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 4