' Union, by far the most powerful labor union in NV.

How, do you ask?

By enlisting the support of Hispanic politicians to fracture union political support along racial lines.

You would think that a Democrat would have more respect for organized labor than this.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/jan/11/power-culinary-union-hangs-balance-its-protege-kih/

Ok, Hillary supporters. Spin this one.

Are these the same 80 "insiders" who said Obama would win N.H. by a lot? Can we PLEEEEAAASSSSSEE stop relying on such insiders and pundits and let the voters vote? There are more of us voters than there are pundits.

Nancyellen 878 @11:18

Like you, I am sorry the Michigan Democratic primary is not going to be very meaningful..really too bad because its importance relative to a Democratic economic message will not get the national attention it should.

I'd offer strategic advice and suggest voting for Romney. As a partisan Democrat, I believe he needs to win this to stay viable and in my opinion he'd be a weaker general election candidate for the GOP.

Since you sound like conviction voters with a conscience, I realize this may offend you on principle. Comfort yourself with the understanding that ultimately your votes will bring progressive change to the country if a Democrat is elected in 2008.

The Clinton win in New Hampshire is a soft win in my book. Let's face it, the Clinton political machine is too savvy to let "tears" well up accidentally. As a result the women of New Hampshire felt sorry for her and voted for her. Meanwhile, the independents looked and the Democratic polls and said Obama has it made and saw that McCain was in trouble and voted for him. The combination resulted in a soft win for both McCain and Clinton.

Analysts at the Election Defense Alliance (EDA) have confirmed that based on the official results on the New Hampshire Secretary of state web site, there is a remarkable relationship between Obama and Clinton votes, when you look at votes tabulated by op-scan v. votes tabulated by hand:

Clinton Optical scan 91,717 52.95%
Obama Optical scan 81,495 47.05%

Clinton Hand-counted 20,889 47.05%
Obama Hand-counted 23,509 52.95%

The percentages appear to be swapped. That seems highly unusual, to say the least.

EDA and others are proceeding with intra and inter-county results and demographic analysis to better understand what this extremely unusual "coincidence" may indicate. The work to understand what really happened in New Hampshire is far from complete.

In the meantime, what are we to make of all this?

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_bruce_o__080110_obama_clinton_3a_remar.htm

Come on now CC, you can't be having a tie for 1st! We gotta have a winner, no draws!

I would say for the Democrats:
3. John Edwards
2. Hillary Clinton
1. Barack Obama

Why do I say Obama after NH? Well, he won Iowa & he's winning in Nevada & South Carolina. Of course, he's not competing in Michigan. Clinton is. Will Edwards & Obama urge their supporters to vote for Kucinich in Michigan, hoping to team up on Clinton & hand her a loss? I think that's probable. If Obama's staff is already better than Clinton's on Feb. 5, John Kerry's donor list will help out tremendously on Feb. 5. Plus, Kerry's endorsement of Obama could help him win over Edwards supporters. For these reasons, I believe Obama is right now the front runner for the Democratic Presidential nomination.

Republicans:
4. Mitt Romney
3. Mike Huckabee
2. Rudy Guiliani
1. John McCain

There is no need to rank F. Thompson, Duncan Hunter or Ron Paul as they have no chance of winning. With a democratic primary field in Michigan of Clinton vs. Kucinich vs. Gravel, I don't think hardly any independents will vote in the democratic primary. This sets McCain up to win Michigan with a comfortable margin. With a win in Michigan, McCain will certainly set himself up as the front runner going into South Carolina & Nevada. Mitt Romney will then be finished, and may as well drop out of the race. In Nevada & South Carolina, it's a tough McCain vs. Huckabee race. As of right now, b/c Huckabee & F. Thompson are fighting for the same voting bloc & McCain's organization in SC (with support of sen. Graham), McCain is in great shape to win both SC & Nevada. After this is Florida. It will be Feb. 5 before Rudy can be ruled out. He has conserved his resources and is concentrating on Florida & Feb. 5. His strategy is turning out to be okay for him. If McCain wins Michigan & Nevada, which is very likely to happen & Huckabee wins Florida Guiliani couldn't have dreamed of a better scenario. Romney is gone, McCain/Huckabee has split the vote and Rudy has a great shot to win. On the other hand, if McCain were to sweet & win Michigan, Nevada & South Carolina, in Florida it's McCain vs. Guiliani. As well as on Feb. 5. Either way, with or without a victory, Guiliani has conserved himself to be in it on Feb 5., which is more than Huckabee or Romney can say for themselves. However, McCain is definately the front-runner as Huckabee can definately be a big factor if he could win in SC.

Here is the link to the Kucinich recount demand:

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5544#more-5544

Hillary did not win NH, her election was stolen!

She only won in the precincts with Diebold election fraud machines. In every precinct where there were no Diebold election fraud machines, Obama won.

Statistically, it was impossible for Hillary to have won when she was polled at a 9% deficit behind Obama.

Also see:

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5530

I have read almost every post on here.. and one post that stand out here is the post from "Nevadandy"

I really enjoy reading it.I'm an independent and I'm really have been asking myself the same questions about Hillary and if she can really bring, that which voters are looking or will we be re-living the fights of the 90's.
I feel like this election is more about them and there legacy, than you and I.More about taking advantage of the mood of the country so they can make a come back and score political point on GOP because of this great "right wing conspiracies".

Stayed up and watched CNN & MSNBC (Brian Williams had nothing to add to the mix!), and could not believe that it has not occured to you guys that the reporting of the polls impacted the outcome.

Independents were breaking for the odd combination (but not if you give this more thought) of voting for Obama or McCain. The voters figured Obama did not need their help but McCain did - so that's how the polls were wrong because they influenced the actual vote.

The pundits continue to be wrong on Hillary because people do not want legacy politics in this country - it's not about being a woman, or tears, or anything else. We have had two Bushes, and don't need two Clintons.

Well, it's starting to look like Ohio will still have a vote that counts! Good.

In Nevada, Obama has the Culinary Union's endorsement. Living in Nevada, I would say that over 50% of the Culinary Union members are Hispanic. It will be interesting to see if these workers follow the endorsement of their Union leaders who just helped them to win new contracts or the endorsement of leaders in the Hispanic community who endorse Hillary.

Also, I think that the Clinton's insinuation of Obama as a young boy violates the Supreme Court ruling that the use of the word "boy" alone may be evidence of racial discrimination. How can they say they are champions for the Black voters while resorting to the use of a term that Black find so derogatory?

Also, they say Obama is living in fairy tale land. He is not living in fairy tale land. Quite the opposite, he is living in the real world and having personally experienced many of the real life problems that many Americans are suffering through each day (growing up in a single parent family, being raised by elderly grandparents, seeing his dying mother's concern for paying for her cancer treatments). It's the Clinton's who are so used to living in fairy tale land that they are far removed from the realities of the common American.

Voters need to see that real change cannot happen unless Congress changes the way it does business. We need a President who can WORK with both sides of Congress to pass the legislation needed to put America back on the right path. Hillary with all her "experience" will continue the status quo because she cannot unite both parties to back whatever her agenda is. Obama has shown that he can work with both sides in Congress. She is now saying we need to change, but by her account she's had 35 years of experience. Voters need to question that why in those 35 years did she not once mention the need to change the way we do business? Why is she bringing up the subject of change now, and only after someone new to the system has challenged the status quo? It's time for the Clinton's fairy tale reign in politics to end. The American dream for too many Americans are at stake. It's time for voters to wake up and face the facts - most of our federally elected officials legislate in the name of the average Americans but really legislate on behalf of the interests of lobbyists, and greedy corporations who contribute to their "war chests". We need a Leader who is not beholden to PACs, Lobbyists and Big Corporations.

Real change will happen when we elect a LEADER with a clear vision and understanding of the issues who can get Democrats, Republican and Indepents to support. We need a leader who will thoroughly and objectively look at the issues without reading into it what they think is the problem. After all we've had 8 years of a President who has interjected his personal interpretation of the issues even when there was no evidence to support his interpretation.

Obama has been an agent for change since being elected to public office. Can Hillary make the same claim? Obama is strategic in his thinking, he said that the time to plan the withdrawal of troops was when we were planning for the way in the first place. This is a sign of a leader who looks at all the angles of a situation and solution. This is what we need in our next leader.

In my opinion, any Democrat who says they would vote for any Republican (besides Ron Paul maybe) is nothing but an enabler to Bush Republicans.

ANY Democrat will beat ANY Republican, if Democrats can (for once) stick together (potentially an impossible task for them).

I was fascinated by how many times the Republican candidates bragged at nearly every answer last night on their only two-term President (besides the failed GWB) in the last 50 years. And RR produced a gigantic deficit and a recession.

When are the Democrats going to brag on their only two-term President in the last 50 years?

He produced a SURPLUS and job growth! He also led a successful regime change with the full involvement of NATO and the UN, and the mission was ACCOMPLISHED.

When Clinton handed over the nation to Bush Republicans, 70% of America thought we were going to the right direction.

Under Bush Republicans, 70% of America thinks we are going in the WRONG direction.

START BRAGGING.

So, the National Journal took a poll. No bias, there.

Why doesn't Cillizza report on the Mad Magazine poll? The results have to be just as convincing.

What, me worry?

Thanks much. HLB, Mt. Lebanon PA

I think that Barack and Hillary are probably tied. Arguments can be made that either is marginally ahead, but the 63% of Democratic insiders or conventional wisdom supporting Hillary is biased, IMO. It seems unfair to ask the largely status quo interests whether the status quo candidate will win. In a year that everyday reminds us to "expect the unexpected," I would take their bias with a grain of salt. Let the people vote and decide. Enough of these self-interested kibbitzers.

"Capitalism is good. Free trade creates economic growth and lowers consumer prices. Nationalizing health care is a terrilbe idea."

Unfettered capitalism gives us the subprime debacle that is still unfolding. Free trade is sending 800 billion dollars a year abroad. The days of low consumer prices are ending thanks to rising consumption demands abroad. National health care is increasingly being pushed by big business as a way to counter foreign company competitive advantage.

The world changes. Sticking rigidly to conservative dogmas will land you in the dog house.

1. Edward's Two Americas campaign from 4 years ago was better than his "corporate Greed" campaign this time around. Wish he was doing better.

2. I'll take Hillary over Obama b/c hope is not a policy, the GOP is never going to play nice with a Dem president. Give Clinton 8 years and I'll happily campaign for Obama.

3. The GOP race is facinating: Huckabee is the most genuine Chriatian candidtate Republicans have been offered by demanding that pro-life values must extend after birth with health care and education. Romney and Guliani Republicans attack Huckabee as a "big government liberal". Give me a break. McCain may win it all. Thompson should go back to acting.

4. What about Kucinich v. Ron Paul: The wierd v. the absurd. But which is which?

Colin -- I wonder how those staffers feel about skipping their pay checks, knowing the big bucks rudy blew through in the early part of the campaign, staying in the ultra-expensive resort hotels his wife insists on. $2000 a night and up...

Why not list the Republican candidate that raised more money in the last quarter of 07 than ANY candidate, Democratic or Republican? Not too mention, Ron Paul got 10% in Iowa (to Guiliani's 3%) and 8% in New Hamsphire (to Thompson's 1%). It seems that many folks in the media like to pretend Ron Paul simply isn't there for whatever reason.

I really don't understand these so caled Democrats who support Hillary. She voted twice FOR the Patriot Act, FOR Alito, FOR Roberts, FOR the Iraq war, FOR the Bush/Lieberman policy on Iran, FOR no-child-left behind, For the bankruptcy Bill protecting BANKS not consumers, ...the only thing she is for is more of the same old George Bush failed policies! If thsi is what she calls leadership... God help us all! 22 years of Clinton and Bush has put this country in two endless wars and now recession! We are NOT better now than we were before Clinton/Bush!

America needs a change!

I extend my deepest sympathies to Nancyellen and husband for being stauch democrats. The surest remedy for that disease is to read lots of books and newspapers and turn off MSNBC.

trouble in Zoukland!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22608810/

nancyellen879: "Anyone care to offer advice on how to resolve our current dilemma?"

I can't understand why you'd vote in a GOP primary to derail Romney if you're a staunch Democrat.

Romney, unlike McCain, would be a disastrous GOP candidate in a General Election. He's a candidate that even the unelectable Hillary might beat (though she'd only implement Romney war policies anyway).

Also, by keeping Romney in the race in Mich, you would further muddle the GOP nomination, preventing the early coronation they love to have, and forcing them to spend their bucks on swiftboating each other instead of Democrats.

As someone who completely loathes Republicans, all I can say is GO MITT!

I realize HRC won New Hampshire, but Barack still garnered almost 50% of the votes! Doesn't that give the pundits pause? Also, Hardball had Tony Perkins (FRC-Romney) and Pat Toumy(CFG-Huck)on--both were apoplectic about suppoting the other's candidate--and not one mention of McCain!

I wish there could be some serious debate among the candidates about which economic policies would actually be best for the country. Hillary Clinton is a statist. She prefers central planning to freedom. Someone (the press perhaps?) should be educating the American people about basic economic theories. People should read Hayek and Milton Friedman or at least Greg Mankiw's blog. If I were Hillary Clinton I would say that it should be mandatory reading for all American citizens but I'm not so I'll just put it out there as a suggestion.

Capitalism is good. Free trade creates economic growth and lowers consumer prices. Nationalizing health care is a terrilbe idea. I'm still waiting for a candidate to convince me that they are best suited to preserve individual liberty and promote economic growth.

At one of the next debates the moderator should ask each of the candidates "Who is in charge of supplying bread to the city of DC?" I would love to hear their answers. How would you all answer the question? It used to baffle the Soviets.

Is Rudy running out of Money?

This one is for you KOZ. A Politico article says that top Rudy staffers are skipping pay checks this month so that Rudy can spend as much money on Florida as possible. As the article notes, that's not an action campaigns take unless they're seriously low on funds.

Here's the link:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0108/Top_Rudy_staffers_working_without_pay.html

By the way, he spent the second most amount of money on advertising in NH and finished Fourth. Ouch.

nancyellen879 writes
"Anyone care to offer advice on how to resolve our current dilemma?"

Vote for your hopes, not from your fears. You said you're a Dem but don't support the candidate on the ballot. That says, to me, you should vote 'uncommitted'.

I think on the Democratic side that Clinton has a definite ceiling of support that causes her to look for that bare majority both in the primary and general election. Obama has much more potential upside. So I think Edwards on balance is draining support from Obama because many of his supporters can not stomach the idea of another 4 or 8 years of Clinton (like a near majority of the rest of America).

As for Nevada and SC, I think the Clinton campaign is masterfully managing expectations by claiming to be "on the ropes" in both places, meaning that even a close second will seem like another "comeback" or will keep the momentum going, and an actual win in either place will be seen as another huge "surprise" that could catapult her. I think it is a serious mistake for the Obama campaign to let these expectations get built like this.

As for Republicans, who knows? I just like the idea of them being as fractured for once as Democrats always are. I find it extremely difficult to believe that McCain will win either the primary or general. He seems like another Dole to me. Just not the right person for these times (like the rest of the Republican field, although Huckabee is their best communicator and campaigner, but his positions are out of touch).

'I agree - our media sucks. It's a joke.'

You know what it is, Mike? It's a herd mentality. I remember years ago, reporters --good ones, anyway -- were loners, mavericks, bucking the system, suspicious of pols. Ever read Jimmy Breslin? I loved him.

But now they're herd animals, feeding from the same trough as the politicians.

The Politico piece was far more self-revealing than the authors intended. That and the orgy of over- the-top, hysterical Hillary bashing--especially from the TV pundits, the worst of the lot-- has made this year's coverage the pathetic I've ever seen.

I advise anyone who wants to know what's going on in the world--including the US - to read the British Guardian.

I can't believe the mileage Hillary's getting out of her "moment". S***, on a good day I can choke up on cue and I have nothing to do with acting or politics, all it takes is a rudimentary knowledge of method acting. The electorate believes/is led to believe that politicians can't act. They fail to recall that even bad film actors have made it to the Oval Office!

Chris writes about Obama
"That said, his loss in New Hampshire showed that for all the passion Obama invokes, emotion does not necessarily equal votes."

But... Doesn't that depend on what drove supporters to Clinton? Did Clinton win based on a policy appeal or on a display of emotion? Nobody knows. Some pundits think her support was driven by the emotional reaction to a perception that she was unfairly criticized during the debate and for being portrayed as 'more human' due to the diner event. Did she benefit from an emotional response by voters? Or did they ignore such irrelevant events & suddenly wake up to her policy positions & find them favorable to Obama's?

Chris, I think you're throwing darts in the dark on this one.

"Her willingness to open up to voters in the days between Iowa and New Hampshire seemed to broaden her appeal -- especially to women. Can Clinton keep it up?"

Oh, God. Is she going to cry in all 48 remaining states?

Please just kill me now.

"Recession coming... is there any doubt who should lead the country?

Hussain Obama- better actor than Denzel, better preacher than Jessey, but he is no president"

Yeah, you're right. Let's put in another tax-cut-for-the-rich Republican, because the Deficit is not yet Large enough.

We need to borrow MORE money from China, so that we can give MORE tax cuts to our wealthiest citizens.

After listening to Guiliani and the gang talk last night about making the disastrous Bush tax-breaks-for-the-rich permamnent, and in the case of Guiliani, actually INCREASING the Tax Breaks for the rich (and corporations), I am astounded that so many Americans are still buying into "trickle down" voodoo economics.

So, let me ask any and all of you 'out there' that would support even more tax breaks for the wealthy:

Do you REALLY think it is in America's long term interest to continue to have China finance our deficit?

Please answer straight and without hyperbole.

The liberal DailyKos is encouraging Michigan Democrats to vote for Mitt Romney in the GOP Primary:

"With a history of meddling in our primaries, why don't we try and return the favor. Next Tuesday, January 15th, Michigan will hold its primary. Michigan Democrats should vote for Mitt Romney, because if Mitt wins, Democrats win. How so?

For Michigan Democrats, the Democratic primary is meaningless since the DNC stripped the state of all its delegates (at least temporarily) for violating party rules. Hillary Clinton is alone on the ballot.

But on the GOP side, this primary will be fiercely contested. John McCain is currently enjoying the afterglow of media love since his New Hamsphire victory, while Iowa winner Mike Huckabee is poised to do well in South Carolina.

Meanwhile, poor Mitt Romney, who's suffered back-to-back losses in the last week, desperately needs to win Michigan in order to keep his campaign afloat. Bottom line, if Romney loses Michigan, he's out. If he wins, he stays in.

And we want Romney in, because the more Republican candidates we have fighting it out, trashing each other with negative ads and spending tons of money, the better it is for us. We want Mitt to stay in the race, and to do that, we need him to win in Michigan."

He is advocating political corruption of the electoral system. KOS is no longer just another nutroot. He is a power house in the Democratic Party and the Media. He is advocating the same type of political corruption he rants about. Kos has no ethics or standards. He is a hypocrite and this behavior borders on the criminal.

Am I the only person who is starting to tire of Giuliani's line that he is the only Republican who can compete in 50 states? Which ones are those? Seems like you have, at best, 47 that you can compete in (with Iowa, Wisconsin and NH saying no). Perhaps he should change the slogan?

My husband and I are staunch Democrats. We moved from Brookline MA to suburban Detroit in the summer of 1988. Our member of Congress used to be Barney Frank. Now it is Joe Knollenberg. Enough said. At this moment we are trying to decide whether to vote "uncommitted" in the Democratic primary next Tuesday to register our non-support for Hillary Clinton (I was a strong supporter of John Edwards in the past but now feel Barack Obama is the best choice - and neither one is on the ballot thanks to the shenanigans of the MI Dems and the DNC) - or to cross over and vote for McCain in the GOP primary to help derail Mitt Romney's campaign. We voted for McCain in the 2000 Michigan GOP presidential primary in hopes of stopping Bush from getting the nomination that year. McCain beat Bush decisively in Michigan thanks in part to such crossovers, but dirty tricks in the SC primary that followed gave Bush the upper hand, and the rest is history. Anyone care to offer advice on how to resolve our current dilemma?

the anti immigrant, ok, illegal immigrant rant distorted the truth. first, yes they are illegal but so are the bosses who hire them. that went unmentioned, showing that the poster is a damn racist.

the immigrant workers pay taxes, and they are responsible for billions of dollars worth of economic activity, as the localities who have banned them found out, when their main street shops started to close because of the lack of the business these workers provide.

McManus9905 (10:41 last paragraph) hit the impact of Hillary's emotional moment perfectly. The reaction had more to do with the relentless characterization of Hillary as cold and calculating. Even though there was an element of truth in this, the result was far over-reaching and gave Hillary the chance to gain sympathy from NH voters at the last possible moment and snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.

There are those that say she can do this only once, but I fear them wrong. Again, the pundits speak of her emotional moment as either calculated or as a full-fledged crying incident. Either characterization is harsh and unfair. They are again clearing the way for another incident where voters will pour out their sympathy to Hillary. If Hillary is not treated fairly, the voters will come to her defense (again and again, if necessary). It is a natural and predictable human reaction. And likewise, the corollary of this is that the voters will turn on any candidate (or their followers) who confuse confidence with arrogance.)

As an Obama supporter, I think it is important for all to be aware of this effect. I suggest we act with modesty in our ambitions and graciousness to our opponents to more effectively gain our objectives. And the press will unwittingly continue to aid Hillary in her quest, most especially Chris Matthews, who has been gratuitous in his Hillary comments. He is so wrong if he thinks he is somehow damaging her. Quite the contrary!

The loser is the fact that the press and the candidates will now treat Hillary with kid gloves.
Hillary wants to be president but, challenge her or treat her as one of the guys and look out. Poor victim Hillary. Those big bad sexist men.
As a woman I find this poor Hillary thing to be nauseating.
Why shouldn't she be criticized if she makes boneheaded moves. Why shouldn't she be treated the same as the guys. Why shouldn't she get grief for the racist remarks of surrogates and Bill have made this past week.
Yet, she chokes up and suddenly she is hands off.
This means she would be nominated because she is woman as victim and people feel sorry for her and no one can challenge her.
Just like the tag team at the debate. If she was a man no one would say anything. But, because she is woman she gets special treatment? NO
So, the loser is the voters, the press, the other candidates and the process.
The winners are the Clintons because Bill gets a pass on saying some very demeaning things, Hillary as well and because she will now get special treatment.

Re: Recount

Kucinich's request is a plea for attention. The exit polls match the vote tallies within 0.3% for all three of the leading Democrats. For there to have been fraud, it would require a massive conspiracy between pollsters and election officials. That and Kucinich is about as consequential as Mike Gravel.

Re: Nevada

The reason Obama is considered a favorite in Nevada is that he's picked up the endorsement of the most powerful unions in Nevada (service employees and also the culinary workers). In a caucus, organization is key and Obama has that.

I just hope that Clinton and Obama stay civil and that bomb thrower Edwards fades.

BB

Guiliani - done

Romney - done

Thompson - done

Paul - done

McCain is the only qualified republican candidate who would get my vote.

Obama - 1st (he still drew over 30% in NH)

Clinton - 2nd (she only won NH by 3% points)

Edwards - 3rd (i htink he can win nationwide. We may see hints of racism or mysogeny that have yet to rear their heads.)

obama's shady dealings as state senator in chicago and as U.S. senator is just now surfacing. the story if his dealings with Rezco is going to explode into the national consciousness with the trial next month.

slick obama will now have to answer for all his denials about his relationship to this political fixer that was indicted by the grand jury of patrick fitzgerald.

the obama bubble is set to explode. more to come for sure.

i hope big media won't swipe this scandal under the carpet.

There's no question McCain is a strong general election candidate. The question is whether Republicans dislike him as much as so many Democrats dislike Hillary.

He can beat both Obama and Hillary in a head to head contest.

I wonder what the Clinton's strategy is when it comes to 3rd party candidates.

Bill seemed to benefit from Ross Perot. A right of center 3rd party candidate or a far right candidate could give Obama the win, drawing Republicans. I think a 3rd party candidate could actually hurt Hillary though.

Bloomberg is reportedly doing some aggressive polling to decide whether he's viable or not. I think Bloomberg would take Democrats from Hillary.

Also, Hillary says it's about prose, not poetry. Poetry is another way of talking about that vision thing. Reminds me of George HW Bush who snidely said he didn't do "the vision thing" when Bill Clinton was the visionary/poetic guy in '92.

SENATE RACE IN NEW MEXICO:

Governor Bill Richardson, in his presidential bid departure speech yesterday, had Democratic Senate candidate Tom Udall on the podium with him. Bill put to rest any notion that he would challenge Udall for the New Mexico Senate seat left vacant by the departure of Pajama Pete Domenici.

Tom Udall worked for Richardson in his bid and now Richardson can focus on supporting Tom is his bid for the Senate. Having Big Bad Bill back in New Mexico is the worst nightmare for the doomed Senate Repug candidates, Congressmen Stevie Pearce and Heather Wilson (sic).

It is entirely possible that one or both of the Repugs will back out of the race and go back to their relatively safe House seats, just so they have employment after 2008. Pearce is a die-hard Bush-Iraq policy supporter and Heather just barely held onto her Albuquerque-area seat two years ago against a crippled Democratic challenge. They have polled very low against Udall in the Senate race and will have to count on a miracle to beat him.

New Mexico looks GREAT for a takeover of a formerly safe Repug Senate seat. Go Tom, GO!!!

I don't know why people are already calling Nevada for Obama. I'm looking at the USA Today poll tracker and all the polls, at least, show Hillary clearly ahead.

Which as we know, doesn't prove anything, but it sure doesn't point conclusively to an Obama win, either.

I received my Florida ballot instructions in the mail yesterday. It reminded me that we have early voting that starts on Monday the 14th. So I'll get to vote my Obama preference soon. Can't wait!

What is odd about Florida is that the democratic candidates have pledged not to campaign here, so the vote apparently will only be influenced by national news events. Also, the vote will be a beauty contest with no direct bearing on delegates.

All in all, I think it would have been better for Florida to have voted Feb 5 (Power Ball Tuesday!) and not be sanctioned by the Democratic National Committee.

Still, political scientists will be able to parse the results for any effects of this odd lack of direct campaigning. It feels disconcerting, like being a cork bobbing helplessly up and down in the waves of distant events.

It is fascinating to watch what's going on in the Democratic race. I would love to know what was really going on in people's head's in both those states. Since everyone in the media is forming conjectures on what when down in IA in NH here's my two cents. Hillary has been placed into a stereotype of a shrill pushy broad who thinks she's entitled. She didn't break out of that stereotype in Iowa and got nailed by Obama's message of hope. But in NH the people looked deeper. And found a candidate in Hillary who has heart and soul and experience and Obama provided nothing beyond hopeful rhetoric and nasty one liner about Hillary's character.

Obama's rock star approach to politics scares me especially when you add in the free pass that the MSM has handed him. And I think that the media's free pass scared the women of NH in a way that caused them to vote in record numbers. Why isn't this guy being asked the tough questions? What health care plan did he actually deliver in Illinois? Why isn't the MSM reporting on his planted questions in his audiences, except in the Washington Post Style section? Chrles Krathammer brings up this issue in a Washington Post Op Ed today and brings up more areas where Obama needs to deliver answers not rhetoric.

I think the women of NH got a queasy feeling listening to Obama's stump speech. We all work with a guy who talks a great game, looks great in a suit, but when it's time to deliver always has some great excuse on why he can't get the job done. These people are known in the work place as the "empty suit". Obama really looks and sounds like an empty suit to me.

I think the media has placed to much emphasis on Hillary's teary moment and has misinterpreted it's impact. To say that women rallied around a sister out of sympathy is condescending and untrue. That moment meant a lot of things to a lot different people. They saw a woman who has devoted her life to serving her country get pounded and ridiculed in the press for months she was not getting a fair chance especially when you compare her press to Obama's. More importantly she broke out the media stereotype of her and showed another side to herself. But I think the biggest thing that men always don't understand about a woman's emotion is that it not a sign of weakness in a woman to another woman it can be a sign of inner resolve and strength. I know that sounds like a contradiction but there are many kinds of tears some are cry baby and whiney and some tears are result of being pushed to the brink and finding a steely resolve inside yourself to continue. Hillary's emotion to me is the real steely resolve type of emotion the kind of emotion that Oprah exhibits all the time and many many women relate to and respect.

I'd like to see a Clinton-McCain race.

He's the Republicans strongest candidate. She's the Democrats strongest candidate.

Hillary is going to be a Great President.

"Chris,
Your head is being turned by Romney's money. No way does he deserve better than 3rd.
Posted by: optimyst | January 11, 2008 10:24 AM"

SSDD, optimyst. Or maybe SSDC, 'C' referring to 'candidate.' Money continues to talk according to the MSM in spite of the evidence that both IA and NH bring to the table. It's also somewhat self-reverential logic since both the MSM and Romney's ad buys occupy the same space in the average American household.

Chris I believe McCain has figured this race out.

It has not been easy.

South Carolina - no matter how it goes right now - will work in McCain's favor. Thompson is there splitting whatever vote he can with Huckabee and that does nothing but help McCain.

Giuliani seems like he is yesteryear's news. Is he still in the race? The thing is many New Yorkers who now live in Florida are Democrats - and the Republican electorate is filled with Republicans from the western and northern parts of Florida. Those areas are the Deep South - Rudy is not going to run well there at all. - Romney is basically burning money at this point - Michigan is not going to give him any momentum and his message has not taken hold (whatever it is.)

McCain will come out of South Carolina with a strong showing whether he wins or not and South Carolina will give him momentum. The Republican party is actually lucky to have McCain to put up as their candidate this November - he is actually going to win. Of all the scenarios, this is the worst for the democrats, who may have otherwise won the White House. This country is going to reject the democratic candidate - and the democratic Congress is basically hanging a "do-nothing" label on its candidate. McCain will win and this country is lucky.

NO AMNESTY FOR ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS!!

WE SHOULD NOT REWARD PEOPLE WHO BROKE THE LAW BY ENTERING OUR COUNTRY ILLEGALLY!!

WE SHOULD NOT REWARD PEOPLE WHO BREAK OUR LAWS BY DRIVING WITHOUT LICENSES, OR INSURANCE!!

WE SHOULD NOT REWARD PEOPLE WHO ARE USING FORGED DOCUMENTS TO WORK!!

WE SHOULD NOT REWARD PEOPLE WHO ARE USING FORGED DOCUMENTS TO DRAW WELFARE AND FOOD STAMPS!!

WE SHOULD NOT REWARD PEOPLE WHO ENTER OUR COUNTRY ILLEGALLY TO GIVE BIRTH, TO BE GRANTED CITIZENSHIP (A LA ANCHOR BABIES) AS A REWARD FOR BREAKING OUR LAWS!!

ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS ARE COSTING AMERICAN TAXPAYERS 100'S OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS!!

Has Obama retooled his campaign speech since NH? I think he needs to put more policy specifics into it to quell the concern of the voters. He can still finish with his beautiful moving vision of hope, but needs to answer the "Where's the beef?" concern.

Chris,

Your head is being turned by Romney's money. No way does he deserve better than 3rd.

I also miss the Senate and House lines - maybe we could get some 'Special Editions'? Another Republican congressman from N CA will not be running for re-election this fall (this was announced yesterday, I think).

There remain something between 55% and 65% of the Democratic voters that prefer -- many of them vehemently -- someone other than Hillary as the nominee. Eventually, that vote will coalesce behind (probably) Obama, or (possibly) Edwards should Obama stub a toe.

Having a good public cry may ironically help once, but it can't be replicated. Hillary's future electoral fortunes are limited.

I think I'm figuring this out. Last week, the Line was only four candidates long on the Republican side, but this week it's five candidates long.

The only difference is that the fifth position would have been occupied by Ron Paul last week. Now that Fred Thompson woke up from his nap, the Line can get expanded back to five candidates.

Lyle,

After Tuesday I don't believe my reflexion on the mirror.

"Hey, I got an idea! Why not... get out and do some reporting, if you remamber how -- talk to people, you know, real people. Ask them, like, questions and stuff. You might actually find something out."

I agree - our media sucks. It's a joke.

When they liked Rudy, it was obvious. Now they like McCain.

When they liked Hillary, it was obvious. Now they like Obama.

Can't we get real reporting? Fox-Rudy/McCain or MSNBC-Obama is all my TV can get. What a shame.

By the way, I notice Politico is running a huge banner ad for a Swiftboat-style propaganda hit piece on Clinton, called 'Hillary, the movie'. they have never run an ad bashing republicans, by the way.

This kind of blatant rightwing demonizing of democrats by the orwellian 'liberal media' is one reason this country is in such a mess today. Good example is how both the Washington Post and the New York Times printed lies and propaganda by the Iranian spy
Ahmed Chalabi cheerleading us into the Iraqi debacle.

rfpiktor: I doubt even his wife thinks that. SC should go to Obama, I think that is his strongest state. Nevada could be tricky, but with the union support he should do very well there as well. My key word in this is "should"

Chris:

I have made several posts on here about Edwards and the possibility of a deadlock in the democratic race - I guess I have been hoping to see a bunch of ideas on here on the topic.

It certainly is a race.

You ask the question - does Edwards staying in the race hurt Hillary or Obama more - and my thought is that Edwards' presence blocks Hillary from reaching the 51% and thus Edwards is a major roadblock to Hillary.

I understand the counter argument that there is an anti-Hillary vote that is then split - however some of Edwards' support would go to Hillary in the event of his pull-out.

I really do not believe that Obama benefits net net if the democratic race turns into a one on one. Obama will win South Carolina and that will give him a huge boost going into SuperTuesday. Edwards helps Obama. Also, in the debates, Obama has sort of played the set-up and allowed Edwards to go in for the zinger a few times. Obama seems to have recognized the players' styles in the debates and he seems to work off of that. Edwards in the race helps Obama.

Why today's MSM sucks--and political pundits especially are a gaggle of giggly teenage girls--sorry, CC, but you know this is true -- your pals at Politico admit it:

'2. The echo chamber

Check out the nicer restaurants in Manchester, N.H., or Des Moines, Iowa, in the political season and you will see the same group of journalists and pols dining together almost every night. We go to events together, make travel plans together and read each other's work compulsively. We go to the same websites -- the Drudge Report, Real Clear Politics, Time's "The Page" -- to see what each other is writing, and it's only human nature to respond to it.'

A spoiled insular cadre of lazy log rollers, spending their time contemplating each other's navels, supplicating the Grand Poobah of Gutter Gossip, Drudge.

Hey, I got an idea! Why not stop reading the compulsive democrat basher drudge and get out and do some reporting, if you remamber how -- talk to people, you know, real people. Ask them, like, questions and stuff. You might actually find something out.

Tough love, CC, you seem decent. You'd do yourself a favor if you broke away from the pack.

I agree with earlier sentimetn. If it is HRC vs McCain, I go McCain. I am not sure Obama could beat McCain, but I would go with Obama. This is why I thought if dems had been smart we would have selected Biden. Now all we can do is hope Obama can do it.

SLBK: Try and not be to hard on CC. All the Media has been against Hillary for years and we who support her KNOW this. BTW, That is another one of my FACTS.

His wife?

rfpiktor - that's good. Defend a Clinton by pointing to someone else.

That must make it right. Let's go jump off a bridge.

Does anyone think Fred Thompson might win SC?

Money sharks have Obama ahead in Nevada 61 to Hill's 39.

They had Obama to win in N.H. 100% to Hill's .9% (point nine).

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/latest_results_from_rasmussen_markets

slbk | January 11, 2008 09:03 AM

The ten million were added from her senate campaign donations, not from her presidential campaign.

Romney put 17 million of his own money.

I am strongly democratic, especially this time around. However, if it devolves into Clinton vs McCain, I will vote for McCain.

2kr

Recession coming... is there any doubt who should lead the country?

Hussain Obama- better actor than Denzel, better preacher than Jessey, but he is no president

JimD, McCain is the Republicans worst nightmare because he is not a true conservative and is not liked or trusted by mainstream republicans. Its a depressing year for conservatives so far. If it McCain or Huckabee, this republican is going to sit out this election. I be willing to bet my sentiments are shared by a lot of conservatives.

The other fairy tale in the press is that Obama has raised more money. Clinton has raised 10 million more than Obama, last year and that lead continues into this year. Try having someone fact check your articles ok Chris.

I will leave predictions about the republicans out. First of all because they are less of a concern to me and second is because we haven't see Giulian getting into the real fight yet. Giuliani and Romney seem to be sane guys however, so I hope any of them wins.

When it comes to the democrats, Edwards, who is a guy I like, is certainly hurting Obama more than CLinton. I wish he'd jump out of the race and he might do so after Nevada and SC if he has good advisers.

It is everybodys guess about whether Obama or Clinton will win the nomination. It all comes down to whether Obama can keep a similar record with independents and women in forthcoming caucases.

After having read the websites of Obama and Clinton, I am deeply dissapointed about the press coverage of both candidates. They haven't really done much to question the stereotypes of any of them.

In my opinion, Obama has a whole lot of content in his political program, mostly more so than Clinton, although I rate her higher when it comes to election reform.

Obama has more programs and opinions than Clinton on more issues. He also has more direct legislative proposals.

If counting "experience" as something mainly gained in the political experience of holding offices and working with legislation, Obama wins hands down over Clinton. He has held more political offices, for a longer time and legislated more than Clinton.

Clinton superseeds Obama in how long she has done legal grass-rotts work, but not for it to in my opinion have any profound effect of her professional skills for the White House.

Clinton, in contrast to public perception, is not from my point of view an unlikable person. I can't say whether or not I would like her as a friend, but she undoubtedly seems to have a big heart, as she has worked tirelessly decades before the White House, to work for children and womens tights and plights.

This is, however, equally the case with Obama.

What really bothers me about Clintons speaking tone, her website included, is the constant talk of midle class, middle, middle, middle, as well ar working people. Working, working working.

What about the extremly poor and unemployed?

Obama has a good track-record and a substantive political program for that. Clinton does not.

I am also bothered by Clintons insinuations that Obama is a little boy who thinks the campaign for presidency is a "game" and that he is not "ready", revealed in her near-tear event in New Hampshire.

Clinton in her angry desperate moments portrays Obama as a little boy who tries to play with the grown ups, while she is the unfairly criticized schoolteachers who is right at the end of the day.

The events of Iowa and New Hamspshire was good both for Obama and Clinton. Obama can and must show the voters that he has surely done his homework, while Clinton has the cnance to show (if that is the case) that she is surely an inclusive candidate who can attract independents and young people.

Either candidate must strengthen their positions in these respective area, because regardless who wins, they must win among all these kind of voters to be able to win the presidency.

Wowo your hate on for HIllary Clinton and distortion of her support continues? On what empirical basis do you assert that Obama is leading in NV? Last Ichecked other than two unions, Clinton has all the support and endorsements in NV including a massive hispanic vote. Not to mention the last polls have her at 27% above Obama. These can change, as we know, but nothing has changed onthe ground in NV sinced that poll was taken. Keep distorting fact and continue with your bias and you may just be out of a job. You call your self a journalist but you are still spewing absolute crap.

'The past eight days have been enough to humble even the most confident of political pundits'

hallelujah... hope it lasts.

I also miss the Senate line.

But about the nomination line... I think Hillary has it right now. This could change, but right now, I think she is the person to beat. Many say they connected with her during the emotional response in the diner, but for me, I believed in her during the debate. Obama and Edwards ganged up on her, and she fended for herself very well. It was really impressive.

Nevada and SC are to go to Obama - I don't even see the point of Hillary campaigning there. If Hillary loses these, that's expected. If Obama loses either, then that's something. Can't wait for Feb 5 to find out who will the nominee be.

Mike I also miss the senate line. There hasn't been one in like two months and I am curious of what is happening in places like NM, Alaska, CO, Idaho, etc... But the Presidential election is sucking all of the air out of the room right now.

CC, I think the democratic list looks good except I disagree that Edwards is going to stick this out to the convention. I think he will drop out after South Carolina when he barely pulls 10% in his home state.

There is no reason what so ever that Romney is ahead of Huckabee at this point. All the polls have Huckabee above Romney even in Michigan. Also although you didn't have McCain number one for a year I as well as a few other loyal fixers predicted this exact situation happening as much as 5 months ago.

Why is no one in the MSM reporting on Kucinich's request for a recount in New Hampshire??

Posted by: schencks84 | January 11, 2008 08:24 AM

-------------------------------------

CNN is:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

A tie between Clinton and Obama? More bold predictions from Chris. How much will he bet if the sun rises tomorrow?

If Mitt wins in Michigan (well within the range of the possible) and Thompson in South Carolina (unlikely) - the Republican race would be even more of a muddle. That would breathe life back into Giuliani's campaign. Even if Thompson falls by the wayside, as long as Huckabee wins a few states it could be a 4 man race going into the convention. If the Republican rules about delegate allocation were not mostly winner-take-all, I would consider a stalemate in the primaries almost a certainty.

Now if the Democrats had 4 major candidates, you could bet on a stalemate in the primaries. I tend to think Edwards hurts Obama more than Clinton. Clinton does have an edge given her overwhelming support from the party establishment - most of the super-delegates are in her corner. However, if Obama wins most of the primaries but not enough delegates to secure the nomination, how many super-delegates would switch to Obama? If McCain appears headed for the Republican nomination and neither Clinton nor Obama comes out of the primaries with enough delegates and the super-delegates hold the balance of power - what might happen? Since McCain consistently beats Clinton in the polls, would super-delegates go for Obama based on electability.

I believe McCain is Clinton's worst nightmare. No other Republican appeals to independents the way he does. People sick of partisanship would be drawn to McCain and repelled by a divisive figure like Clinton. McCain's "straight talk" compares very favorably to Clinton's scripted messages. McCain's strengths tend to highlight Clinton's weaknesses. I think McCain versus Clinton looks like the only way the Republicans hold onto the White House. I also believe that if McCain starts to look like the inevitable Republican nominee before the Democratic race is decided, Obama will start picking up more Democratic support.

How can Romney be third? Huckabee is leading in SC and rising in Michigan,. has a much more energized base at this point and actually has a win. Huckabee and McCain are the frontrunners - for sure.

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

Why is no one in the MSM reporting on Kucinich's request for a recount in New Hampshire??

Am I the only person who misses the Senate Line?