PeterDavid.net

Thanks for giving me a good chuckle this morning. I can't believe they'd send letters with grammatical errors to striking writers. The gall!

The hair thing was funny, too.

At this point, I'm just trying to stay out of political discussions about who's the best candidates for this election until after the primaries.

Being a registered independent, it's not like a get a vote until after that anyways.

But it was interesting reading about the Iowa Caucuses last night, since my only chance to participate in them was in 2000 (I moved from Iowa in 2001), and I didn't involve myself in politics that year. On one of the boards I read that's for discussion of Iowa sports, there was a lot of talk about the process and results. It was really good reading and the turnout was amazing.

Good choice. Honestly, I could rest easy with any of the three Dem front-runners in power, but Edwards has been more bold in his truth-speaking than anyone but Kucinich.

And, tired as the idea may be, I can only support someone who has a shot at winning.

Love to see Dennis in a cabinet position, though. "Secretary of Peace?"

Edward's loss in Iowa has seriously damaged his chances of winning the nomination, though one can certainly imagine a scenario where Hillary and crew engage in a campaign against Obama so destructive that Edwards is the only one left standing when the smoke clears. I have to say though, I'm a lot less confident that such a campaign will work than I was a few months ago--the Clinton machine has amazed me in it's clumsy ineffectiveness against Obama thus far and he, in contrast, has handled the attacks with a deftness I had not expected.

She still has many advantages in terms of money and backers but if Obama wins NH he becomes the front runner. Hillary has already lost the aura of inevitability that could have swept her into office--now it's time for solid issue oriented campaigning. If they go in that direction, she will probably win. If they just go on the attack they won't (unless they have material more potent than Obama's kindergarten essays and middle name). People LIKE Obama and it will be hard to make them not like him. Frankly, she should not even try.

But Edwards I don't see as all that much more a factor than Joe Biden at this point.

I'd prefer to vote for a candidate whom I think would be good for the whole country - but I'm not sure of which that would be. I'm leaning toward Edwards, but don't think he can get the nomination. As far as the grammatical errors, it was foolish of Clinton and Obama to let them go out, but also interesting that they were detected. screenwriting and grammatical excellence are not quite interchangeable, if movie and television dialogue and awards acceptance speeches are any measure. I can't say for sure, but I suspect PAD's grasp of grammar and spelling is above the median for his profession.

I don't want to suggest that screenwriters in particular are grammar-deficient: The problem is much broader than that. In graduate school I had a professor (teaching a course in GRAMMAR) who placed her own political convictions above grammatical accuracy. She told us she would permit the construction "Everyone should pick up their pencils" and fail for the entire course anyone who dared to use "Everyone should pick up his pencil." The implied masculine singular upset her so much that she preferred case disagreement. If a PhD who purports to have specialized in grammar is so cavalier, the standards of writers providing popular culture cannot be any better.

In graduate school I had a professor (teaching a course in GRAMMAR) who placed her own political convictions above grammatical accuracy. She told us she would permit the construction "Everyone should pick up their pencils" and fail for the entire course anyone who dared to use "Everyone should pick up his pencil."

Putting aside that the woman apparently had serious emotional issues, the proper construct would be "Everyone should pick up his or her pencil." It's clunky but it's accurate. As for me, I would say, "Everyone, pick up your pencils" just to avoid the issue.

PAD

I tend to lean a little bit right of the crowd that typically visits your site. My support is for anyone that runs opposite Hillary and anyone that runs opposite of Huckabee. So if it turns out to be a Huckabee vs. Hillary race, I'm screwed.

PAD - You are correct that the best thing is to come up with another construction. I am quite sympathetic to the political goals of feminism, but completely unsympathetic to any variety of demand for restructuring the language for political goals. Changes must come gradually through changing usage, rather than edict.

All studuents should pick up their pencils! I have spoken. Do it.

Politically, I have been drifting leftward since some time in the Clinton Administration, starting off as a very loyal Republican. It's unclear whether that's a real change in political philosophy or merely a revulsion at President Bush's activities. I suspect that it's much less a matter of Left/Right or Democratic/Republican than one of competent/incompetent or free/authoritarian.

It's good to hear someone actually endorse Edwards over something he did, other than promises he's made. And I say this as a non-supporter of Edwards (having lived in NC when he was the Senator from Iowa the first time).

PAD: "I fully admit that my reason for doing so is probably stupid,"

I don't understand why you would say this, PAD. He put more effort into an issue you care about than the other candidates. Why is voting on issues, morality, and conviction something to be embarrassed about?

The delegates of Iowa were split up three ways between Obama, Clinton and Edwards. I think Obama got about 16, Edwards and Clinton about 12. Considering Edwards, with his low amount of money, held his own against Clinton and Obama, actually getting more votes than Clinton, I don't consider that a 'loss'. Clinton's poor showing in Iowa could turn the race between Obama and Edwards depending upon how the upcoming states turn in the next few weeks.

Bill M. wrote: "Edward's loss in Iowa has seriously damaged his chances of winning the nomination, though one can certainly imagine a scenario where Hillary and crew engage in a campaign against Obama so destructive that Edwards is the only one left standing when the smoke clears."

Oh, I don't know. Bill Clinton came in a distant third in the Iowa primary in 1992, and we all know how that turned out. As I recall, he had less than five percent of the vote.

As I said before, while I voted for Obama in his senatorial race, I am very leery of supporting him for a presidential bid. He is a huge unknown, and to my knowledge, he has never run any large organization in his life. I'm also miffed that during his rookie term in the U.S. Senate, he has done almost nothing but groom himself for, and then campaign for, president.

I've heard all the arguments about him, like, "Oh, he can't do any worse than Bush," etc., but the fact is, there has been no president in recent memory who has had the on-the-job training learning curve that Obama will face.

NH will say a lot the Democrat race and about the only thing it will do the Republicans is either keep Romny alive or leave him dead on the table.

If Obama can take NH he more or less have the nomination raped up. Unless Clinton can pull Votes in on Super Tuesday. What really funny is it not unforeseeable that Both parties might have to wait until there convention to decided there candidates. And as a person that loves to see the system work I think that would be great.

I voted for McCain last night I Still think he's the best option for the country

"I think Obama got about 16, Edwards and Clinton about 12."

Actually, the delegate count is Obama with 16, Edwards with 14 and Clinton with 15. That's a little messed up since Edwards got more of the vote then Clinton, but whatja gonna do?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21229206

I've been a fan of Edwards for a long time... he fulfills my three main criteria (as did Clinton in '92) for who I want to be President.

1) He's smart... not just "not a dummy" smart, but REALLY smart.

2) He works REALLY hard.

3) He comes across as someone who's given serious thought to the issues and has a passionate response, not just one he's been told to say.

I think his life story is very inspirational and resonates nicely with me... I liked him in 2004, and I like him now. I don't think he'll get the nomination, but I'd love it if he did...

Oh, I don't know. Bill Clinton came in a distant third in the Iowa primary in 1992, and we all know how that turned out. As I recall, he had less than five percent of the vote.

True, but Clinton largely sat out Iowa, realizing that it would easily go to Iowa Senator Tom Harkin. Edwards, in contrast, fought hard to win and came up short. No comparison.

Posted by R. Maheras at January 4, 2008 11:07 AM

Oh, I don't know. Bill Clinton came in a distant third in the Iowa primary in 1992, and we all know how that turned out. As I recall, he had less than five percent of the vote.
>>>>>

R. stole my thunder. I've been under the impression for years that Iowa is not a big deal and has no impact even in terms of identifying trends. Kind of like a pre-season exhibition game. Although I thought the increased turnout was a good sign.

Peter,

It's good that you've decided to vote for a candidate because of something they did instead of voting against someone because of an irrational dislike of a candidate. However, you were dead on in your assessment that your rationale would be considered to be stupid. Edwards' appearance on the writers' picket line was nothing more than a photo opportunity, no different than had he stayed in Iowa and milked a cow to show support for dairy farmers. Yes, the letters from Clinton and Obama were lame, but the nature of campaigning is that the candidates are peppered constantly for opinions on every single event of the day, from trivial to catastrophic, and some errors will get through. I'd prefer some typos and misspellings in a letter of support than have to listen to any candidate with the verbal skills of the current occupant of the Oval Office.

I'm glad you mentioned Edwards' infamous $400 haircut though. The biggest problem gonig on is that the races have become far less a race defined by issues but simply a contest hardly different from differentiable from the Miss America Pageant, thankfully sans the bathing suit competition. Why did Edwards pay $400 for a haircut? Because with the busy schedule of someone running for national office, he did not have time to go to a salon, so he hired someone to come to him and paid not only for the haircut but for the travel expenses and waiting time. Yet, all people remember is Edwards paying $400 for a haircut. Clinton gets the same rap, having been characterized as a cold, manipulative bitch, and why? Because every day for a decade and a half Rush Limbaugh and his clones have played up that image of her and as a result, many voters who would consider voting for a Democrat will do so for any Democrat except Hillary.

So Peter, I know it's early in the season, but please try to do a little research on your own (preferably without interference from the posters here) to determine which candidate you think would do the best job leading the country in the direction you feel it needs to go. If it's still Edwards, that's great, I can't say I'd necessarily disagree with you since I haven't finalized my support for a candidate yet myself. If you think that Edwards, Obama and Clinton would all do equal jobs as president, then using Edwards' support for the WGA strikers is a fair tipping point.

But when I hear you say you're supporting someone because of his presence at a photo opportunity, it troubles me. It sounds like the flipside of those who supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 claiming he was a "great American because he prays and has Jesus in his heart" while failing to notice that practically every act he's taken as governor or president had the side benefit of lining the pockets of his friends and supporters. Those people are voting with their hearts, not their brains. I know you're not seriously implying that this event is the be-all and end-all of your decision making process, but far too many voters do make similar decisions based on insignificant factors. You're one of the funniest people on the planet in my estimation, but I find it hard to laugh about the kind of problems the nation and the world have had to endure because of people who choose their candidates without rational thought.

So, you're supporting a candidate simply because he made an empty gesture of support to a cause that personally benefits you, and because he has good hair?

I assume that there is a fair amount of hyperbole/satire in this blog entry of yours. :-)

Bill Clinton came in a distant third in the Iowa primary in 1992

Depending on how you want to view it, Clinton technically came in 4th in the Iowa CAUCUS. ;)

February 10, 1992 - Tom Harkin (76%), "Uncommitted" (12%), Paul Tsongas (4%), Bill Clinton (3%), Bob Kerrey (2%), and Jerry Brown (2%)

But then, as Bill pointed out, Harkin was the local product (he's now in his 4th term in the Senate), so it doesn't surprise me that that caucus told us jack and squat. :)

Looking back, the Iowa caucus has been a fairly decent indicator: Kerry, Gore, Mondale, Carter (1976, 1980) all 'won' the Democratic caucus in Iowa. And then GWB (2000), Dole, and Reagan very close behind GHWB in 1980. Clinton in 1992 is really the only major aberration on the list.

I don't want to suggest that screenwriters in particular are grammar-deficient: The problem is much broader than that.

*coughs politely* That should have been a semi-colon.

;)

As I said before, while I voted for Obama in his senatorial race, I am very leery of supporting him for a presidential bid. He is a huge unknown, and to my knowledge, he has never run any large organization in his life. I'm also miffed that during his rookie term in the U.S. Senate, he has done almost nothing but groom himself for, and then campaign for, president.

He's actually done a fair amount of substantive work in the Senate, it's just most of it is the unsexy stuff that doesn't draw big headlines. I'll try and find a list.

"Never a good idea, sending letters with grammatical errors to a gathering of cranky writers."

Joe Biden was doomed when he ended his letter of support to the WGA with "k thx bye"

Laura - I'm sure I have made several grammatical mistakes just in this string, but

"You can also use a colon to introduce an explanation or a definition of something." (English Language Centre Study Zone, University of Victoria, British Columbia, Canada)

My usage may or may not amount to the introduction of an explanation - so I am more than likely wrong, but not absolutely so! If I am right, perhaps I am only right in British Columbia (where I most definitely am not).

In any case, I think my point is correct; The problem is much broader than (the disabilities of some in the WGA)! Even I (sputter, sputter...) may be grammatically impure. Oh, I am so ashamed!!

In any case thanks for your civil tone (and be glad your entry was grammatically blameless, or you might have faced some disproportionate mockery).

I will be stuck voting for Edwards.

My two first choices dropped out yesterday
(Biden and Dodd)

I am color blind, so I will not want to vote for Obama. If a white freshman Senator from Illinois ran for President, he would have as much political clout and electability as Alan Keyes

I am not Bill blinded, so I don't want to vote for Hillary just because we get Bill as First Lord.

I can't vote for Richardson because he gave up becoming President and decided he wanted to be Hillary's VP a couple of months ago.

So that leaves Edwards for me.
If he has the nomination locked up when it gets to California, I will vote for Biden. If not Edwards.

Until later
John

Edwards, in contrast, fought hard to win and came up short. No comparison.

Edwards was outspent in Iowa 5 or 6 to 1, and shoved a $100 million candidate out of the race.

Independents influence the NH primaries substantially (they gave McCain NH in the 2000 primary), and I don't imagine Obama's Iowa win hurting his strong standing in SC, so Hillary's only hope is that if (when) she comes in second in NH and SC, she can convince Edwards to join her instead of Obama. And if he decides to join her, it'll have to be for reasons more important than his own presidential aspirations, because he ain't gonna be able to campaign as the anti-establishment candidate if he signs-on as her vp against Obama.

He's actually done a fair amount of substantive work in the Senate, it's just most of it is the unsexy stuff that doesn't draw big headlines. I'll try and find a list.

Try http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2006/10/barack_obama.html

Nuclear nonproliferation strikes me as a substantive issue.

Edwards' appearance on the writers' picket line was nothing more than a photo opportunity, no different than had he stayed in Iowa and milked a cow to show support for dairy farmers.

I have to say, I think that statement is ridiculous. All of a candidate's stops are covered by the press, so any public appearance is a "photo opportunity." And what would the photo have been? Edwards standing on a podium talking to a bunch of writers? Wow, that sounds sexy. Furthermore, my understanding is that Edwards has a track record of being a strong union supporter. So a Presidential candidate takes the time to back up his reputation as being a big supporter of unions by taking the time to show up and address striking workers in the first really big strike of the 21st century, and you liken it to milking cows?

So, you're supporting a candidate simply because he made an empty gesture of support to a cause that personally benefits you, and because he has good hair?

How is a union-supporting candidate coming out to support a union an empty gesture? The "good hair" observation was just that: An observation. I gave the reason, namely that he cared enough about an issue that is central to my livelihood to show up in person and speak words of support with a great deal of passion. Sending a couple of letters filled with rote, bloodless and not-especially-well-written turns of phrase, THAT was empty.

You know what, though? Starting to feel a lot less stupid about my choice.

PAD

Actually an old friend of mine works on the Edwards campaign. Before I knew that, though, I was in Edwards' camp.

Though I do like Obama quite a bit, Edwards is one of the few candidates who has a stated position on Education, which is the most important issue to me this election. He's truly showing himself to be a champion of the middle class - his support of the Writer's Strike is evidence of that. Right now, Edwards is where I'm leaning.

Though I do like Obama's stated vision. People can do well to buy into that vision.

Why on Earth are we presuming that the candidates have the time to personally copy-edit check each and every declaration that their campaign makes? Of course they are accountable for the content of such statements, but do we really suppose that the likes of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have the luxury of personally making sure that (say) contractions are all present and correct?

To say this is a black mark on their personal records or character is just silly. Give me a break.

Wesley

Degrees of difference here, folks.

While I might prefer Obama, I'd be quite happy with Edwards as president. Hillary is far down the list for various reasons, but she rates FAR above any of the panderers that call themselves Republicans.

Posted by Hank Driskill at January 4, 2008 11:38 AM

>I've been a fan of Edwards for a long time... he fulfills my three main criteria (as did Clinton in '92) for who I want to be President.

>1) He's smart... not just "not a dummy" smart, but REALLY smart.

>2) He works REALLY hard.

>3) He comes across as someone who's given serious thought to the issues and has a passionate response, not just one he's been told to say.

>I think his life story is very inspirational and resonates nicely with me... I liked him in 2004, and I like him now. I don't think he'll get the nomination, but I'd love it if he did...

***

I agree with all the points you make -- I think Edwards is the best candidate still in the race. He's got several problems -- not nearly as much money as the other top candidates, and as odd as this sounds, I think a lot of people don't take him seriously because of his looks. If you listen to him talk about issues, he really seems to know what he's talking about, and just seems genuine in his answers.

I think Chris Dodd would have made a great candidate, but coming from my little state of CT, did not have the clout to become a REAL candidate. He has tons of experience, is very intelligent and well spoken, and knows his stuff. He's also not annoying, a big plus to me, LOL!

I'm an independent, so party makes no difference to me when I vote -- I vote for the person I think would do the best job.

I take great solace in the fact that IMHO, it looks like anyone who really has a shot at the nomination in either party will be a HUGE improvement over the moron currently running the country.

I wish we had a primary first instead of a caucus, so marginal candidates like Kucinich could get a more honest shot on day one, instead of immediately winnowing it down to the Popular Kids. :/ Sadly, Dennis didn't have a 15% level of support in one of his pockets....

Edwards was outspent in Iowa 5 or 6 to 1, and shoved a $100 million candidate out of the race.

As far as I know only Biden and Dodd have been shoved out of the race and I'd be horrified if either of them wasted 100 million dollars in the effort.

Since Hillary has the resources to stay in to the very end and Obama seems to be the candidate that people like better and better the more they see of him, it's hard to see Edwards being able to stay relevant. If he loses South Carolina it's pretty much over.

Why on Earth are we presuming that the candidates have the time to personally copy-edit check each and every declaration that their campaign makes?

Kind of the point actually. Edwards cared enough about the cause to come out and talk to us. Obama and Hillary, going by your own logic, didn't care enough about the cause to proofread letters sent in their names.

PAD

Edwards, in contrast, fought hard to win and came up short. No comparison.

Edwards was outspent in Iowa 5 or 6 to 1, and shoved a $100 million candidate out of the race.

Independents influence the NH primaries substantially (they gave McCain NH in the 2000 primary), and I don't imagine Obama's Iowa win hurting his strong standing in SC, so Hillary's only hope is that if (when) she comes in second in NH and SC, she can convince Edwards to join her instead of Obama. And if he decides to join her, it'll have to be for reasons more important than his own presidential aspirations, because he ain't gonna be able to campaign as the anti-establishment candidate if he signs-on as her vp against Obama.

As far as I know only Biden and Dodd have been shoved out of the race and I'd be horrified if either of them wasted 100 million dollars in the effort.

I was referring to Hillary. Hillary cannot win against Obama without teaming up with Edwards, and Edwards has a better chance of becoming president teaming up with Obama than with Hillary.

Since Hillary has the resources to stay in to the very end and Obama seems to be the candidate that people like better and better the more they see of him, it's hard to see Edwards being able to stay relevant. If he loses South Carolina it's pretty much over.

Iowa has demonstrated Obama is the candidate who benefits from a higher voter turn-out, and more voters are only going turn-out in the coming primaries, not less. Fence-sitting-voters vote for change, which means fence-sitting-voters going to the polls won't benefit Hillary. There is no fix Hillary can implement to recover from third in Iowa.

... Obama and Hillary, going by your own logic, didn't care enough about the cause to proofread letters sent in their names...

I think my point was that I cannot fathom any circumstance where any national candidate would, so it's not a fault that they didn't. For that matter, I doubt Edwards copy-edits his own material either.

Fair enough that Edwards showed up and was supportive. He should get points for that, absolutely. If Obama and Hillary didn't show up, they should perhaps get penalized, absolutely. Quibbling about typos that were almost undoubtedly produced by a campaign staffer, however, just seems rather petty.

Wesley

Dark Wesley is free to believe personal support for the WGA is beneath any candidate, but when John Edwards demonstrates a personal interest (whatever his true motive may be) PAD is also free to take that interest seriously.

Iowa has demonstrated Obama is the candidate who benefits from a higher voter turn-out, and more voters are only going turn-out in the coming primaries, not less. Fence-sitting-voters vote for change, which means fence-sitting-voters going to the polls won't benefit Hillary. There is no fix Hillary can implement to recover from third in Iowa.

Nonsense. She can either go on the attack against Obama or try to genuinely engage him on experience. Either may resonate, though much depends on how badly Obama responds to the new attention a frontrunner gets. So far he has run a great campaign so Hillary may be in the unenviable position of having to hope for a stumble on his part.

Plus you yourself suggested a fix--put Edwards on the ticket. I don't know if that's a great idea but it's better than no fix at all.

I've thought that Hillary had it all but sewn up but Obama has been one hell of a fresh surprise. Unlike the poster above who suggested that his race was the greatest factor that has gotten him this far, I think he has that certain something that inspires people. It could take him all the way.

But, if you're correct and Hillary can't possibly recover...and Edwards doesn't seem to be in much position to win any of the upcoming primaries...it's a done deal anyway. Game over man, game over.

Sasha wrote (and Roger provided a supporting link): "He's actually done a fair amount of substantive work in the Senate, it's just most of it is the unsexy stuff that doesn't draw big headlines. I'll try and find a list."

The info on that site doesn't reflect well on Obama's public affairs staff. I read both the Chicago Sun-Times and Chicago Tribune most weekdays (and the Trib every Sunday), and since Obama has been a senator, I don't recall reading much of anything about his senatorial efforts.

The problem could be that Obama's work to date has had little noteworthy, immediate impact on the people of Illinois -- particularly Chicago. That is, without the "local tie," neither paper gives such news much of a priority.

As a matter of fact, most of the news I recall seeing in Chicago papers about Obama has been the embarrassing kind -- revolving around some of the allegedly unsavory people he had business dealings with in the past. In that regards, barring actual proof, I'm willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt because I know rising political stars tend to attract all sorts of power-hungry/money-hungry opportunists. No politician can screen all of his/her friends and acquaintances all of the time, particularly as he/she rises to the state and federal level.

Still, regardless of his U.S. Senate record to date, Obama can't escape the fact that he is a rookie senator, and has never run any large, complex organization.

Good choice PAD. Cause as everyone knows, the writer's strike IS THE most pressing thing the next President is gonna have to deal with. I guess the best thing we can hope for is A President with good hair who backs you writers.

I hope (well, truthfully, no, I don't really care) that this doesn't offend anyone too much, but my vote goes for---

ABAMFR.

Anybody But A Republican.

At this point, I'd vote for Elvis, and I HATE Elvis.

Peter David: So a Presidential candidate takes the time to back up his reputation as being a big supporter of unions by taking the time to show up and address striking workers in the first really big strike of the 21st century, and you liken it to milking cows?
Luigi Novi: First of all, candidates make lots of assertions and promises when campaigning. Far more impressive to me than his merely showing at a WGA strike (which would allow him to network with and court lots of celebrities), is his record on unions, which I was previously unaware of—THAT is a far better indicator of his position on the matter. I acknowledge my prior ignorance on the matter of his position on unions, as I have researched that topic and corroborated what you said.

Second, I’m not going to support any candidate solely on the basis of his position on one issue, just like I’m not going to be dissuaded from supporting him on that basis of a position or record of his that I do not like, say, his record with regard to class action malpractice lawsuits. When I do make a decision on who I’m voting for, I’m going to do so based on how I feel about his stance and record with regard to as many issues as possible, and not just those central to my livelihood. To each his own.

She can either go on the attack against Obama or try to genuinely engage him on experience.

Well, today, Clinton decided to attack against Obama with the experience card. No surprise there.

But, I'm just not impressed with HRC these days. And at this point, when we've had 19 years of Bush & Clinton, Obama truly may be the breath of fresh air we need, regardless of his lack of experience.

Iowa has demonstrated Obama is the candidate who benefits from a higher voter turn-out, and more voters are only going turn-out in the coming primaries, not less. Fence-sitting-voters vote for change, which means fence-sitting-voters going to the polls won't benefit Hillary. There is no fix Hillary can implement to recover from third in Iowa.

Nonsense. She can either go on the attack against Obama or try to genuinely engage him on experience. Either may resonate, though much depends on how badly Obama responds to the new attention a frontrunner gets. So far he has run a great campaign so Hillary may be in the unenviable position of having to hope for a stumble on his part.

As the 2004 general election demonstrated, nothing trumps superior leadership. Attacks without leadership do not trump leadership. And she has been promoting her experience. It got her third in Iowa, probably because regardless of her edge in experience, she ain't got all the much.

Plus you yourself suggested a fix--put Edwards on the ticket. I don't know if that's a great idea but it's better than no fix at all.

Until Hillary can take and lock-in as second 1) that fix is not an option, and 2) in such an outcome, the vp offer to Edwards will still be Obama's to make or withhold. And if Obama passes on Edwards, it will be because his lead will allow him to pick the vp who will best leverage him in the general election. All Hillary can do is wait and hope for something like a dui arrest report on Obama to surface. She's toast. She's the $100 million candidate who got shoved out of the race her first day in Iowa. Jesus, Edwards is a bad-ass.

I've thought that Hillary had it all but sewn up but Obama has been one hell of a fresh surprise.

Yeah, that's why my observation you dismissed as nonsense -- that Iowa demonstrated Hillary has been cast as a status quo candidate, which means a high voter turn-out will lock her out of a pary win -- ain't nonsense.

Unlike the poster above who suggested that his race was the greatest factor that has gotten him this far, I think he has that certain something that inspires people. It could take him all the way.

But, if you're correct and Hillary can't possibly recover...and Edwards doesn't seem to be in much position to win any of the upcoming primaries...it's a done deal anyway. Game over man, game over.

Then it's a wonder why you felt a need to refer to anything I said as nonsense.

There’s absolutely no question that Hillary just got kicked in the gut and knocked down in the dirt in Iowa. There’s a good portion of Hillary supporters out there who saw her as the nominee because of the air of inevitability that surrounded her and almost seemed to base their support on that alone. That illusion just got soundly trashed. But only an absolute fool would write Hillary completely off at this point.

Obama could still stumble and lose his lead just as Hillary did a few months ago. Edwards beat Hillary in Iowa, but it was only by a handful of votes and I don’t think that Edwards will play as well in NH as Hillary. And even if he does, there’s no guarantee that Edwards will, if still trailing Obama, link up with Obama. The saying “politics makes strange bedfellows” has been around a long time for a reason. You could lay out on paper a 100% conclusive reason why Politician A should join up with Politician B and it still wouldn’t make a lick of difference when it came time for Candidate B to throw in with Candidate Z.

Beyond that, it’s just plum foolish to make the call based on one battle. The war is still going on and there’s more then enough time for nasty surprises to spring up. I’m still not that fond of Hillary, but Obama, Edwards and anybody else who is foolish enough to write off Hillary at this stage deserves to get their political ass handed to them and likely doesn’t deserve to win. God knows we don’t need someone that foolishly naive in the Oval Office.

Jesus, Edwards is a bad-ass.

Um...ok. Wow, imagine if he actually WINS one!

I've thought that Hillary had it all but sewn up but Obama has been one hell of a fresh surprise.

Yeah, that's why my observation you dismissed as nonsense -- that Iowa demonstrated Hillary has been cast as a status quo candidate, which means a high voter turn-out will lock her out of a pary win -- ain't nonsense.

No, what I dismissed as nonsense was your statement There is no fix Hillary can implement to recover from third in Iowa. The fact that Obama has turned into a pleasant surprise and a much better fighter than expected does not in any way mitigate the foolishness of writing off Hillary at this point.

But, if you're correct and Hillary can't possibly recover...and Edwards doesn't seem to be in much position to win any of the upcoming primaries...it's a done deal anyway. Game over man, game over.

Then it's a wonder why you felt a need to refer to anything I said as nonsense.

Look up the word "if". IF Hillary is toast and assuming Bad-ass Edwards continues to do as the polls say (lose) THEN Obama is a lock. They might as well cancel the rest of the primaries and save money for the general election.

You seem to be saying that Obama is going to be the nominee, no if ands or buts...assuming you take There is no fix Hillary can implement to recover from third in Iowa. at face value...which is probably a mistake since you have now mentioned two possibilities where Hillary makes a miraculous comeback (gets The Bad-Ass on board and/or reveals Obama's DUI record)

(Actually, the last time Team Hillary tried to play the druggie card it kind of blew up in their face so they might want to tread gently there before they run out of mid level minions willing to take the fall).

Jerry,

One factor that almost never gets mentioned--the super-delegates. Hillary already has more than twice as many as Obama locked up and about 5 times as many as The Bad-Ass. Even if all of the others pool their super-delegates she has more. Of course, that was before Iowa and I expect many of the uncommitted ones are giving Obama a fresh look.

I don't see Edwards becoming the VP on either ticket, for a number of reasons. Both Obama and Hillary will probably pick someone who better complements their perceived weaknesses in foreign policy and other experience issues--Biden, perhaps. Wesley Clark would be a good fit for Hillary. Hard to see how Edwards will attract anyone to the ticket who wasn't going to vote Democratic anyway and his single term as senator does not exactly fill any gravitas voids.

It's an interesting, if premature question--who would be a good fit for Obama? Who would be a good Lloyd Bentson type who can give off an image of experience and wisdom without overshadowing the head candidate?

(Crazy idea--offer Al Gore the job, with the promise that he would be used as much more than the usual "Wait for me to die" role. An elder statesman, official voice of the new and improved executive branch, globe trotting, action VP!)

Jesus, Edwards is a bad-ass.

Um...ok. Wow, imagine if he actually WINS one!

I have been referring to him shoving a $100 million candidate out of the race on day 1 of the primary season. He is a bad-ass.

Yeah, that's why my observation you dismissed as nonsense -- that Iowa demonstrated Hillary has been cast as a status quo candidate, which means a high voter turn-out will lock her out of a [party] win -- ain't nonsense.

No, what I dismissed as nonsense was your statement There is no fix Hillary can implement to recover from third in Iowa.

Yeah, like those are different. Like the former simply does not provide the why of the latter.

But, if you're correct and Hillary can't possibly recover...and Edwards doesn't seem to be in much position to win any of the upcoming primaries...it's a done deal anyway. Game over man, game over.

Then it's a wonder why you felt a need to refer to anything I said as nonsense.

Look up the word "if". IF Hillary is toast and assuming Bad-ass Edwards continues to do as the polls say (lose) THEN Obama is a lock. They might as well cancel the rest of the primaries and save money for the general election.

And it's no longer a wonder you feel the need to challenge what I say... why?

You seem to be saying that Obama is going to be the nominee, no if ands or buts...assuming you take There is no fix Hillary can implement to recover from third in Iowa. at face value...which is probably a mistake since you have now mentioned two possibilities where Hillary makes a miraculous comeback (gets The Bad-Ass on board and/or reveals Obama's DUI record)

I'm just saying $100 million could not buy Hillary the presidency. Edwards's bad-assery shoved her out, but not Obama. I am not a bad-ass, so I can't imagine how Edwards can accomplish the same with Obama. Fortunately for Edwards, such an outcome would not depend on me knowing the inner-workings of that which is bad-ass.

Yeah, I don't really see Edwards wanting to sign on with Hillary or Obama either. But the thing that makes political predicting so much fun is that you never really have any clue what will happen or for what reasons it will happen. There's lots of outcomes that make sense, but politics love to play the wild card on you.

Hey, case in point would be Obama. Six months ago, most people wouldn't have given Obama a chance in hell of winning Iowa or they would have called it a close (one to two percent difference) race at best. We're now coming off of a caucus where Obama was the winner by 8% over Edwards and Edwards was himself 1% up over Hillary "The Sure Thing" Clinton.

As for the super-delegates, I'm sure they'll play a role down the line. They're just not yet a lock enough to discuss for the very reasons that you brought up.

As to a VP for Obama... I really don't know. It would likely have to be an unknown or lesser known figure. An Al Gore type would overshadow Obama from day one and any of the other obvious choices would undermine his whole "candidate of change" sloganeering. It's hard to be a ticket of change when one half of the ticket is a firmly established member of the old establishment.

Jim Webb? Mark Warner?

I think Edwards is the only hope America has of taking back our country and making me proud to be an American again.

I like Barack but (and maybe this is because I'm a child of the 50s and 60s) I do not think he's electable yet. Hopefully in my lifetime, but it takes a long time for paradigms to shift in this country and while they are moving, it's at a glacier-like pace. I don't trust Hilary. I think the guy with the best ideas is Kucinich but we know he's not electable and I really like Richardson but nobody except us New Mexicans know who he is.

John Edwards is THE GUY because he is everything that made this country great in the first place: poor hometown boy made good and I think you made a good choice, Pete (can I call you Pete?).

Of course, unless he (or she) can get support in Congress, nobody is gonna do any good anyway...

Thanks fer listening,

Chuck

Yeah, I don't really see Edwards wanting to sign on with Hillary or Obama either.

He'll sign up with the winner because even George HW Bush can win the presidency as vice president. He just won't sign up with Hillary until Obama has refused to invite him to the ticket.

Another plausible fix for Hillary would be to put her socialized healthcare plan to the forefront of her campaign, and I think she should. If she doesn't, it will most likely be because she's too traumatized by the healthcare industry attack machine Edwards has demonstrated he's not afraid to challenge. I still think Hillary is a better candidate than Obama because of healthcare, but if she has some kind of PTSD against the healthcare industry attack machine, then she's just a useless lump.

But the thing that makes political predicting so much fun is that you never really have any clue what will happen or for what reasons it will happen.

Oh, I dunno. When Kerry stated about three months before the election that, if he'd known then what he knew now, he would still have voted to give Bush the authority to go to war, I announced on this blog that Kerry had just lost the presidency, and it was all over except for the actual voting.

PAD

But, if you're correct and Hillary can't possibly recover...and Edwards doesn't seem to be in much position to win any of the upcoming primaries...it's a done deal anyway. Game over man, game over.

Look up the word "if". IF Hillary is toast and assuming Bad-ass Edwards continues to do as the polls say (lose) THEN Obama is a lock. They might as well cancel the rest of the primaries and save money for the general election.

And it's no longer a wonder you feel the need to challenge what I say... why?

Sorry, thought I was clear--the bolded text above was my interpretation of your position==you seem to be saying that Obama has it locked up. And hey, that scenario is fine with me--I just think it's too early to do so. When Hillary had all the cards it was a reasonable (though wrong) assumption that she was going to win but given the way this campaign has been turned on its ear it seems a bit early to make that call. Obama now has to demonstrate how well he handles being the front runner. Hopefully better than Hillary did.

I have been referring to him shoving a $100 million candidate out of the race on day 1 of the primary season. He is a bad-ass.

He came in a far second. Obama is the bad ass.

Oh, I dunno. When Kerry stated about three months before the election that, if he'd known then what he knew now, he would still have voted to give Bush the authority to go to war, I announced on this blog that Kerry had just lost the presidency, and it was all over except for the actual voting.

And you were right...but if Kerry had been a little smarter and spent some of the 16 million or so he inexplicably had left over on the day of the election for some saturation get out the vote measures in Ohio...what a dumbass.

Interesting that almost nobody is commenting on that dope Huckabee winning. Obama vs Huckabee...actually ANYBODY vs Huckabee, even Biollante...massacre. Johnston vs Goldwater time.

Incidenatally, if you want a really funny dissection of teh whole insane Iowa caucas system, read http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZWRhMjZmMzIzN2JkODQ5NjQyYWQ5YzU4MmRkOTUxMDg=

I knew it was nuts but wow...basically it comes down to the fact that a single choice by a young college aged woman is all that kept Hillary and The Bad Ass from being in a tie.

New Hampshire at least looks like areal election--Obama has pulled way ahead in the polls.

I happened across Keith Olberman interviewing John Edwards on Countdown last night... and he gave me the impression that he's sprinting for the VP spot on Obama's ticket at a full gallop.

Again and again, he kept talking about "the two candidates for change", being very respectful of Obama, while empathasizing the idea of Clinton as the status quo. It may just be that Edwards sees Hillary's campaign as more vulnerable right now, and he's trying to finish her off first, and later set his sights on Obama; and he did say that there are differences in how he and Obama would achieve their goals. But he also emphasized that the two of them do share the same goals, and overall gave the impression that he was trying to join with Obama at the hip.

I do have to say that I was disappointed with Edwards' appearance. He came off as just another uber-slick politico, refusing to directly answer most (any?) of Olberman's questions - even about the significance of the record turn-out in Iowa - keeping focused on his own talking points, no matter how tangentially they may have been related to what Olberman was asking.

Support for the WGA is a definite plus in his column, though; it's definitely one piece of data I'll keep in mind as the New York primary approaches.

k8tdad wrote: "I think Edwards is the only hope America has of taking back our country and making me proud to be an American again."

Despite America's flaws and historical political boobery, I've always been proud to be an American.

In once sense though it's to Hillary's advantage to have Edwards remain in the race; without him splitting the anti-Clinton vote it's just her vs Obama. And right now I don't know if that would be a great place for her to be.

> Obama ... is a huge unknown, and to my knowledge, he has never run any large organization in his life.

Shrub ran big organizations. Your point being ...?

Mr. David John Edwards may be a stand up guy, but that doesn't make him the best candidate to run the country. Your words have a great deal of influence over your many readers, myself being one, so I would ask you to put a little more thought into how you decide which candidate to endorse.

Lester Carthan

basically it comes down to the fact that a single choice by a young college aged woman is all that kept Hillary and The Bad Ass from being in a tie.

C'mon, Bill, you know it's not that simple. :)

More so when stuff like this was happening all over the state. I wouldn't be surprised if the exact same scenario, in a different order, was played out in all corners of the state, as that's the nature of the caucus.

Your words have a great deal of influence over your many readers, myself being one, so I would ask you to put a little more thought into how you decide which candidate to endorse.

Oh c'mon, he even prefaced it with the disclaimer that it was just his opinion and a possibly stupid one besides. We may be Marvel zombies but give us some credit--nobody is likely to change their vote based on an endorsement like that.

Anyway, why should he censor himself on his own frikkin blog?

Your words have a great deal of influence over your many readers, myself being one, so I would ask you to put a little more thought into how you decide which candidate to endorse.

Oh c'mon, he even prefaced it with the disclaimer that it was just his opinion and a possibly stupid one besides. We may be Marvel zombies but nobody is likely to change their vote based on an endorsement like that.

I wouldn't be surprised if the exact same scenario, in a different order, was played out in all corners of the state, as that's the nature of the caucus.

You're right but it just seems like an unusually capricious way to have such an important election.

Mr. David John Edwards may be a stand up guy, but that doesn't make him the best candidate to run the country. Your words have a great deal of influence over your many readers, myself being one, so I would ask you to put a little more thought into how you decide which candidate to endorse.

I'm not sure whether to be flattered by your estimation of my influence or annoyed at the highhandedness of your tone. I'll have to think on it.

PAD

But, if you're correct and Hillary can't possibly recover...and Edwards doesn't seem to be in much position to win any of the upcoming primaries...it's a done deal anyway. Game over man, game over.

Then it's a wonder why you felt a need to refer to anything I said as nonsense.

Look up the word "if". IF Hillary is toast and assuming Bad-ass Edwards continues to do as the polls say (lose) THEN Obama is a lock. They might as well cancel the rest of the primaries and save money for the general election.

And it's no longer a wonder you feel the need to challenge what I say... why?

Sorry, thought I was clear--the bolded text above was my interpretation of your position==you seem to be saying that Obama has it locked up.

I said Hillary had been shoved out. You made that a condition for something I didn't disagree with. That ain't a disagreement on your part, for which I am happy to keep asking if you even have any disagreement with me at all.

[Edwards] came in a far second. Obama is the bad ass.

...basically it comes down to the fact that a single choice by a young college aged woman is all that kept Hillary and The Bad Ass from being in a tie.

Who isn't a bad-ass with Obama's $100 million? Oh, yeah... Hillary.

Anyone who has a blog or other access to the public has the right to make his opinions known, and his readers should be trusted to judge for themselves whether to believe what he says. In this case, PAD took even more care than was necessary to qualify his statements. To be realistic, while he has a larger audience than most or all here, nothing said here is going to sway the electoral results. It's just a semi-public man expressing himself to people who care to listen.

I understand PAD's comments above, but think he hasn't mentioned one important point. Lester Carthan may be over-estimating PAD's influence; He may also be taking an unpleasant tone in expressing himself, as PAD notes; More importantly than these, however, he demands that PAD silence himself - or at least think harder before posting here. This shows either a disrespect for PAD's (or any other public person's) free speech rights or a contempt for the general public's discernment. Actually, if the people were so gullible as to swallow whatever was said by public figures it would deserve to be so led - but it really isn't quite that bad. Many people do think for themselves.

You're right but it just seems like an unusually capricious way to have such an important election.

Well, I suppose that depends on whether you think the Iowa caucus is really that important or not.

I think it's good for the state, but beyond that? It really only weeds out those who had no chance anyways.

Who isn't a bad-ass with Obama's $100 million? Oh, yeah... Hillary.

Obama has more money than Edwards because Obama is a better candidate. Even without the years of nonstop campaigning that Edwards had, even without the powerful ties to big donors that Hillary has, he whipped them both raising money and getting votes. THAT'S a bad-ass.

Edwards not only lost to Obama, he got less support than he did the first time he ran a losing campaign for president (at this rate he should get around 28% for his 2012 losing campaign).

BTW--a new drinking game for those watching either debate. Take a shot every time a candidate uses the word "change". Keep stomach pump handy.

You just want more sick-looking people for backgrounds on yer next movie, don'tcha, Mulligan?

Well, Jerry suggested ZOMRILLA (Half Zombie! Half Gorilla! All Terror!) so what I REALLY need is a gorilla suit.

Have you SEEN the prices on a good gorilla suit??? Why don't any of these so called candidates do something about THAT?

[Edwards] came in a far second. Obama is the bad ass.

...basically it comes down to the fact that a single choice by a young college aged woman is all that kept Hillary and The Bad Ass from being in a tie.

Who isn't a bad-ass with Obama's $100 million? Oh, yeah... Hillary.

Obama has more money than Edwards because Obama is a better candidate.

Thank you for not disagreeing the $100 million Hillary is not a bad-ass. It's a wonder why you quoted me as if you had provided some kind of rebuttal.

A gorilla suit? Who needs a gorilla suit? What, you mean you're not all as hairy as I am?

You freaks!

You can spin it any way you want, Mike, but if there's a bad-ass in the race it sure ain't Edwards. How many more losses do you think he'll take before dropping out? Oh well, there's always 2012...

Jerry, you're a great guy, but we need a gorilla, not a yeti. Maybe if you shaved...

Wow, I really hope nobody did that drinking game. This sequence alone would kill a large man:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07u6uffKvpA

(post debate analysis--Obama won easily. He hasn't changed his presentation all that much but it seems so much more appropriate coming from the frontrunner than it does the underdog. Hillary looked pissed. Edwards and Richardson showed up.).

Obama has more money than Edwards because Obama is a better candidate. Even without the years of nonstop campaigning that Edwards had, even without the powerful ties to big donors that Hillary has, he whipped them both raising money and getting votes. THAT'S a bad-ass.

Actually, that's not necessarily true. Obama takes PAC and Lobbyist money. Edwards doesn't. A far greater measure of support would be NUMBERS of supporters, especially those who donate under $100 a month.

I, too, think Edwards is the best person for the job; I hope he pulls something out in NH here. I would much prefer to see an Edwards/Obama ticket rather than an Obama/Edwards ticket.

Drew, I'd have to look a bit more for up to date numbers but for the first quarter of 2007 ABC had the following: http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Story?id=3008821&page=1

Obama received donations from more than 100,000 donors, far surpassing any other candidate, including Clinton (50,000); Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., (45,000); former Sen. John Edwards, D-NC, (40,000); or former GOP Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (34,000).

And 90 percent of Obama's donors contributed $100 or less, as opposed to the presumbed larger percentage of Clinton donors who contributed the maximum contribution allowed by law, $2,300 per person per voting cycle.

at http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3338422
they have a story on the second quarter--...Obama's campaign released the number of its online donors thus far: 110,000. Those donors have contributed $10.3 million during last quarter, bringing Obama's online totals to $17.2 million. Nine in 10 of those donors gave $100 or less.

at http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/10/turns_out_obama_still_found_mo.php
Marc Ambinder reports that 92.5% of all 550,000 donations Obama received have been for less than $250.00

It seems as though Obama has been wildly successful in attracting a lot of small donors. Edwards, not so much, which is why he had to make the choice to accept taxpayer money for the primaries. It's interesting to speculate what might have been had this new feistier Edwards been the one running against Kerry in 2004 but it would appear that this is not what the public is looking for this go around.

Drew, I'd have to look a bit more for up to date numbers but for the first quarter of 2007 ABC had the following: abcnews.go.com/WNT/Story?id=3008821&page=1

Obama received donations from more than 100,000 donors, far surpassing any other candidate, including Clinton (50,000); Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., (45,000); former Sen. John Edwards, D-NC, (40,000); or former GOP Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (34,000).

And 90 percent of Obama's donors contributed $100 or less, as opposed to the presumbed larger percentage of Clinton donors who contributed the maximum contribution allowed by law, $2,300 per person per voting cycle.

at //abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3338422
they have a story on the second quarter--...Obama's campaign released the number of its online donors thus far: 110,000. Those donors have contributed $10.3 million during last quarter, bringing Obama's online totals to $17.2 million. Nine in 10 of those donors gave $100 or less.

at //marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/10/turns_out_obama_still_found_mo.php
Marc Ambinder reports that 92.5% of all 550,000 donations Obama received have been for less than $250.00

It seems as though Obama has been wildly successful in attracting a lot of small donors. Edwards, not so much, which is why he had to make the choice to accept taxpayer money for the primaries. It's interesting to speculate what might have been had this new feistier Edwards been the one running against Kerry in 2004 but it would appear that this is not what the public is looking for this go around.

post debate analysis--Obama won easily.

Interesting analysis.

On another site I read, the right-wingers are falling over each other to say that not only did HRC win (based on the first half of the debate), but that it gave her the nomination.

I can only laugh.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at January 6, 2008 01:13 AM

On another site I read, the right-wingers are falling over each other to say that not only did HRC win (based on the first half of the debate), but that it gave her the nomination.

Could very well be that they want Hillary to run not only because she's the closest to the center of the big three...but because she has a reputation, they have years and years and years of material on her that they could recycle for a negative ad campaign, and she's not universally trusted among Democratic voters.

Sorry, is that stating the obvious?

Anyway, I like Edwards too. I have for a long time.

I have my own reasons as I stated for why I'm wanting to vote but in reading the above.. how is anyone's reason (PAD's or otherwise) ridiculously silly for voting for a candidate

Mike Huckabee - I heart Jesus, Huckabee heart Jesus, therefore I heart Huckabee

Ron Paul - because he isn't like the typical Republican

Fred Thompson - he was tough on crime on Law and Order

Barack Obama - he's black

Hillary Clinton - Bill can be back in the House

Alan Keyes - he's crazy

John Edwards - he's a Union supporter

Not so crazy an idea

Until later
John

"Posted by Alan Coil at January 4, 2008 08:42 PM
I hope (well, truthfully, no, I don't really care) that this doesn't offend anyone too much, but my vote goes for--- ABAMFR.
Anybody But A Republican."

Unfortunately, this is where I'm at, too. If Edwards gets the nomination, I have no hesitation in voting for him; he's a strong choice and I think he'd be a great leader. But I don't think he can get the nomination.

If Hillary is offered, I will vote for her, because she knows what goes on behind the scenes. Any woman in that position will have to be ruthless to be taken seriously, and I think she is quite capable of being ruthless and making heads roll.

If Obama is given the nod, I will vote for him, because he doesn't have as much baggage to carry with him, and sometimes a fresh start is a good thing. However, I do feel the country is too fervently bigotted in many places, and sadly he wouldn't fare well.

People like Huckabee scare the daylights out of me, and I don't see where they would have enough universal pull to gain a nomination. Believe it or not, there *are* a few last bastions of sanity left in the country. Dodd was never a contender in the first place. He's done some good, he's one of the better men in Congress, but he's been there too long, is too entrenched in the cronyism. I'd have trouble voting for him as President, even though I help keep him in Congress.

Can we please fast-forward 10 months and get this agony over with?

You can spin it any way you want, Mike, but if there's a bad-ass in the race it sure ain't Edwards.

If you're going to go so far as to portray as spin the 1:1 pairing of Edwards shoving-out on the first day of the primary season a $100 million candidate and assessing him as a bad-ass, I have no reservation against reminding you the spin is true. Spin™ is in no way a synonym for Wrong.™

On another site I read, the right-wingers are falling over each other to say that not only did HRC win (based on the first half of the debate), but that it gave her the nomination.

Well. she was feisty, she got the soundbite of the night. I just don't think it was a soundbite that will win many hearts and minds.

I'd say her best bet--assuming they don't have something big on Obama and the reliance on kindergarten essays suggests that they don't--would be to do to him what Kerry did to Dean--convince the Democratic voters that choosing Obama would lead to defeat in the general election. Expect lots of new speculation on whether or not a black man can win. Oh, it won't be that overt...they'll tut tut about how isn't it a shame that there are so many rascists out there and how they would never in a million years vote for someone like Obama.

The only problem is that Obama seems to handle this sort of thing very well. When Clintons NH co-chair Bill Shaheen tried that stunt by wondering if those nasty Republicans would ask if Obama ever sold cocaine it blew up in Hillary's face.

She might also try to capture the hard core netroots Bush hating crowd by really amping up the attacks on Bush. Right now it seems that a lot of those voters have supported Edwards. When he drops out where will they go? My inclination is to say Obama but he has run a campaign based in large part on positive nonpartisan let's all work together ideas. It's gotten him grief from the Daily kos/Paul Krugman crowd. Between Hillary and Obama it's clear that Hillary is the obvious "stick it to Bush" choice.

But if Obama continues to bring new people to the polls even that might not be enough. He's doing what Dean was supposed to do and never did--inspire the younger voters to not only support him but actually show up on election day.

I'd say her best bet--assuming they don't have something big on Obama and the reliance on kindergarten essays suggests that they don't--would be to do to him what Kerry did to Dean--convince the Democratic voters that choosing Obama would lead to defeat in the general election.

What Kerry did in Iowa was stand by watching Dean and Gephardt fight it out for the top spot with the negative campaigning that sent them to 3rd & 4th place. You sound like you could benefit from watching the PBS News Hour once in w while.

Posted by: Susan O at January 6, 2008 09:59 AM

If Hillary is offered, I will vote for her, because she knows what goes on behind the scenes. Any woman in that position will have to be ruthless to be taken seriously, and I think she is quite capable of being ruthless and making heads roll.

It's that ruthlessness that gives me pause with Hillary. I am not completely certain she wouldn't start another war, in large part because of her stances on Iran before that NIE came out.

If Obama is given the nod, I will vote for him, because he doesn't have as much baggage to carry with him, and sometimes a fresh start is a good thing. However, I do feel the country is too fervently bigotted in many places, and sadly he wouldn't fare well.

Remember, though, that Iowa is pretty white.

I'd say her best bet--assuming they don't have something big on Obama and the reliance on kindergarten essays suggests that they don't--would be to do to him what Kerry did to Dean--convince the Democratic voters that choosing Obama would lead to defeat in the general election.

What Kerry did in Iowa was stand by watching Dean and Gephardt fight it out for the top spot with the negative campaigning that sent them to 3rd & 4th place. You sound like you could benefit from watching the PBS News Hour once in w while.

Wow, somebody's cranky. I would have thought your guy's bad-ass second place finish would have cheered you up.

Certainly the Dean/Gephardt fight helped neither. I am not aware of any analysis that claimed that Kerry's strategy in Iowa was to stand around and watch. Sources?

At any rate, I did not say "What Kerry did to Dean in Iowa." Iowa was just the beginning of Dean's fall. His crazy, red-faced rant that night played right into the hands of his opponents and the story quickly became that only Kerry was electable. Remember the "Dated Dean, Married Kerry" buttons? (Some Dean supporters presciently added the phrase "Woke up with Bush")

The Kerry folks effectively portrayed Dean as unelectable and Kerry as the person who could best beat Bush. Whether or not that was correct we will never know--given the fact that a lot of the blame for Kerry's loss (according to Democrats) was his lack of passion and fire in the belly against the swiftboaters and other attackers, it's hard to imagine Dean passively sitting by under a similar assault. But who knows?

At any rate, if you really believe that a huge part of Dean's defeat was not on the electability issue I'd say you're the one who needs to maybe broaden his horizons a bit.

Could very well be that they want Hillary to run not only because she's the closest to the center of the big three..

Umm, not really. This is a group where there's nowhere near center when it comes to liberals; all liberals are far, far left. They won't tell you *why* they believe that, you get to figure that out on your own.

But the rest of what you said is dead on. :)

As I said on that site, the spin cycle is already on overdrive from the right wing.

One fellow even suggested that voting for Obama would merely be a case of liberals trying to 'make up' for past sins against blacks and other minorities. *sigh*

Obama has more money than Edwards because Obama is a better candidate. Even without the years of nonstop campaigning that Edwards had, even without the powerful ties to big donors that Hillary has, he whipped them both raising money and getting votes. THAT'S a bad-ass.

Obama has something going for him that Edwards doesn't — the media. Edwards' message of challenging the corporations and the monied interests has led to a media blackout on his campaign. Edwards' message is spot-on, but because an Edwards victory would challenge the fundamental power structures of the country, the media has to strangle the message and the messenger.

Edwards isn't out of the fight, yet.

Obama has something going for him that Edwards doesn't — the media. Edwards' message of challenging the corporations and the monied interests has led to a media blackout on his campaign.

Weird. When Edwards appeared at the WGA rally, there were at least half a dozen TV cameras set up there recording his every word. Once Edwards departed, the cameras went too. Yet I didn't see any footage of Edwards's speech. Granted, I didn't exactly comb the local news programs, so someone could have aired it.

PAD

The Edwards campaign is well aware that the media isn't giving Edwards a fair shake. Look at Elizabeth Edwards' smackdown of Chris Matthews after the Iowa Caucuses for one example. The media has gone out of its way to ignore Edwards.

This link explains the issue, this link has a wealth of statistics pre-Thursday, and this link has nifty pie charts for the post-Iowa media.

Why the lack of coverage on Edwards? Partly fear that he challenges the Corporate-Owned Media power structure. Partly that he doesn't fit a convenient narrative.

Edwards' message plays in Peoria, but as Charlie Gibson (no relation, by the way) demonstrated on ABC last night the media is out of touch with Peoria.

Bill Mulligan: Iowa was just the beginning of Dean's fall. His crazy, red-faced rant...
Luigi Novi: I know that the media has long-portrayed Dean's speech as such, but I'm disappointed to see you hopping on that bandwagon, Bill. What was so crazy about? His behavior was essentially the same you'd find at a pep rally, for crying out loud! That's how people are supposed to act! He was getting everyone enthused about his campaign. If what he said or did was so crazy, then why was everyone cheering him on? Why was there no one there frozen, wide-eyed and silent, looking at one another saying, "Geez, what's with Dean?"?

Luigi, I wasn't trying to pile on the guy--it was Dean himself who called it a "crazy, red-faced rant" on Letterman. I meant to put that in quotation marks.

No, his behavior wasn't nuts...but it was all that his opponents needed to portray him as nuts and unelectable.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at January 6, 2008 01:55 PM

One fellow even suggested that voting for Obama would merely be a case of liberals trying to 'make up' for past sins against blacks and other minorities.

*sigh*

Well, they've got us there.

That's why we're so happy that Clarence Thomas is on the Supreme Court, you see.

It's also why we so fervently wish that the country would elect Alan Keyes as President.

Yup, it's no secret that if we had our way, we would just kick everybody out of Congress and the Presidency and replace them with random black people off the street!

(Hmm, actually that's something I might consider in the case of the Presidency right now. Not like we have a whole lot to lose...)

I'd say her best bet--assuming they don't have something big on Obama and the reliance on kindergarten essays suggests that they don't--would be to do to him what Kerry did to Dean--convince the Democratic voters that choosing Obama would lead to defeat in the general election.

What Kerry did in Iowa was stand by watching Dean and Gephardt fight it out for the top spot with the negative campaigning that sent them to 3rd & 4th place. You sound like you could benefit from watching the PBS News Hour once in w while.

Wow, somebody's cranky. I would have thought your guy's bad-ass second place finish would have cheered you up.

Your need to portray me as cranky is not proof of my crankiness. The PBS News Hour has been referring to the taboo against negative campaigning in Iowa as conventional wisdom, and how the lead candidates have been campaigning accordingly. I am simply making an observation plain to anyone acquainted with the show.

I am not aware of any analysis that claimed that Kerry's strategy in Iowa was to stand around and watch. Sources?

I'm not referring to any claim by Kerry, but his performance in the general election against Bush/Cheney 2004.

The Kerry folks effectively portrayed Dean as unelectable and Kerry as the person who could best beat Bush.

Kerry's backed-off of his portrayal as a war hero in reaction to the swift-boat criticism. Dean lost the presidency with much less money.

At any rate, if you really believe that a huge part of Dean's defeat was not on the electability issue I'd say you're the one who needs to maybe broaden his horizons a bit.

Dean has spent as much time as president of the United States as Kerry, which is none at all.

NPR has been airing dozens of clips of Hillary in NH promoting herself as the agent of change. She spends a year defending her war-vote and her accepting corporate donations, and now she's trying to overtake the candidates who overtook her on change. She has no clue.

Captain Naraht's Immediate Future Predictions:

Democrats:
In the NH Primary half of the Independents break for Obama, creating a whole new race. Obama will be in great shape with a 7+point win in NH. In SC he wins easily and unless Hillary becomes a better candidate through conflict (as she so often does) Obama needs to make a serious mistake not to run the table in the Southern Super Tuesday states.

Edwards's only chance is to hang close at 20% or more, wait for mistakes from either and look as the most electable of the three down the stretch. I have to say though, even hints of that has yet to materialize.

Republicans:
The other half of Independents break for McCain making McCain the front runner into SC where he is also very strong. After this, things get complex. With Rudy out until Super Tuesday (like a dolt) he will become a factor in those primarys creating a 4-way free for all in the South between Rudy, Romney, Huckabee, and McCain. When the smoke clears, don't be surprised at a McCain/Huckabee ticket, or a Huckabee/McCain ticket. But as Republican Super Tuesday will indicate: any final result is possible on that side of the aisle.

--Captain Naraht: Resident of NH

P.S. I wanna see Bill Mulligan and Mike in Yeti-Zombie and Gorilla-Zombie costumes boxing it out for their favorite charities.

Who else would pay big money to see that?

--Captain Naraht

Kaiju Big Battel?

(yeah, it'd be fun but the secret to winning is to move as little as possible until your opponent passes out from heat exhaustion and water loss)

Anyway, I'm changing my vote to Ralph Wiggum.

... Dark Wesley is free to believe personal support for the WGA is beneath any candidate ...

If I had ever said that, which in fact I never did. But don't let something as troublesome as facts get in the way here.

Wesley

Facts? We're talking about politics, man! What do facts have to do with it....??

PAD: "Weird. When Edwards appeared at the WGA rally, there were at least half a dozen TV cameras set up there recording his every word. Once Edwards departed, the cameras went too. Yet I didn't see any footage of Edwards's speech. Granted, I didn't exactly comb the local news programs, so someone could have aired it."

Okay, here's a theory. Maybe sometimes they know that it's going to be a speech that they don't intend to air. Maybe they send the cameras to those speeches just incase some kind of train wreck happens. Like the "don't taze me bro" incident.

Pad should run for Prez he would excellent at the debates run right over those slick talking derlicts.

I don't have the money, the resources, or the patience to run for elected office. "Why should we vote for you?" "Because if you don't, you're an idiot." Yeah, that'll put me over the top.

PAD

Jason wrote: "Okay, here's a theory. Maybe sometimes they know that it's going to be a speech that they don't intend to air. Maybe they send the cameras to those speeches just in case some kind of train wreck happens."

There may be more to your theory than you realize. I guarantee that if something controversial HAD happened, all the tape shot would have aired not only locally, but nationally as well.

To be fair to the TV stations, however, a large portion of news footage routinely filmed never gets aired. It just gets aced out during the segment vetting process by stuff that the producer feels is "more timely or compelling."

I've been involved with segments that a film crew and announcer said were a lock to air on the news get bumped suddenly by a big local fire somehwere. It's the nature of the business.

Still, the cynic in me also knows the old editor's adage: "News is what I say it is."

R. Maheras,

Political boobery? You call the high crimes, not misdemeanors, of this administration "political boobery"?

Tell that to the fatherless children and grieving widows and other family members of the deceased and permanently maimed war veterans who were sent to the slaughter in the name of power and money and corruption wrought by this administration.

Try to explain the concept of "political boobery" to the families of the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis and those who have been tortured because this administration has decided that the Geneva Convention, which, by the way was good enough for my fellow Soldiers, Sailors, Marines and Airmen during my career in the Air Force as law, in the hopes that if captured, we would not be tortured and treated at least somewhat humanely because every country, however barbaric, was expected to respect The Geneva Convention. Now that The Geneva Convention has been cast aside as merely "quaint", what is to keep "The Enemy" from treating our military the way we treat theirs? It is a disgrace, and makes me ashamed to be put in the same American boat as these neocon fanatics.

Is the veritable police state that we Americans find ourselves living in the result of "political boobery"? No, it is the result of calculating backroom deals in the halls of the lawmakers whose only objective is to make the rich richer and the powerful even more so, which disgusts me.

Believe me, R., I want to be proud to be an American again, but these bastards have made it very difficult.

I was willing to give my life for my country, not power and greed, which seems to be what America stands for these days. Ask any citizen of the world. America used to be a shining beacon of hope, but now that beacon has been overshadowed and dimmed by this administration.

Sorry about the soapbox, kids, but just don't get me started...

Chuck (USAF Retired, by the way)

Posted by Drew at January 6, 2008 12:04 AM

>I, too, think Edwards is the best person for the >job; I hope he pulls something out in NH here. I >would much prefer to see an Edwards/Obama ticket >rather than an Obama/Edwards ticket.

I agree, I just don't think Obama has enough experience to run the country. Sadly, I also think that, as someone else stated here, there are still large numbers of people in this country who will not vote for a black man for president.

As for Hillary, I think she'd do a great job, but there are too many people who really hate her, and I don't think she'll get elected.

Wait a minute....

As of right now, 37% of the NH precincts are reporting in and saying that Clinton has 39% of the vote, Obama has 36% of the vote and Edwards has 17% of the vote. Clinton is edging out Obama and stomping a mud hole in the Bad Ass and walking it dry?

But, but, but... She's been shoved out of the race entirely. I know I read that somewhere. Well, Edwards still has a chance to maybe break the 20% mark as the remainder of the vote comes in. Hell, he might even, with an absolute miracle, make a second place finish again over the candidate that he so masterfully shoved completely out of the race last week. But, somehow, I don’t see it happening.

Politics, like I said before, is a tricky business to predict. Only an absolute fool would make an absolute prediction this early for this three way horserace.

Sorry everybody (else). I just couldn't resist. I’m weak that way sometimes.

~8?P

Whoa, is anyone else following the results from New Hampshire? Hillary is holding a slight lead (only 3% at the moment) over Obama! At one point she was ahead by around 6 so maybe the late reporting counties are shifting his way--the networks called the Republican race a long time ago (for McCain) but are not doing so for the Democrats.

The Bad-Ass has parlayed his second place finish in Iowa into a distant third place finish in NH.

Pretty exciting stuff. Boy, has the media EVER been as bad at reading these things as they've been this year? Right up to when the voting started they were openly wondering if Obama would win by double digits or by double digits starting with the number 2. Now, at the very least, it's going to be close, enabling Hillary to claim Comeback Kid 2 status. Incredible, quite frankly, given the missteps of the last few days. I had a female colleague today tell me that he tears were faked and that they would help her win votes. I disagreed with both points but maybe she was right about the second one.

Clinton's tears may have been fake, but I suspect that didn't matter---they were truly representative of how she felt the country was being screwed over.

Some folks have also opined that voters reacted to the rather sexist way the press handled that show of emotion---and no mistaking that this was pretty sexist of the press.

Bill Mulligan: ” I had a female colleague today tell me that he tears were faked and that they would help her win votes. I disagreed with both points but maybe she was right about the second one.”

I would have disagreed about Clinton’s “tears” (I put that in quotes as, despite the common press talking point, she never actually shed any tears) from the other day, but I had a hunch that it would sway the female voters in NH and some of the airheads that were supporting Obama. There’s been a lot of airtime given to Obama supporters in NH the last few days and some of them have been embarrassingly stupid. I saw a number of on the spot, live, man on the street bits with Obama supporter and most of them couldn’t tell the reporters the first thing about any of Obama’s actual positions. They were saying that they were supporting him because he talks about hope, inspiration and change. That’s it.

While Obama has some solid supporters, I had a hunch this morning that those airheads would break ranks and go Clinton after her “breakdown” the other day. We can’t know for sure now, but I’ll be interested in seeing the voter breakdowns tomorrow for the female and “independent” votes.

The Bad-Ass has parlayed his second place finish in Iowa into a distant third place finish in NH.

The bad-ass's 16% cut of the primary so far far outstrips the 4% lead Hillary is enjoying -- before the progressive districts finish reporting in. That plus the reports that they have to turn voters away because they're running out of ballots tells me NH is still going to Obama, and a close race simply puts more pressure on him to seduce Edwards to the ticket.

Oh hey Jerry, should have known you'd be watching too! :)

Clinton's lead is down to 2 but it keeps shifting by a few points. It hasn't yet been tied at any point, I don't think. Edwards is holding steady at 17% which, if you're dyslexic is almost 3/4 of the vote!

The bad-ass must think he's in some kind of freaking Jason movie. I say he sticks it out until the South Carolina primary hoping for some kind of miracle, then bows out...then again, what else has he got to do? Clinton and Obama both have their Senate jobs to fall back on if things don't work out.

As predictably as rain, now some of the nutroots are claiming voter fraud--Deibold just looooves Hillary, don't you know.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2633384
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2633377
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3999201
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2633521

These guys see Karl Rove under every bed.

The repartee here is MUCH more amusing than the media...

I can actually see Obama coming back for a tie or even a 1% lead here. But this is now a completely different ballgame even if Obama wins it tonight. Hillary’s image was hurt in Iowa and she was being written off by the pundits and, to a lesser degree, Obama and Edwards. The predictions for tonight were Obama by 10% on the low end and 20% on the high end. Hillary and crew can and will spin an Obama win that’s anything less then 5% as a victory for her.

Mike, I think you’re using faulty logic here. You’re assuming that all of Edwards’ supporters will go with him to Obama. That may not be the case. Of the Edwards supporters that I know, they’re split about 50/50 on which their second choice would be (if deciding between just Obama and Clinton) and maybe even leaning a bit more towards Hillary. Granted, that’s purely anecdotal evidence on my part, but I would love to know what everyone else is hearing from the Edwards supporters in their circle of friends.

Watching? Hell, Bill, I'm such a geek that, if I was at my place right now, I'd have a big bowl of popcorn and a soda in front of me. I'm such a geek that I actually find nights like this fun.

Yeah, I need help.

Already some of the hard core kooks at democraticunderground.com are claiming that Deibold is behind the close race in NH. Because Karl Rove just loooooves Hillary, I guess.

Watching? Hell, Bill, I'm such a geek that, if I was at my place right now, I'd have a big bowl of popcorn and a soda in front of me. I'm such a geek that I actually find nights like this fun.

Well, as long as you don't get INTO politics, you're fine....

Nah, this is fascinating...A lesson in not taking the conventional wisdom from the media, and possibly a bigger lesson (which won't be learned, of course) about injecting themselves into the news story....

Already some of the hard core kooks at democraticunderground.com are claiming that Deibold is behind the close race in NH. Because Karl Rove just loooooves Hillary, I guess.

Well, given the whining at Red State, we all know that any computer literate hackers can't possibly be Republican....

The few Edwards voters I know don't like Obama because they blame him for splitting the ant-Hillary vote that they wanted their guy to represent. But when I ask them they say their second choice is usually Kucinich or Ron Paul so I think they need time to sober up from whatever it is they've been mainlining...

The bad-ass's 16% cut of the primary so far far outstrips the 4% lead Hillary is enjoying -- before the progressive districts finish reporting in.

Mike, I think you’re using faulty logic here. You’re assuming that all of Edwards’ supporters will go with him to Obama. That may not be the case.

Nothing I've said depends on that being the case.

Well, 63% of the precincts are in and the totals are still 39%, 36% & 17%. At this rate, these may well be the final numbers. I think Obama has a chance to surge when the college heavy precincts come in, but I'm not seeing him coming up enough to win.

You almost have to admire the mental gymnastics required to spin, even to one's self, that there is somehow a way in which 17% is greater than 39%...

Could be, could be...

Clinton was clearly knocked down, but not out. Neither the media nor Obama's camp should have assumed otherwise....

Mike: "Nothing I've said depends on that being the case."

Actually, it really does. You’re point has been that Obama and Edwards joining forces would stomp Clinton. You even pointed out that Edwards’ total vote % outstripped Clinton’s lead over Obama. Well, the only logical reading of your stance tonight and last week on the possible Obama/Edwards ticket is that you believe that their vote totals can be combined to trump Clinton. If that’s not what you’ve been saying, then your entire argument about Obama wooing “Bad Ass” Edwards to his ticket really doesn’t mean a whole lot of sense.

Think about it.

And with 66% of the vote in, NBC just called it for Hillary.

Ah. AP has called it for Clinton...

Damn, apparently Hillary Clinton is like Sebastian Shaw -- the harder you beat on her, the stronger she gets. I think I wanna run for president.

Well, the only logical reading of your stance tonight and last week on the possible Obama/Edwards ticket is that you believe that their vote totals can be combined to trump Clinton. If that’s not what you’ve been saying, then your entire argument about Obama wooing “Bad Ass” Edwards to his ticket really doesn’t mean a whole lot of sense.

Think about it.

I've been saying Obama should think about inviting Edwards to the ticket to prevent Hillary from teaming up with him against Obama. Not the same thing.

The kid gloves are gonna come off now. If the last few days is any indication, it could get pretty ugly.

Happiest man tonight? Mark Penn.

I wonder if the voters in NH, notoriously independent minded, disliked being told that it was all but over. Not yet, it ain't. Unless you're John Edwards.

Hillary won big among women, union members, seniors and the poor.

Obama won among men and had a huge advantage among younger voters.

Just yesterday there was a lot of talk about Hillary's big money supporters jumping ship. My guess is that they are going to think long and hard about that now. And man, if Hillary goes all the way for the win will there be some major payback for the folks who were kicking her when she was down.

What a great race this is becoming. Super Tuesday looks more exciting than Cloverfield.

Ok, I’ll accept that, Mike. I still think it’s wrong in its either/or nature. Obama’s camp likely thinks that the votes would be split no matter what and I still think that Obama would tap a relative unknown as his VP. Anyone who’s seen as an insider, and Edwards is by many, would only damage his “CHANGE” platform. A qualified governor without a huge public record might work better for him. But, hey, I could be wrong here. This stuff is, as I’ve been saying, extremely tricky to accurately predict.

Bill Mulligan: “What a great race this is becoming. Super Tuesday looks more exciting than Cloverfield.”

Oh yeah. I might even have to call in sick that night just to make sure that I can enjoy that popcorn and soda.

Only an absolute fool would make an absolute prediction this early for this three way horserace.

Agreed. This doesn't surprise me at all, regardless of whatever the early polling said. I know there's supposed to be a method to the madness, but everybody just read the polls as if they were tea leaves... but apparently they weren't actually talking to New Hampshoners themselves, it seems.

Still, Clinton will claim some grand victory, but I'd imagine the margin is too thin to call comfortable.

She has been getting underdog coverage since Thursday. The trick for her will be to have something to say other than, "I'm not supposed to be here!" because she campaigned in 2007 as the inevitable party winner. If she can find it, sure. But talk of payback? Underdogs value simple pleasure, which is something payback is not.

I very much doubt Hillary will talk of payback.

Favorite headline so far:from Wonkette: John Edwards Still Losing, Kind of a Dick
...In an effort to stave off the criticism that he was too egotistical in his first (of many) concession speeches, Edwards stole a page from Obama’s Iowa speech and told the crowd that it was not about him, but about the “voices that are not heard” in America. He wants to get those silent, imaginary voices heard, because then maybe they’ll vote for him.

Also, from ScrappleFace:
Tight Democrat Primary Sparks Fraud Allegations

In the wake of the unexpected outcome of the New Hampshire Democrat primary Tuesday, sources at the Democrat National Committee (DNC) said they’re still trying to figure out whom to sue amid a flurry of allegations of fraud, malfunctioning electronic voting machines and voter intimidation.

“It’s a forgone conclusion that if the race outcome defies the pollster predictions, there must have been corruption,” said an unnamed DNC source. “Just because it’s an intra-party contest, doesn’t mean we’ll subject the results to less scrutiny.”

The DNC source added that “Americans need to have faith in the electoral process, but the New Hampshire Democrat primary has the smell of Bush-Gore 2000 all over it. We’re determined to follow the facts where they lead.”

All kidding aside, you have to love an election with a little drama in it, some twists and turns.

Heh. Last week I mentioned over on my blog that Hannity was likely on suicide watch over the showing of his boy Rudy in Iowa. I can only imagine the spinning that he'll be doing tomorrow over the NH Republican results and the "Stop Hillary Express" jumping its track. I wish I could see that right now rather then just hearing it. Hannity has to be close to having a full on heart attack right now.

~8?)

And man, if Hillary goes all the way for the win will there be some major payback for the folks who were kicking her when she was down.

She has been getting underdog coverage since Thursday. The trick for her will be to have something to say other than, "I'm not supposed to be here!" because she campaigned in 2007 as the inevitable party winner. If she can find it, sure. But talk of payback? Underdogs value simple pleasure, which is something payback is not.

I very much doubt Hillary will talk of payback.

We wouldn't even be talking about payback if you hadn't brought it up in the first place. With support like that, what's not to dread?

We wouldn't even be talking about payback if you hadn't brought it up in the first place. With support like that, what's not to dread?

???

Stick to spinning the bad-ass's amazing third place finish to the woman he had "shoved" "out of the race".

k8tdad wrote quite a bit about how this current administration should make us all ashamed to be Americans.

But I don't buy into all that. Almost every argument you made could be made about every presidential administration in the history of the United States. Such as thousands or tens of thousands died because this action WAS taken too rashly or that action WAS NOT taken due to timorousness or an inability to make a timely decision. Every presidential administration has made huge mistakes that were stupid or embarrassing, and every administration has had its share of corruption and scandals.

In short, if you are embarrassed because of this administration, then you probably should be embarrassed by them all. But not me. I don't by into that self-loathing stuff.

This is a historically flawed country, but it is also a historically great country. It is a country that is the sum total of all of its people -- people with different backgrounds, cultures, beliefs and value systems. Over the years I've seen people of all colors, cultures and walks of life do wonderful things for each other, and things that were unspeakably cruel.

Take Abu Ghraib, for example. Being a veteran, you should have known as well as I did in the days after the story broke that it was an abberration and not part of some widespread top-down Pentagon policy for the troops. I immediately suspected there was a breakdown in enlisted leadership at the prison and lower officer command levels, and I was right. And I knew this because of my NCO training and years of experience working with the other branches of service. I know damn well that if I had been the NCO in charge at that prison, I would not have tolerated any of that crap. And if some "higher up" would have tried to coerce or force me to allow something I believed was unlawful to take place, I would have demanded the order in writing and immediately run my complaint up the chain of command through JAG and/or the IG. I assume you would have done the same, am I right? But the sad fact is, despite what we are taught in NCO leadership school, deep down, not everyone has the same moral values.

And despite all of the hollaring about this administration's "high crimes" regarding starting the war in Iraq, everything I've read indicates that that the administration did follow a valid legal framework -- albeit one that involved several instances of interpreting legalese differently than its political opponents.

And in retrospect, the "lies" used to justify the war were exactly what I thought they were when weapons of mass destruction were not found: Bad intel and arrogant hubris. But face it, if hubrisness were a crime, there wouldn't be a partisan politician from either side of the aisle left in this country.

No, In regards to this country, I view it through the lens as half full -- not half empty.

Hillary Clinton would make a good fake president.
Probably the fakest president ever!

Bill Clinton Ruinned the economy NAFTA and CAFTA he messed up and so will Hillary with her large eyeballs.

Cory, there is such a thing as decaf.

An underreported element of all this is the startling fact that Tom Laughlin, yes, BILLY JACK himself, only got a mere 45 votes. 45! Yeah, you tell me there was no voter fraud!

Bill, I gather Fred Thompson also had a miserable showing. Makes one wonder what gave these people the idea to run when they clearly have no support to speak of.

As for what happened with Billary vs Obama, I heard a report that stated a lot of older people turned out to vote this time. Another report stated Billary's support was higher in the older age categories. Maybe that explains it. Next place, Obama will have to work harder at getting the younger vote turning out to make up for it.

Personally, I hope Edwards wins South Carolina just so I can watch everyone's head explode.

Hillary won big among women, union members, seniors and the poor.

Obama won among men and had a huge advantage among younger voters.
************
SER: That's not surprising -- Obama beat Clinton in Iowa because women deserted her. She can most likely win the nomination if she holds onto women.

Seniors are also a reliable and strong vote. The poor is not as consistent about voting in elections, though.

Demographically, this doesn't surprise me.

What I do find intriguing is that although NH and Iowa has about the same ratio of blacks versus whites, Obama won Iowa, which went to Bush in 2004, and Clinton won NH, which went to Kerry in 2004.

If Obama does well in SC, it would be intriguing to see that he is faring better in red states.

I must say, having voted for the first time in 1992 as a college freshman, it's strange to see a Clinton handed victory from seniors and clearly not getting the younger vote. What a difference 16 years makes.

Looking toward the general election, my ultimate concern is that these demographics are not encouraging for a victory against a Republican candidate. Especially since Obama did better among *single women* while Clinton did better with married older women, a group that traditionally votes Republican.

In a McCain/Clinton matchup, we could be in a situation in which young people either just sit out the election (which always hands it to the Republicans) or they vote for McCain because he's perceived as a maverick and he's much closer to a change candidate than Sen. Clinton.

Honestly, I would probably vote for McCain versus Clinton. I have no big issue with the Clintons, but I voted for them twice, and I sort of feel like the father who can't watch THE INCREDIBLES with his 4-year-old for the bazillionith time.

Something is critically wrong with our democratic process if the same two families are in the White House for a quarter century. GWB was at least a generation removed from his father, but the first lady of a former administration running eight years after her husband left office truly stretches ever conceivable definition of "term limit." Especially since she's basically taking advantage of the whole "incumbent" wave. Obama is the only real "fresh face" (Edwards is the former VP nominee). And so basically Dodd, Richardson, and Biden never had a chance or were given a shot, but maybe they would have been perfectly qualified and solid nominees?

Diversity, new perspectives... is that a terrible thing to ask?

Cory, there is such a thing as decaf.

Lies, all lies! The substance called "decaf" by its evil proponents is a mockery of true coffee, foisted upon us by the unAmerican anti-consciousness lobby!!

Don't be fooled, true Americans! Hold your Folgers high and say, "I'm awake this morning, and I'm not going to take it any more!!"

And man, if Hillary goes all the way for the win will there be some major payback for the folks who were kicking her when she was down.

She has been getting underdog coverage since Thursday. The trick for her will be to have something to say other than, "I'm not supposed to be here!" because she campaigned in 2007 as the inevitable party winner. If she can find it, sure. But talk of payback? Underdogs value simple pleasure, which is something payback is not.

I very much doubt Hillary will talk of payback.

We wouldn't even be talking about payback if you hadn't brought it up in the first place. With support like that, what's not to dread?

???

Stick to spinning the bad-ass's amazing third place finish to the woman he had "shoved" "out of the race".

Bill, you seem to be citing text not mentioning Edwards as evidence I've mentioned him. There is no defense against your relentlessness.

SER: That's not surprising -- Obama beat Clinton in Iowa because women deserted her. She can most likely win the nomination if she holds onto women.

Hillary benefitted from 4 days of coverage as the underdog since Thursday. I can only imagine if she loses the smaller states and somehow portray them as devastating, she can actively sustain this. Otherwise it seems out of her control. I'm not acquainted enough with the schedule to oknow if that's manageable.

Seniors are also a reliable and strong vote. The poor is not as consistent about voting in elections, though.

This seems to be an inversion of Hillary's underdog problem. After wins, Obama supporters are more likely to stay home.

Bill, you seem to be citing text not mentioning Edwards as evidence I've mentioned him. There is no defense against your relentlessness.

No, I just opined that you might prefer to stick to statements that are foolish but understandable. As for "relentless" well, maybe we've beaten the "bad-ass" jokes into the ground...but hey, it's just so ridiculous. John Edwards: The Bad Ass. Funny, funny stuff.

Hillary benefitted from 4 days of coverage as the underdog since Thursday. I can only imagine if she loses the smaller states and somehow portray them as devastating, she can actively sustain this. Otherwise it seems out of her control.

You seem to display a curious need to portray the sole woman candidate as helpless, winning or losing due to forces beyond her control. This underestimation may be her most potent weapon. While most of us, myself included, thought that the Clinton team's actions over the last few days were the last gasps of a sinking ship, it's obvious that they played their hand smart and won.

If Hillary really benefited from the press that portrayed her as a losing underdog why hasn't Edwards been able to capitalize on the same coverage. He is, after all, genuinely a losing underdog. Somehow, the bad ass has not been able to turn that into a vote getting strategy the same way that woman he "shoved" "out of the race".

Here's an exit poll bit I would not have expected-- Hillary got the lion’s share of support of voters who had “positive feelings” about the Bush administration: 42% to Obama’s 27%.

http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/09/fox-news-new-hampshire-democratic-exit-polls/

Hmmm, maybe those folks claiming the evil Diebold pro-Hillary conspiracy are on to something!

Hillary won among Democrats, Obama among independents. That would mean that Obama would be easier to elect president but it might keep him from getting the nomination; not all states allow independents to vote in the primaries.

A clue to how things will go may come in the next few days--will nay of the superdelegates bolt from Hillary to Obama? A few days ago I would have said yes, now...

Hillary won among Democrats, Obama among independents. That would mean that Obama would be easier to elect president but it might keep him from getting the nomination; not all states allow independents to vote in the primaries.
***********
SER: The GOP tends to follow the strategy of "energize the base" -- forget about the independents. This is I am not sanguine about McCain's chances. After all, he's only accomplished what he did in 2000 -- only to lose because conservatives don't believe he's the "real deal." I would wager that Huckabee might have a better shot in South Carolina than McCain. Though, if McCain wins the state that pretty much ended his 2000 hopes, that would be a great story.

Anyway, the Republican strategy of "focus on the base" is that they only lose if people who are inclined to vote Democratic, along with the majority of independents, turn out in great numbers. If these people stay home, the Republicans win.

So, I don't see a real success story for the Democrats at this point. Yes, it's a change election, but both parties are pushing for it, and it's hard to position Clinton as a "change" candidate. Also, does she energize the base? Does she get the swing voters? Hard to say. Disaffected Democratic voters spelled the doom of Gore and Kerry. If Kerry couldn't move them enough to actively *defeat* Bush, there's always the chance that many Democrats will just be content that Bush is *gone* -- forget whoever replaces him, Democrat or Republican. Anyone is better.

Here's an exit poll bit I would not have expected-- Hillary got the lion’s share of support of voters who had “positive feelings” about the Bush administration: 42% to Obama’s 27%.
************

SER: That doesn't surprise me. Among Democrats who had positive feelings about the Bush administration, she is the most likely to not alienate them with her rhetoric, as the other candidates (especially Obama and Edwards).

The exit poll results are interesting. The gender breakdown was expected. And if Obama is wise, he'll crank up the Oprah factor to sway more female voters his way. If she gets more female appeal when she's down and on the ropes, then this could be sort of see-saw primary.

The other information, though, is a bit unsettling: Older, poorer, less educated voters favored Clinton to Obama. Could that speak to a possible latent race issue?

Oh, and having read these results, I'm not sure if the polls make it clear that more Independents favor Obama than Democrats. It just asks you for your identity. I consider myself an independent but nothing is stopping me from registering as a Democrat in order to vote in the New York primary. I would still not identify as a Democrat in this poll, though.

One final note about the polls: Has there ever been a case in which the polling data for Republicans and Democrats was so off? I mean, I'm looking back at the numbers and McCain was consistently called as the winner and with around the exact amount of the vote (33%).

Hmmm, maybe those folks claiming the evil Diebold pro-Hillary conspiracy are on to something!

Well, yeah... I mean, who in their right mind has positive feelings about Bush by this point? ;)

Has there ever been a case in which the polling data for Republicans and Democrats was so off?

The 2000 or 2004 election? The thing is, the data was only horribly bad in the last day before the NH primary. Earlier than that, and it still had Clinton ahead of Obama.

Speaking of primaries, I went looking for information for the state of Colorado on the Precinct Caucus election, which is on Super Tuesday. I did get the impression, from the information given, that since I am registered Independent (or, for the state's legal definition, 'unaffiliated'), I won't get to vote in any Primary election in August. However, there was no info on the site about the Precinct Caucus election at all.

So I e-mail them, telling them I'm an unaffiliated voter who's looking for info. They responded telling me to contact my political party. *sigh*

The 2000 or 2004 election? The thing is, the data was only horribly bad in the last day before the NH primary. Earlier than that, and it still had Clinton ahead of Obama.
**********
SER: Yes, I recall that the Zogby poll changed once it started polling people after Iowa. Yet, it didn't seem to take into account the number of people who had made up their mind already -- pre-Iowa -- a significant number.

I work in Research, so it just seems that a lot of the pollsters made critical mistakes in methodology. The whole "crying thing" didn't factor into it because, again, the majority of people had decided before Iowa.

There's always the classic "Bradley effect" which claims that people will tell pollsters they are more likely to support a minority candidate than they really are.

In this case that would seem to be limited only to women who voted in the democratic primary--the result from men was pretty much as the polls had said.

Though all this must be taken with a grain of salt. The pollsters come up with all kinds of reasons why the results are so different from the predictions when the obvious possibility is that the predictions were just plain wrong.

And man, if Hillary goes all the way for the win will there be some major payback for the folks who were kicking her when she was down.

She has been getting underdog coverage since Thursday. The trick for her will be to have something to say other than, "I'm not supposed to be here!" because she campaigned in 2007 as the inevitable party winner. If she can find it, sure. But talk of payback? Underdogs value simple pleasure, which is something payback is not.

I very much doubt Hillary will talk of payback.

We wouldn't even be talking about payback if you hadn't brought it up in the first place. With support like that, what's not to dread?

???

Stick to spinning the bad-ass's amazing third place finish to the woman he had "shoved" "out of the race".

Bill, you seem to be citing text not mentioning Edwards as evidence I've mentioned him. There is no defense against your relentlessness.

No, I just opined that you might prefer to stick to statements that are foolish but understandable. As for "relentless" well, maybe we've beaten the "bad-ass" jokes into the ground...but hey, it's just so ridiculous. John Edwards: The Bad Ass. Funny, funny stuff.

If you do a text-search for this page, you will see that you literally introduced the word "payback" to it. Your failure to comprehend this seems to say more about your comprehension skills rather than the comprehensibility to what I say.

You seem to be suffering from an inability to reconcile Hillary having the most qualifying experience, her outspending Edwards by about five or six, and her losing to Edwards in Iowa. The solution is simple: as things stand now she simply isn't going to be the democratic candidate for president for 2008. If you don't like it, that isn't my problem, and I don't owe you an alternate explanation.

Also, I don't know which is creepier:

1. that along with lennie green footballs you read scrappleface, an unfunny Andy Borowitz (like Andy Borowitz is all that funny) catering to Dick Cheney/Karl Rove reactionaries, or
2. that when some semblance of sense was restored to your world by Hillary winning NH, you dropped your guard and mentioned you frequent the site -- demonstrating when your guard is up, you don't let the people here you portray as friends know you frequently visit it.

Your Charlie Daniels reference in the Mary Jane thread would have exceeded the hilarity of the entire scrappleface archive if you had somehow managed to post it there in its full context. Anyone can go over there and see for themselves that is the case. Your post treating scrappleface as some kind of cultural packleader is a demonstration how whatever talents you have are wasted on you. You don't have to live in the shadow of the pretense of invulnerability, Bill; you can choose to measure strength by something other than dominance.

Hillary benefitted from 4 days of coverage as the underdog since Thursday. I can only imagine if she loses the smaller states and somehow portray them as devastating, she can actively sustain this. Otherwise it seems out of her control.

You seem to display a curious need to portray the sole woman candidate as helpless, winning or losing due to forces beyond her control. This underestimation may be her most potent weapon. While most of us, myself included, thought that the Clinton team's actions over the last few days were the last gasps of a sinking ship, it's obvious that they played their hand smart and won.

Considering Hillary was portrayed as on the ropes for the 4 days between Iowa and NH, my need you refer to is simply a fidelity to accuracy.

If Hillary really benefited from the press that portrayed her as a losing underdog why hasn't Edwards been able to capitalize on the same coverage.

All stories are founded on someone wanting something. Everyone knows Hillary and her antagonist, the Oprah-backed Obama. To the news, Edwards is known only by his epic agenda to be president, and doesn't make as good a story. To say Edwards has been receiving the same coverage Hillary has capitalized on demonstrates your detachment from reality.

If you do a text-search for this page, you will see that you literally introduced the word "payback" to it. Your failure to comprehend this seems to say more about your comprehension skills rather than the comprehensibility to what I say.

At no point did I say you introduced the word "payback". I merely pointed out that it was unclear what, if any, idea you were trying to express. You have that problem, you see, though you tend to blame your inability to make sense to people to those very same people. Oh well. As the T-shirt says, If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit.

You seem to be suffering from an inability to reconcile Hillary having the most qualifying experience, her outspending Edwards by about five or six, and her losing to Edwards in Iowa. The solution is simple: as things stand now she simply isn't going to be the democratic candidate for president for 2008. If you don't like it, that isn't my problem, and I don't owe you an alternate explanation.

No, you seem to be completely unable to reconcile your support for John Edwards--which is a perfectly valid position to take--with the reality that he LOST Iowa after putting all of his eggs into that basket. While the average, sane person would just shrug off the disappointment, you, to the hilarity of many, tried to spin off his defeat as some kind of evidence of his bad-assery. Lost? Why he shoved Hillary Clinton right out of the race! Errrr...except she then WON New Hampshire, getting over twice the Bad Ass's totals in doing so.

Now you're doubling down, claiming that "she simply isn't going to be the democratic candidate for president for 2008." One can only imagine (and look forward to) the mental contortions you will have to go through should she actually win it. When you are so personally invested in being proven right you should really avoid politics and horse races. It isn't getting a prediction wrong that makes you look stupid--no guts, no glory, says I--but the pathetic neediness that drives you to insist that you were right even when you weren't is what makes you...you.

It's almost endearing. Some things change. You don't.

Also, I don't know which is creepier:

1. that along with lennie green footballs you read scrappleface, an unfunny Andy Borowitz (like Andy Borowitz is all that funny) catering to Dick Cheney/Karl Rove reactionaries,

Well, since you have actually POSTED to Little Green Footballs...contributed to them, if you will...I can only assume your attempt to shame us from reading the site is to shelter you from your shame.

And I don't actually frequent the scrappleface site. A site I do read linked to it and I passed it on. Your familiarity with the site (who the hell is Andy Borowitz? He didn't write that piece I posted. I guess Borowitz is the guy in charge of the site? The editor? I'll defer to your superior knowledge of the site) indicates, yet again, that you read sites that you would deny to others. Interesting. As is your choice of the word creepy to describe those who read those sites. The ones you read.

that when some semblance of sense was restored to your world by Hillary winning NH, you dropped your guard and mentioned you frequent the site -- demonstrating when your guard is up, you don't let the people here you portray as friends know you frequently visit it.

You're a liiiiiiar, Mike Leung. How many things are wrong with this sentence? A-I don't frequent the site. B-I didn't mention that I frequent the site (hence A) C- Even if A & C were true they would not in any way demonstrate that I have deliberately hidden the "fact" that I have gone to the site and D- the idea that anyone other than you would be at all horrified that I go to stupid right wing comedy sites. Like the ones you read.

Your Charlie Daniels reference in the Mary Jane thread would have exceeded the hilarity of the entire scrappleface archive if you had somehow managed to post it there in its full context. Anyone can go over there and see for themselves that is the case. Your post treating scrappleface as some kind of cultural packleader is a demonstration how whatever talents you have are wasted on you. You don't have to live in the shadow of the pretense of invulnerability, Bill; you can choose to measure strength by something other than dominance.

Ok, did someone at scappleface (maybe the mysterious Andy Borowitz) turn down a suggestion from you for a funny article? Did they make fun of one of your posts? If so, talk to a therapist--not my problem. If you want people to think of you as a funny guy, try to take yourself a little less seriously. Though I have to admit, you're getting plenty of laughs. I mean, John Edwards-bad ass. Funny stuff, man.

Considering Hillary was portrayed as on the ropes for the 4 days between Iowa and NH, my need you refer to is simply a fidelity to accuracy.

You claim she is helpless now, subject to forces beyond her control. One can only wonder how such a delicate flower whupped the bad-ass.

the Oprah-backed Obama

Yeah, that's why Obama is such a phenom. He's got support from Oprah. I roll my eyes at your desperation.

I have no idea whether Hillary or Obama will win the nomination. This race is too awesomely close to be sure. They're both gifted politicians, though in very different ways. Outside events could influence the voters and even without them the voters have been pretty hard to read. I can even see a slim tiny chance for Edwards, should he stick it out (though it will from simply surviving a Clinton/Obama mutual bloodbath than from any bad-assery. In fact, his best chance now is the old play dead routine while the real bad asses bloody themselves up.)

But there's one prediction I can make with almost no chance of coming up short; you will say stupid stuff and get angry when you are called on it and in your anger make yourself look even worse than before.

Think about it.

She has been getting underdog coverage since Thursday. The trick for her will be to have something to say other than, "I'm not supposed to be here!" because she campaigned in 2007 as the inevitable party winner. If she can find it, sure. But talk of payback? Underdogs value simple pleasure, which is something payback is not.

At no point did I say you introduced the word "payback". I merely pointed out that it was unclear what, if any, idea you were trying to express. You have that problem, you see, though you tend to blame your inability to make sense to people to those very same people. Oh well. As the T-shirt says, If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit.

I explicitly said an underdog portrayal is incompatible with the lust for revenge you introduced into this discussion. The conventional analysis has been that partisanship drives away younger democrats because they don't care about -- your word -- payback. This is how Obama benefits from the youth vote by portraying himself as a change agent.

Conventional wisdom is often wrong, but your inability to simply comprehend it demonstrates you aren't the person to go to to confirm or deny observations of what simply takes place in our shared reality.

You seem to be suffering from an inability to reconcile Hillary having the most qualifying experience, her outspending Edwards by about five or six, and her losing to Edwards in Iowa. The solution is simple: as things stand now she simply isn't going to be the democratic candidate for president for 2008. If you don't like it, that isn't my problem, and I don't owe you an alternate explanation.

No, you seem to be completely unable to reconcile your support for John Edwards--which is a perfectly valid position to take--with the reality that he LOST Iowa after putting all of his eggs into that basket.

I reconciled it by referring to the 4 days Hillary enjoyed being portrayed in the press as the underdog. See? Reconciled. n ≠ Rocket+Surgery

Now you're doubling down, claiming that "she simply isn't going to be the democratic candidate for president for 2008."

Any "doubling down" took place when I said she was shoved out after Iowa. This is another example how your comprehension problem has a whole life of its own.

One can only imagine (and look forward to) the mental contortions you will have to go through should she actually win it.

Between Obama and Hillary, she should win it, because she'll give us single-payer healthcare. You are so detached from reality, you don't seem to understand that that which should take place doesn't always happen. I think it comes from how you measure strength by dominance. It obstructs you from considering alternatives to the way things are.

When you are so personally invested in being proven right you should really avoid politics and horse races. It isn't getting a prediction wrong that makes you look stupid--no guts, no glory, says I--but the pathetic neediness that drives you to insist that you were right even when you weren't is what makes you...you.

It's almost endearing. Some things change. You don't.

What pretense of invulnerability on my part are you referring to? I know of no pretense of invulnerability on my part -- why would I then abstain from making a prediction on the outcome of the primary?

Well, since you have actually POSTED to Little Green Footballs...contributed to them, if you will...I can only assume your attempt to shame us from reading the site is to shelter you from your shame.

Your shame in reading lennie green footballs is from no contribution by me. You only mention to the people you portray as your friends here you read reactionary sites to refer to the month or so I challenged them ridiculing a dead girl. They didn't even have the guts to focus their annual disgust-fest on someone alive and under 70.

And I don't actually frequent the scrappleface site. A site I do read linked to it and I passed it on.

Thanks for not denying you frequent lennie green footballs. So who links to scrappleface who manages to keep his froth in his mouth?

that when some semblance of sense was restored to your world by Hillary winning NH, you dropped your guard and mentioned you frequent the site -- demonstrating when your guard is up, you don't let the people here you portray as friends know you frequently visit it.

You're a liiiiiiar, Mike Leung. How many things are wrong with this sentence? A-I don't frequent the site. B-I didn't mention that I frequent the site (hence A) C- Even if A & C were true they would not in any way demonstrate that I have deliberately hidden the "fact" that I have gone to the site and D- the idea that anyone other than you would be at all horrified that I go to stupid right wing comedy sites. Like the ones you read.

Ahhh, the classic "How dare you infer I read something I don't, but if I did what's the big deal?"

Thank you for admitting scrappleface is stupid and right wing. It makes it a wonder you felt any urgency in citing one of its post.

Your Charlie Daniels reference in the Mary Jane thread would have [more than doubled] the hilarity of the entire scrappleface archive if you had somehow managed to post it there in its full context.

Ok, did someone at scappleface (maybe the mysterious Andy Borowitz) turn down a suggestion from you for a funny article?

Since I think only you would consider this plausible, let me give my answer soley for your benefit: no.

Did they make fun of one of your posts?

If you're talking about in the forum, they don't put any effort into the pretense of fairness for me to care if they have.

If so, talk to a therapist--not my problem.

Considering your conditions, I'm glad you can refer to no detachment from reality on my part requiring intervention by a practicing professional.

You claim she is helpless now, subject to forces beyond her control. One can only wonder how such a delicate flower whupped the bad-ass.

I guess you heard it here first, folks: Hillary will win because Edwards can't beat her.

All stories are founded on someone wanting something. Everyone knows Hillary and her antagonist, the Oprah-backed Obama. To the news, Edwards is known only by his epic agenda to be president, and doesn't make as good a story. To say Edwards has been receiving the same coverage Hillary has capitalized on demonstrates your detachment from reality.

Yeah, that's why Obama is such a phenom. He's got support from Oprah. I roll my eyes at your desperation.

By submitted my use of the phrase "the Oprah-backed Obama" as evidence of my desperation, you seem to be defining "desperate" as having some kind of fidelity to the plain observation of reality.

But there's one prediction I can make with almost no chance of coming up short; you will say stupid stuff and get angry when you are called on it and in your anger make yourself look even worse than before.

Think about it.

I guess there's gotta be a first for everything.

You seem to be suffering from an inability to reconcile Hillary having the most qualifying experience, her outspending Edwards by about five or six, and her losing to Edwards in Iowa. The solution is simple: as things stand now she simply isn't going to be the democratic candidate for president for 2008. If you don't like it, that isn't my problem, and I don't owe you an alternate explanation.

No, you seem to be completely unable to reconcile your support for John Edwards--which is a perfectly valid position to take--with the reality that he LOST Iowa after putting all of his eggs into that basket.

I reconciled it by referring to the 4 days Hillary enjoyed as the underdog. See? Reconciled. n ≠ Rocket+Surgery

Oh, sorry, Bill, "losing" Iowa is what the press was saying Hillary did, so when I saw you call Edwards a loser, I thought you were referring to NH.

How do I reconcile my preference for Edwards with him losing Iowa? I simply remember that he beat a $100 million candidate -- you know, the simple truth I've been referring to all along. If you didn't have so much of a fidelity to the pretense of invulnerability and didn't measure strength by dominance, you might have an easier time picking up that which is plainly observable.

Bill predicts--But there's one prediction I can make with almost no chance of coming up short; you will say stupid stuff and get angry when you are called on it and in your anger make yourself look even worse than before.

Mike says (see above two posts)

Wow, I feel like Nostradamas. Only accurate.

You know, I'm no fan of John Edwards as a presidential candidate but I'll say this for him; nothing he's done so far makes him deserve having Mike Leung as an acolyte.

I've been mocking the folks who are crying "Fixed Election" at the NH results but it may not be limited to the crazy fringe. At Dailykos (which certainly has fringe elements but is not what I would consider the epitome of the far left crazies) this kind of talk has even spawned a poll where 50% are saying the election was rigged and another 11% are saying maybe.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/9/134532/8188

Giving credit where it's due, kos himself doesn't seem to be buying this foolishness (and the slight discrepancies between the hand counted ballots and the Deibold machines can be far more easily explained in ways that do not require a massive conspiracy). Many of the commentators aren't buying it either. As one pointed out: 2000? Stolen! 2004? Rigged! 2006? No problems! NH 2008? The Empire Strikes back! November 2008? Depends on who wins!

Bill predicts--But there's one prediction I can make with almost no chance of coming up short; you will say stupid stuff and get angry when you are called on it and in your anger make yourself look even worse than before.

Mike says (see above two posts)

Wow, I feel like Nostradamas. Only accurate.

You literally haven't invalidated anything I said. Because you can't.

Your post is literally absent any observation demonstrating a fidelity to that which is plainly observable. Your need to be right isn't proof you are right. However right your criticism may be, no one is ever going to pick up on it from what you say. You are a poor servant to the truth, which may explain why your indifference to it.

That should be: Your post as it refers to me is literally absent any observation demonstrating a fidelity to that which is plainly observable.

*Sigh*

Well, it was almost nice while it lasted. Whichever one of you picked 'The Evening of January 9th' in the "When Will Mike Finally Lose it in This Thread" pool, your prize can be picked up at the door. You have to hunt like hell to find the door, but it's a nice prize nonetheless.

However right your criticism may be, no one is ever going to pick up on it from what you say.

I have enough confidence in the intelligence of the average reader here--and in the sheer loony bin nature of your posts above--to simply let you bury yourself.

When you are arguing with a guy so foolish as to accuse others of "comprehension problems" yet somehow is able to read No, you seem to be completely unable to reconcile your support for John Edwards--which is a perfectly valid position to take--with the reality that he LOST Iowa after putting all of his eggs into that basket. as referring to New Hampshire...

Your irrationality, hypocrisy and general nuttiness is on full display to anyone still reading the thread. Going through on a point by point basis almost seems cruel. Though I am flattered by your need for my attention.

Feel free to continue to flail away. try not to hurt yourself.

Well, it was almost nice while it lasted. Whichever one of you picked 'The Evening of January 9th' in the "When Will Mike Finally Lose it in This Thread" pool, your prize can be picked up at the door. You have to hunt like hell to find the door, but it's a nice prize nonetheless.

When you and Bill make accusations without referring to anything I say, you are presenting your need for me to be wrong as evidence I am wrong. I don't see how that doesn't qualify as sniveling.

Now you're doubling down, claiming that "she simply isn't going to be the democratic candidate for president for 2008."

Any "doubling down" took place when I said she was shoved out after Iowa. This is another example how your comprehension problem has a whole life of its own.

Bill predicts--But there's one prediction I can make with almost no chance of coming up short; you will say stupid stuff and get angry when you are called on it and in your anger make yourself look even worse than before.

Mike says (see above two posts)

Wow, I feel like Nostradamas. Only accurate.

You literally haven't invalidated anything I said. Because you can't.

Your post [as it refers to me] is literally absent any observation demonstrating a fidelity to that which is plainly observable. Your need to be right isn't proof you are right. However right your criticism may be, no one is ever going to pick up on it from what you say. You are a poor servant to the truth, which may explain... your indifference to it.

When you are arguing with a guy so foolish as to accuse others of "comprehension problems" yet somehow is able to read No, you seem to be completely unable to reconcile your support for John Edwards--which is a perfectly valid position to take--with the reality that he LOST Iowa after putting all of his eggs into that basket. as referring to New Hampshire...

I required no correction, and I'm not holding anyone to a standard I refuse to be held to. Otherwise, I guess you have nothing to complain about, Bill.

I'm pretty sure someone could create a random generator that would save you the time of actually writing out these pathetic responses. A simple mix of words and phrases like "I don't see how that doesn't" "I inferred" "literally" "pretense of invulnerability" "sheltering" "you heard it here first" "Thanks for not denying" "it's a wonder you felt the need to" "lennie-like" "not rocket surgery" "TM" "nurse ratchet" "are you unwell" and a few others, along with random cut and pastes from other, smarter posters (i.e., anyone), toss in a few references to Jung and Vonnegut, simmer to near boiling, add something bitter and voila! A Mike Leung Post! Chock full of nuts and flakes!

I'm pretty sure someone could create a random generator that would save you the time of actually writing out these pathetic responses.

You are again presenting your need for me to be wrong as evidence I am wrong. By the standards of debating as its known to western civilization, your sniveling is no proof you have anything to complain about.

Who's more pathetic, the writer of pathetic responses, or the sniveler taken hostage by them?

I forgot "sniveling".

And sorry Mike, I'm not going to give you any more attention than I chose to. Deal. Besides, if I try to make you look more foolish than you are already doing to yourself I may make a mistake. When someone is beating themselves up it makes no sense to jump in with a punch of one's own. (That's metaphorical, Mike. Nobody is threatening to punch you. Don't call CNN)

Mike: "Who's more pathetic, the writer of pathetic responses, or the sniveler taken hostage by them?"

So, that's A) your admissionyour posts are in fact "pathetic" or B) you claiming that Mulligan's post and Mulligan himself are "pathetic", but that you are in fact even more "pathetic" then he is for being a constant hostage to his posts? That's really the only two ways you can go from that line.

Think about it.

Anywho...

It's late news by now and even later news by the time any of you read it, but what's the general feel on Richardson dropping out and where do you think his, admittedly minor, support and supporters are going?

And sorry Mike, I'm not going to give you any more attention than I chose to. Deal.

I haven't tried to make my needs relevant. I haven't presented my needs as proof of anything, as you have. You are merely ordering me to do that which I'm already doing.

Besides, if I try to make you look more foolish than you are already doing to yourself I may make a mistake. When someone is beating themselves up it makes no sense to jump in with a punch of one's own.

Yeah, it's a wonder you felt the need to challenge anything I say.

You are again presenting your need for me to be wrong as evidence I am wrong. By the standards of debating as its known to western civilization, your sniveling is no proof you have anything to complain about.

Who's more pathetic, the writer of pathetic responses, or the sniveler taken hostage by them?

So, that's A) your admissionyour posts are in fact "pathetic" or B) you claiming that Mulligan's post and Mulligan himself are "pathetic", but that you are in fact even more "pathetic" then he is for being a constant hostage to his posts? That's really the only two ways you can go from that line.

Think about it.

B is you again submitting your need to demonstrate I'm wrong as your proof I'm wrong. Jerry, your persistent sniveling demonstrates the authority to enforce the law is wasted on you, because no law is founded on the resolve to snivel. You are a poor servant of the law.

You are a poor servant of the law.

You are a poor representative of mankind.

Only, you have yet to realize it.

As I said before, seek professional help, Mike. Otherwise, I fear your desperate and never ending need for attention is going to wind up with you hurting somebody.

Guys...you know you've reached the point where this amounts to little more than, as the saying goes, kicking a cripple, right?

I mean, it's your time, free to waste as you see fit, and I only shut down threads when I feel there's no other way. This hasn't reached that point yet. It has, however, in my humble opinion, reached the point where anyone who engages Mike in prolonged discussion is just embarrassing themselves.

I'm sure anyone with reasonable intelligence realizes by this point that arguing with Mike is a waste of time. He's like a higher functioning version of Rain Man, except not as useful since he can't be used to rake in money in Vegas. So why bother?

PAD

Actually, I'm more interested in getting an answer to my Richardson query then a response from Mike. I've also been watching the morning talking heads over my coffee and they've thrown out a nice little spin on the faulty polls that might actually be much, much closer to the truth then al of the "fixed election" conspiracies being bandied about.

The new spin is that the polls weren't wrong, it was just the reporting of the polls that was wrong. It seems that almost every reputable poll out there had Obama getting roughly the same results that he got in actual votes while Clinton was usually in second place by 6% or 9%. The talking heads went with those numbers because it's a better, more gripping, more flashy and better story to talk about hard numbers like that. The thing is, they ignored those same polls' numbers for undecideds. It seems that if you add in the majority of undecided votes to Clinton's final totals and give a smattering of them to Obama, you get an almost exact match of the final results on poll after poll.

It raises an interesting question. Are a lot of people out there really undecided or are they too embarrassed (either in voting against Obama or for a candidate who carries the stigma and baggage that Hillary is seen by many to have) to tell someone that they're for Hillary? Or, even more obvious answer, are a lot of people just deciding that it's nobody's business but theirs who they vote for?

Either way, it could be fun interpreting the early polls now. Is candidate B really in second place or is candidate B in first place because most of the candidates supporters filled in blank X? Next big caucus is gonna be fun. ~8?)

I doubt it's that they embarrassed to admit to voting for Hillary. I think there's just a lot of sway in opinions, especially with people not some people not making up their mind until election day. Like you said, there were a lot of undecideds. Plus, some of the support for each candidate was soft support, people who are only moderately sure that they'll vote for a candidate. So Hillary getting her soft support and Obama not getting his equals a big gain for her. Since the networks boil it down to simple numbers without mentioning independents and soft support, it all gets thrown out of proportion.

Which comes out as a big win for the media. They *like* that it comes out wrong every now and then, the same way that football fans like the concept of "any given Sunday" meaning that the results of a game aren't completely predictable. The polls are still accurate enough for them to talk about them, but they're not so accurate that they take anything away from the actual election coverage. So essentially, the media gets to report on every election twice. That gets them more ratings, so it's a win for them.

Jerry wrote: are a lot of people just deciding that it's nobody's business but theirs who they vote for?

That's pretty much my stance when it comes to polls of most types.

Granted, at this point I truly am undecided, and will likely remain so until the elections come to NY.

PAD; point taken, sir.

To answer Jerry's question, I doubt that Richardson's exit does much except get us a little bit closer to the two person race this more or less already is.

Edwards will serve as a possibly useful foil for the others. If he attacks Hillary, Obama can even show some gallantry in mildly defending her. She, in turn, can claim that the boys are beating on her. If he attacks Obama it gives Obama the opportunity to defend himself without attacking Hillary directly. Or maybe they just treat him with benign neglect and concentrate the firepower on each other. In which case you might give her the edge because she and her people can throw punches. The remaining question is how well Obama can recover from a hard hit. So far they haven't been able to hurt him--even NH can't be considered a major blow when he was only the frontrunner for a little while after Iowa.

How well will Obama react when someone draws blood? So far he has done very well by adopting an aura of calm unflappability by what happens if he gets flapped?

The other factor for Richardson is that getting out now allows him to not have to say anything that will further diminish his chances of getting the VP slot.

It raises an interesting question. Are a lot of people out there really undecided or are they too embarrassed (either in voting against Obama or for a candidate who carries the stigma and baggage that Hillary is seen by many to have) to tell someone that they're for Hillary? Or, even more obvious answer, are a lot of people just deciding that it's nobody's business but theirs who they vote for?
***

SER: There is an interesting article about this in the Chicago Tribune. It answered my question about why the polls were pitch perfect about the Republicans and not about the Democrats.

Basically, poorer, uneducated white voters tend to not respond to requests for polls (makes sense) and those voters unimaniously picked Clinton over Obama.

I'm fine with the gender split, but it would pain me as a Clinton supporter from the '90s to see Sen. Clinton keep her campaign afloat due to potential reticence among a demographic about voting for a black candidate.

And Kerry just endorsed Obama. Don't know if it helps much (was anyone waiting to make an opinion based on Kerry's plans?) but it must seem like a slap in the face to Edwards.

With this and the the Culinary Workers Union endorsement, Obama is having a good day. When's the next debate?

The remaining question is how well Obama can recover from a hard hit. So far they haven't been able to hurt him--even NH can't be considered a major blow when he was only the frontrunner for a little while after Iowa.
*********
SER: That's what's nuts about this. I think it's unfortunate the media hype paints this as a setback to Obama. He is still gaining. Months ago, Clinton was considered a foregone conclusion. She was going into NH with double digit lead. She wound up winning by just three points. And she's basically an incumbent candidate, as her popular husband is stumping for her.

It's amazing that the media spending 2 days painting her as an underdog allows her to claim "comeback" status, when it's really a brutally close race with Obama gaining in support.

We'll see how things go in other states and the campaign progresses.

Bill Mulligan queried: How well will Obama react when someone draws blood? So far he has done very well by adopting an aura of calm unflappability by what happens if he gets flapped?

Let's hope he doesn't turn big and green.

SER wrote: Basically, poorer, uneducated white voters tend to not respond to requests for polls (makes sense)

What do you mean it "makes sense"? There are educated people (like myself) who prefer not to be part of polls; and there are those uneducated who cannot resist having their opinions known.

Let's hope he doesn't turn big and green.

That'd be GREAT! But I'd prefer Black Bolt. Strong, silent type. Proven leader Continues the tradition of presidents with brothers who are political liabilities. State of the Union address would be memorable.

Or Stilt-Man, Just to say to the world "Ha Ha Ha, we have so many nuclear bombs we can even elect Stilt-Man! THAT'S how confident we are!"

That'd be GREAT! But I'd prefer Black Bolt. Strong, silent type. Proven leader Continues the tradition of presidents with brothers who are political liabilities.

Except we ELECTED the one who was the political liability...

I'm sure anyone with reasonable intelligence realizes by this point that arguing with Mike is a waste of time. He's like a higher functioning version of Rain Man, except not as useful since he can't be used to rake in money in Vegas. So why bother?

PAD

As a high-functioning autistic (Asperger's Syndrome), I was going to take exception to this, and state that we exhibit at least some grasp of basic logic.

And then I started arguing with some of the antivaccine types at WrongPlanet.net - including one fanatical defender of homeopathic "medicine". ("Sure, they dilute it down to like one molecule of active ingredient in one cc of water suspension, but then they shake it and that activates it!")

So - point taken, PAD. Point taken.

[insert sheepish grin here]

(Apologies if this post shows up more than once. I tried several hours ago to post-- using two different computers-- but one just twiddled its thumbs for several minutes; so I hit the stop button; the other gave me a weird error message. Other posts have shown up since I made my attempts, which suggests mine didn't get through; but who knows how long ago they tried? Anyway, if the following message does appear more than once, it didn't really. You're just experiencing deja vu. Don't worry about it).

Addressing the issue of polls in general, I've always taken them with a huge grain of salt. And I can sum up why in three words:

"Dewey defeats Truman."

Who you poll and how you conduct your poll can impact the answers you receive (never mind that respondents might give pollsters the answer they think the pollster wants to hear). If you conduct a telephone poll in an era when most of the people who had phones were Republicans (and if I remember correctly, the enclave(s) in which the poll(s) were taken leaned Republican anyway), then your result will show the Republican candidate winning the 1948 presidential election.

Likewise, the poll results in Iowa and/or New Hampshire would be skewed depending on the questions asked and to whom they were asked.

I didn't pay any attention to any of the polls, and pretty much never do. After all, as Twain said, there are "lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Of the election in general, it'll be interesting to see how it all plays out in the Clinton/Obama struggle. Who will win the nomination? Her? Him? Or will Edwards somehow surge ahead?

What will happen in the Michigan primary next Tuesday? Clinton's the only "major" Democratic candidate whose name is on the ballot. Will Democrats who don't support her stay home (or cross over and vote in the Republican primary), or will they do as Sen. Carl Levin urges and vote for "uncommitted?" The delegates "uncommitted" gets would then be free to vote for whomever they choose at the convention (assuming the Democratic leadership backs down on its promise/threat to refuse to seat Michigan's delegates). If the majority of Democrats (who actually turn out at the polls) vote for "uncommitted" over Clinton, and if Michigan's delegates are seated, it might be interesting to see to whom the delegates give those "uncommitted" votes.

On the Republican side, most, if not all, of the candidates' names are on the ballot and the RNC has promised/threatened to withhold only half the delegates because Michigan violated party rules and scheduled an early primary. Will McCain win in Michigan like he did in 2000 (despite then Gov. Engler's campaigning for Bush)? If he doesn't win, can he stay in the race?

Can Romney stay in the race if he doesn't win? After all, Romney was born in Michigan and his father is a former governor. To lose would be a bit embarrassing, but would it end his campaign?

By the way, speaking of Clinton, I almost wrote "Hillary" further up in this post, and I'm pretty sure I've both read and heard various venues in which people addressed by her first name. That presumed familiarity strikes me as a bit odd, given that most people don't know the woman personally- and she hasn't historically come across as approachable. In fact, one would think, given his attempts to reach out to the youth vote and to connect with people on a personal level, that there'd be a tendency to address Sen. Obama as "Barack" then Sen. Clinton as "Hillary."

Is the fact that some people have addressed Sen. Clinton as "Hillary" (unless I'm imagining that) an indication of some sort of sexism, or is it something else?

As to my preferred candidate for president, I'm torn between Gracie Allen, candidate on the Surprise Party ticket, and myself, candidate of the Good For Nothing Party.

Yes, I know Gracie Allen is dead, but hey, so was Bill the Cat.

Rick

P.S. Speaking of presidential elections and unpredictable twists in same, I'm reminded of an issue of the original What If? series (I forget the number off hand), entitled, "What if Captain America were elected president?" In that story Cap wins the 1980 presidential election, but campaigned as "Captain America." He didn't reveal his identity until inauguration day. Question: if superheroes/crime fighters/mystery men (and women) operated in our world, could one get elected president at all, let alone without telling us his or her name until after the election? If it were someone like Captain America (or Superman, elected in an Armageddon 2001 alternate future), would whatever cult of personality might surround him/her be enough to carry her/him into the White House over a candidate with actual political experience?

For that matter, given our celebrity-obsessed culture, could a rich enough celebrity (in whatever sense that word might apply) get elected president over someone of substance because of that celebrity? I'd like to think the answer is "no", but a lot of people voted for G. W. Bush twice because he came across as akin to "Joe six-pack" and not as someone the average person couldn't connect with.

While candidates should connect with the average person (or at least provide the illusion that they can), we can't afford to have an "average person" (or a person who's famous for being famous) in the White House. Not so long as the U.S. is the "leader of the free world." Early 19th century, sure, why not? Early 21st century? Not a good idea.

So let's hope the candidates (and eventual winner) in the 2008 general election (and those elections to come) are truly presidential. Some of the current crop are, but not all of them.

Is the fact that some people have addressed Sen. Clinton as "Hillary" (unless I'm imagining that) an indication of some sort of sexism, or is it something else?

Part of it is that just saying Clinton immediately raises the problem of "which one?". The same could be said of "Bush" but the elder Bush is not nearly as much in the news as Bill C still is.

Beyond that, Hillary Clinton has actively sought to go by that name. Go to Hillaryclinton.com. and you'll see what I mean. It has, among other features Ask Hillary, The Hillary I Know, Join Team Hillary, Hillayhub (THE source for Hillary news!), Women for Hillary, and a place to sign up for your free bumper sticker which simply says Hillary for President

So I think it's safe to use her first name without fear of looking sexist. It's what she wants you to do.

I can understand the point. Familiarity with one candidate that isn't used with the other.

For me, it's because she was Hillary long before she was a candidate for anything. Bill and Hillary do this, Bill and Hillary do that, I've been hearing her referred to by her first name for almost half my life. As Mulligan said, that's been necessary to keep her separate from her husband, who until a few years ago was the primary Clinton in the news.

And let's not forget that for the first couple years of the current administration, everyone referred to the President as "Dubya" to distinguish him from his father. I'd say that's even more informal than a first name.

"Question: if superheroes/crime fighters/mystery men (and women) operated in our world, could one get elected president at all, let alone without telling us his or her name until after the election?"

Superheroes couldn't do squat in our world. Vigilantism is illegal.

Even if we had something like the superhero registration act, they still couldn't do anything for the government without a name, social security number, and all that crap. Look what Stephen Colbert had to go through so they'd even consider letting him run. There's plenty of paperwork to be signed and they're not going to accept a name that isn't on a birth certificate.

Jason,

Let me rephrase. If our world had a Captain America or a Superman (with all their positive traits) would the people be willing to vote for them? Would they say, "Hey, he's Captain America. I don't care what his real name is?"

In point of fact, during the campaign in the What If...? issue, we saw an unmasked Steve Rogers talking with his staff and his eventual vice presidential pick (a Black senator named Andrew Jackson Hawk, for the record; I've no idea if he's a regular supporting character in the Marvel universe or someone created for that issue), so his identity wasn't a total secret. I think we can also assume the necessary bureaucrats knew who he was, too, so that he could get on the balllot.

But again, would Fred and Mary Anne Average (cousins of Joe and Jane) be willing to vote for someone like Captain America- if such a person existed- just because he was Captain America?

For some people the answer would be "yes." After all, how many times have we heard someone say they voted against A instead of for B? These same people likely belong to the "Anybody but _____" camp; and might very well say to themselves, "O.K. this guy says he fought in WW II, but looks kinda young and wears a cowl, so I have no idea who he really is, but at least he's not ______. He's got my vote."

Rick

P.S. In the case of Superman in the Armageddon 2001 tie in, his identity had been exposed when as Clark he was hit by bullets meant for then -candidate Pete Ross (a few of which hit Ross, I believe, forcing him to drop out). So, in that story, Supes' I.D. had become public knowledge.

P.P.S. Re Hillary Clinton: I see your point (and Bill Mulligan's).

As to Bush the Younger, I always thought "Dubya" was too folksy and familiar- especially if he's the one that encouraged it's use. That's a far cry from James Carter inviting people to call him "Jimmy." If Bush Jr. had said, "Call me George" (or even "G.W."), that would've been better. Especially since I don't recall his father inviting people to call him George.

Going by the criteria of whether or not people would vote for a masked man...

I don't see it happening at all.

The reason we have all these laws about disclosure is because we *want* to know these things. That's something that can be ignored in a piece of heroic fiction, but once you say, "in our world," it can't be ignored. In our world a guy in a mask would be slaughtered.

Every time a woman came forward with a story about a one night stand, the masked candidate would have to ignore it because he'd have no way to say where he actually was that night in his civilian identity. Every time a "Swift Vote" style attack ad popped up claiming he'd done horrible things, he'd have to say, "I'm not the guy who did that, but I can't tell you who I really am."

There's been at least one election where a Presidential candidates took flak for not making his *medical* records public fast enough. There's no way people in our world would come remotely close to elected someone who didn't trust them enough to tell them his name.

B is you again submitting your need to demonstrate I'm wrong as your proof I'm wrong. Jerry, your persistent sniveling demonstrates the authority to enforce the law is wasted on you, because no law is founded on the resolve to snivel. You are a poor servant of the law.

You are a poor representative of mankind.

You aren't disagreeing with me, and I accept no payment to represent mankind.

As I said before, seek professional help, Mike. Otherwise, I fear your desperate and never ending need for attention is going to wind up with you hurting somebody.

Your need to pay attention to me is not proof of such a need on my part. I wasn't talking to you. You don't have to respond to anything I say.

It has, however, in my humble opinion, reached the point where anyone who engages Mike in prolonged discussion is just embarrassing themselves.

I've been saying all along it's a wonder anyone feels a need to challenge what I say.

And Kerry just endorsed Obama. Don't know if it helps much (was anyone waiting to make an opinion based on Kerry's plans?) but it must seem like a slap in the face to Edwards.

Regardless of how one feels of Kerry and his campaign in '04, he did get 59 million to Bush's 62 million popular votes. And that was a combined 20 million more votes than cast for Bush & Gore in 2000.

So, I think it could have an impact. And I agree on the Edwards bit - he's going nowhere fast.

It's amazing that the media spending 2 days painting her as an underdog allows her to claim "comeback" status

I think it shows how desperate the media is to have an impact on the race, how desperately they (the media) want to be the center of attention over the candidates. It's really deplorable behavior.

Jason,

You're very likely right, and I have to say I did find it... interesting that in that story people voted for Captain America without any idea what his real name was (though they probably voted for him because he was Captain America and/or because they agreed with him on the issues.

Because voters do pay attention to the issues. Don't they? Don't they?).

Still, one would think if someone like Captain America existed- someone who since WWII had been the living embodiment of the best of America- a goodly number of people would (for better or worse) jump on his bandwagon just because he's literally dressed in red, white and blue.

Batman, on the other hand: Not a chance.

But then, if he were to run, he'd run as Bruce Wayne.

I wonder, then, if Captain America existed in the real world, and revealed his identity when he announced his candidacy, could he win? Possibly, depending on his competition (though the whole cult of personality/celebrity that would probably surround him might help him, too). But on the other hand, would some of the mystique be gone? Would some people who would've gladly voted for Captain America hesitated to cast a vote for Steve Rogers, who I believe was laboring as a commercial artist at the time? I suspect the answer is yes. If he revealed his identity, he'd avoid one set of problems, but he'd also lose some of the glamor and mystique he'd previously enjoyed.

(Imagine what would've happened if Peter Parker had revealed his identity during the "Spider-Man day" celebration in Spider-Man 3 (not that Peter Parker would ever reveal his identity). The "love affair" New York had with Spidey would likely have been over at that point.)

Only one way to know for sure whether Captain America could get elected: Someone needs to go back in time to World War II, get injected with a super soldier formula, call himself Captain America, and do Captain America stuff (though he can feel free to skip that embarrassing "Captain America-Commie smasher" era- which everyone, including Marvel now pretends was some other guy (unless Mephisto changed that, too)). Then a few decades later, he runs for president.

It's interesting to note that Eisenhower, who to the best of my knowledge had no previous political experience, was courted by both the Democratic and Republican parties, presumably based solely on the fact that he was commander of the Allied forces in World War II. I wonder how many people who voted for him did so on that basis alone? Most, I suspect (and that'd probably be a factor for Captain America if he existed). Many people seem to think war-time experience makes you presidential material. I disagree. It probably helps, but by itself, no. Would either Alvin York or Audie Murphy been presidential material based only on their war time exploits? Would Kennedy?

As I said above, I do think that given the obsession many people in this country have with celebrities, some people would vote for a celebrity just because he or she is a celebrity. Hopefully not enough to get him or her elected. But then enough people voted for Bush in 2000 to get him the nomination because they saw him as a "regular guy." McCain, in my opinion, would've been the better choice to get the nod, because that way, no matter whether McCain or Gore won, you'd have a president with some degree of gravitas.

If I remember correctly, McCain ran out of money, while Bush had huge coffers into which to dig. Does that mean he "bought" the election? No, not in the way most people would interpret that phrase, but let's face it: if you've got lots of money and/or you're a famous and beloved celebrity and you can relate to "Joe six-pack", you'd probably have a better shot at winning the White House than your average congressman (or woman), senator or governor.

Or the average person, for that matter.

Rick

P.S. Speaking of $200 hair cuts, I remember Bill Clinton caught some flack for getting one when he was either campaigning or already in office. If memory serves, he caused a plane to be delayed in either taking off or landing, which probably irked people more than the money spent on the haircut. But if the $200 pays for the barber's time and transportation as well as the actual cost of the haircut, why don't these people just say so?

"Yes, I did pay $200, but Mr. Jones came all the way from Tipperary, and it seemed only appropriate to pay him for his time and his gas (or airfare, as the case may be). What would you have done? Given him $20 and said 'keep the change'?"

I think it shows how desperate the media is to have an impact on the race,

They may well have.

I don't know that I necessarily subscribe to the notion, but one possible reason for the NH upset was the endless, obsessive coverage of Hillary Clinton becoming slightly emotional the day before the election. They made it sound like she burst into tears when all she really did was allow the ice queen exterior to defrost ever-so-slightly. But the media coverage hammered home "poor, overworked, on the edge, sobbing, vulnerable Hillary, and it drew the female voting base that previously had been attracted to Obama. That there were sufficient undecideds in the polling who were swayed by what the media portrayed as a massive emotional outburst.

I don't know that I necessarily buy into it, but if it's true, then it's a classic example of the observer affecting the experiment.

PAD

Re: the effect of Kerry's Obama endorsement on Edwards:

It was pointed out on the pbs news hour that one of the questions asked during polling is whether government or corporations are worse, and that 3/5 of democrats say government, and 1/5 of them say corporations. Edwards has been consistently anti-corporation in his rhetoric, and his hold in the primaries reflect this wing in the party.

However Kerry's endorsement helps against Hillary, I don't see it effecting Edwards's influence -- those voters have no where else to go except with him if he accepts an invitation to be vice president.

first off, although I am late to this party, let me say that PAD's reason for choosing Edwards in the first place is entirely reasonable. For any candidate to give their time, not just a sheet of paper to an organization/cause you not only belong to but which affects your livelihood is quite the rational and "reasonable" reason to support someone.
It doesn't make it absolute that it is the right reason, but all things being equal, why WOULDN'T you support someone who took the time to visit you in person?
It reminds me of 2006 when had it set up for a financial company in Scranton to be visited by Santorum. This company had working class to those making $100,000 a year. People with privileged backgrounds and people with spotty backrounds loking for a second chance.
What better place for Santorum to make his case than a place that was GROWING and that had a truly diverse group of people and about 100 employees in Scranton, casey's hometurf but also the home of a lot of Reagan Democrats.
He never bothered to get back to me. Neither did Casey. But he was winning.
It made me chuckle when a couple of months later when Robert Novak reported Santorum had ticked off a bunch of high-level financial executives by "blowing them off" as well.
It really is important to "press the flesh". That is why Iowa does play an important role, in my opinion. It basically says "If we have seen and heard you for over a year and actually SEEN you at Home Depot and barbecues and you still don't get over 5% of the vote, you should drop the f--k out! Because if your message didn't resonate one-on-one, how is it going to resonate in TV ads, fliers, etc. It DOES winnow the field.
But thanks to this year, it doesn't entirely shape it.
As far as Fred Thompson and others, they obviously DID THINK they had support before entering the race. I still don't think Thompson is politically dead, by the way, if he places high in South Carolina. but irregardless, why shouldn't those with the drive give it a shot until they see they don't have the necessary support? We need more candidates and more ideas.

I'm voting for him simply because he's a damn good candidate. I was hoping he would have been the Democratic candidate four years ago.