Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Two bills, two votes, but what will happen? Plus: Some good news for a change
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s Capitol Fax (Use all caps in password)
Posted in:
Wherein you can discuss last night’s astonishing results and the future of Obama’s presidential campaign.
*** UPDATE *** For your perusal, exit polling…
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 7:48 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Two bills, two votes, but what will happen? Plus: Some good news for a change
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s Capitol Fax (Use all caps in password)
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Anyway you break it down, it was a great night for Democrats. In this fickle independent minded state with an open primary, the turnout for Dems nearly lapped that of the Republicans. Barring a Holy War with the Persians, not a bad sign for November 4th.
As far as Obama and Clinton, it’s going to be an old fashioned scramble for delegates. He’ll probably take Nevada and has a good shot at taking SC as well. But the real winner is Edwards, the longer he can hold on and pick up a delegate here and there, the better position he is in to bargain his way into a sweet position.
Also, Go Dawgs.
Comment by Diamond Dog Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 7:55 am
I’m wondering about the anger John Edward’s has for the Clinton’s in this election. Unwittingly (or maybe not), is he going to be Barack’s secret weapon/attack dog?
Comment by The 'Broken Heart' of Rogers Park Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 7:57 am
last night was a speed bumb on the road to the white house for our state’s own senator
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 7:59 am
I think, Broken, that Obama is gonna have to try to push Edwards out of the race and consolidate the anti-Hillary vote.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 8:05 am
I was shocked - wasn’t prepared for Obama’s defeat becaues all the public polls indicated a substantial margin of victory for him. If it had not been for the polls, I would have been better prepared for the disappointmnt . But I thnk Obama will rise to the occasion - he’s comfortable in th3e underdog role.
My reservations about Clinton are strictly baseed upon her electability. I don’t think she can beat McCain becuse of her high negatives - not much appeal to independents and swing voters. I don’t have any reservations about her qualifications, experience or fitness to be President.
I’d feel a lot better about Obama’s defeat if I thought Clinton had the smarts to choose Obama as VP, but she’s going to choose some non-entity like Ted Strickland to try to win Ohio.
Comment by Captain America Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 8:09 am
Edwards is actually doing more damage to the folks he claims to be representing. The interviews I have seen of Edwards supporter indicates they break Obama without their guy. If you add most of the Edwards votes into Obama the picture swings a different way. HRC wants Edwards in this to the end.
This defiently hurts Obama, but interestingly he got one more delegate out of NH then HRC. He needs victories in SC and NV for tues momemntum.
That said Obama made an excellent point on Good Morning America today. A month ago he was 20 points down in NH. So in less then a month he managed to close a gap of 20 points! Not bad at all. If only the college’s had been in session and the kids in town.
This thing is still anybodies race, best primary…ever.
Comment by Ghost Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 8:14 am
as analysis indicated all week, “independent” voters (those famed new hampshire swing voters who prize going back and forth between gop and dem presidential races every four year) were trying to choose between mccain and obama. polls with big leads for obama probably pushed them to vote in the gop primary, and go for mccain.
the one (poll) screen i looked at figured they would break 60%+ for obama and a third for mccain. i’d bet that was actually reversed…
Comment by bored now Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 8:31 am
HRC wants Edwards in this to the end.
Yep, and that’s scenario that will give us Gore-Obama, because this is probably correct,
My reservations about Clinton are strictly baseed upon her electability. I don’t think she can beat McCain becuse of her high negatives - not much appeal to independents and swing voters.
Democrats wasted way too much time talking about Bush, Rove, Palme, etc… instead of thinking about the future.
Comment by Bill Baar Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 8:39 am
NH looked like IL, even the second place D got more votes than the R winner. As for Obama, he lost a tiny NE state, big deal. The future is in SC and other more populous, more diverse states.
I am not a fan of BO, but he is not the type to (show) panic and his campaign along with his Ron Paul like supporters will move forward.
Comment by Wumpus Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 8:48 am
While it may be a risky move, they need to hit on the 20+ years of Bush/Clinton and how nothing will change. They also need to hit on the fact that being first lady does not count towards experience. From the Republican side, they need HRC to win, then they take the gloves off and push to get the Clinton haters out.
Comment by He makes Ryan Look like a Saint Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 8:53 am
What’s with the delegates? How can she win but get the same 9 delegates he gets? I’m not upset (I’m a Barack supporter–though not rabidly so) I’m just curious how that happens. And why did McCain get less delegates (8) than either of them? Who sets the delegate count and is the count and distribution determined by the state or party?
Comment by cermak_rd Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 8:53 am
My prediction is that if HRC get the dem nod, you see many of Obamas supporters backlash and vote for the GOP. HRC and her hubby, in my humble oppinion, are to polarizing to win the national. It is amazing how much non-dem support Obama is getting. This is most of his numbers. HRC is still mostly drawing donw on the old dem core andf establishment voters. Obamas draw shows him to be the canidate to easily unseat the unpopular repubs. HRC numbers show that she has the best chance of helping to keep the repubs in office.
The establishment dems are going to blow the chance to get the repubs out of the presidency by pushing the entitlment canidate over the elcetable canidate I fear.
Comment by Ghost Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 8:55 am
Cermak, welcome to the hidden superdelegate who answers to no one
we still have the smokey backroom system of insiders selecting the canidate, we just call them superdelegates and hold primaries so that no one looks behind the curtain to see who is really running the show. In NH, Obama actually picked up a total of 12 delegates to HRC 11. So Obama got more delegates when yah include the supers. He gets 9 for his primary numbers, and 3 supers, for 12. HRC got 9 for the primary and 2 super for a totla of 11.
The vote numbers were close enough that they split the delegates (Edwards pulled in 4 for the number of votes he resvied.)
So Obama camne in second in votes by first in delegates.
Comment by Ghost Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 9:01 am
Like I said yesterday, HRC was beatened to a bloody pulp over the past week, and voters responded by supporting her. The moment came when it looked like she dropped her mask and the tears started to fall. This moment was replayed repeatedly and was the talk of the nation for two days. That is when the tide turned and voters realized that she wasn’t the boogeyman loser that had been painted by The Media.
All she had to do is tie, but her win has become the story until the next contest. This gives her the “come-back” title she desperately wanted, relieves her of the status of front runner, and has triple the news days to ride this that Obama had with his Iowa win.
As I had also posted, I believe that early primary/caucus state voters recognize their national roles. Iowa played last week and booted the results to New Hampshire. New Hampshire “fixed” the Iowa results by showing Obama and Huckabee that their bandwagon had no wheels there. New Hampshire has not booted their results to Michigan and then to South Carolina.
Obama might pick up those states, but Super Tuesday will be Hillary’s night, now that she has that New Hampshire win. Edwards will stay in the race, just as he had in 2004 which also helps Clinton.
Obama now has to weather The Media. Hillary was beaten to a pulp and survived, now it is Barack’s turn. As a Chicago politician, there could be an awful lot to show American voters that could remove some of the veneer from The Eloquent Facade.
It is not over, regardless of how many tongue-baths the media gives Obama.
Comment by VanillaMan Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 9:04 am
“Obamas supporters backlash and vote for the GOP” I just explained to my mate that this is what I would do, and I make my living from the Dems. I am not voting for a Clinton. If she wins the nomination, I vote Green or Red. I she wins the November election, I quit my job and find another line of work. If she were to win a second term, I would likely leave the country.
Comment by Obama or nobody Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 9:07 am
Obama’s campaign certainly has a much better future than I can say for some of those pollsters. Hopefully, when I order pizza delivery this weekend I can ask one of those pollsters when they deliver it on their new job!
Comment by fedup dem Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 9:09 am
Last night’s results were not “astonishing.” They were just results of people in NH voting for their favored candidate. Maybe they just don’t Chicago politicians as much as they like former First Ladies. Clinton’s past is more of an open book and I think voters are choosing more of known quantity with her. With Obama all the voters “know” about him is what he says; and with the reaction on this blog and in other quarters to his health care statement, what he says may not be very substantial. The next few weeks will be fun to watch. I wish Illinois had an open primary.
Comment by anon Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 9:13 am
VM I disagree with this comment… “…by showing Obama… that [his] bandwagon had no wheels [in NH].”
He definetly had wheels. HRC had a 20 point lead a month ago which he closed to effeectively no lead since they split the delegates evenly. He managed to grab one more super then HRC so he technically came out ahead with one more delegate. Since the race is all about the delegates I think your comment about a wagon with no wheels has no legs.
Comment by Ghost Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 9:15 am
Bill, Al Gore has as much shot at the Dem nomination as Newt Gingrich. Ain’t gonna happen.
–
Ghost, Why would Obama supporters — the ones most interested in “change” — ever support reelecting the GOP to the White House?!?!
Didya wake up on the wrong side of the bed?
–
Cermak, The delegate count doesn’t match the “percentage” or “vote” count because people don’t just vote for the candidate, they also vote for a delegate slate. (Same happens here in Illinois. Read your ballot closely — you vote for both your preference for prez candidate and a slate of delegates dedicated to a given prez candidate. Technically, you could split that vote.)
Also, the Republicans have a different delegate count overall than the Democrats and that’s just because of different party rules and regs.
–
This will make for a much more interesting primary and is, overall, good for the Dem party. Keeps their candidates, and eventual nominee, in the spotlight longer.
The only trend shaping up so far is that Dems are whalloping Repubs in totals. Looking at Iowa cumulatively, Huckabee came in 4th behind Obama, Edwards, and Clinton. In NH, “Mac is Back” was back at 3rd behind Clinton and Obama in total votes. Ouch.
I think Edwards will only be in the race til Feb 6th. He doesn’t have enough cash to compete well on Insert-Superlative-Here Tuesday.
Obama’s path depends on UNITE HERE to a degree. They have been “scheduled” to announce their national endorsement for him… no news yet that they’ve made it official. Their culinary local in Vegas will be huge in the upcoming Nevada caucus.
If UNITE HERE waffles then Nevada is a bit up in the air and I wouldn’t be surprised if results are similar to Iowa with all three candidates very close together.
I think S. Carolina goes to Obama by a nose. And Feb. 5th states will be split, but break for Obama overall.
In the end, Obama will still be the nominee. (And I’m torn on my earlier prediction that the Iowa caucus winners on both sides will be the nominees, vs. my later prediction that Obama would still take the Dem side but McCain will back into the Repub nomination over Huckabee.)
No matter what though, this is great for our country: we’re talking, debating, etc. about our nation’s direction … and we have choices to match our thoughts.
Comment by Rob_N Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 9:18 am
Rich,
Yes - Obama needs Edwards out. But I don’t see that happening because Edwards doesn’t have anything to lose by staying in. In 2004 he hung around until he got the VP offer, which rewarded him for his persistency. So he will probably do the same thing. He wants his moment at the convention and wants to go in as a player, not as an observer.
Clinton discovered her presentation over the weekend. When she said she found her voice last night, she was referring to her “moment”. Hillary Clinton discovered that she won support by being softer than she had been presenting herself. By doing so, she reminded woman voters of their common goals and she won woman voters in a landslide yesterday. Hillary discovered her political power base and how to connect to it - quite by accident, it seems.
So Obama will not be running against The Nutcracker anymore. The New Softer Hillary will catch on and will be celebrated by her win and the time she has before the next contest. We will see a more feminine Hillary and this will make positive news for her campaign.
It was one thing for her to slying comment about being ganged up on by “the boys”, it was her showing voters that she was “a girl” that won her New Hampshire. This new image will work as long as she can swing it and win again.
Comment by VanillaMan Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 9:21 am
I’m always astonished by people supporting “dynasty” politics — the Bush dynasty and now (perhaps) the Clinton dynasty.
I’m squarely in the Obama camp — I think Hillary’s dreary and uninspiring — but I’m fascinated by the urge by folks to keep the families in office. You would think — I would, at least — that America is the sort of country that desires fresh starts — new faces, new connections, new politics.
But after seeing HRC do (much, much) better than the polls suggested, I’ve come to fear that Americans *don’t* want the fresh starts. They want the dynasties, the families, and will do whatever they can to keep the same faces and names parading through newscast after newscast.
I’m not saying it’s wrong or anything. It it what it is. I’m just surprised.
Comment by Macbeth Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 9:26 am
If Clinton was showing NH voters she was “a girl”, then should Obama have shown he was “more white?” Shoud he be more white in the future? It’s odd how Clinton’s gender gets more comment than Obama’s race. Either both traits have validity, or neither do. I would vote for neither.
Comment by anon Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 9:27 am
Obama lost yesterday. He lost 13 points between the last polls and the votes taken. Go ahead and put lipstick on that pig, but Obama lost a vital primary.
Iowa blows and we all know it, but get suckered into their game since it is the first game to play. But New Hampshire is a real contest with real history and real consequences. Even with 40% of independant voters, Obama lost. Future primaries will not have those independant voters to support Obama, so he loses an important edge.
He lost in New Hampshire when everything was going for him; momentum, crowds, a huge independant voter base, media tongue-baths, an opponent on the ropes that everyone said was a goner.
Obama had a BIG LOSS yesterday. I believe this will become clearer this weekend when The Media starts celebrating “The New Softer-Gentler Hillary”.
Comment by VanillaMan Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 9:29 am
I do not find it astonishing at all. HRC has been way ahead in NH until recently. One thing this does show is that the pollsters cannot effectively account for all the new primary voters.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 9:29 am
It’s a great race on both the R and D sides. Kinda reminds me of the chariot race in Ben Hur. The crashes and whips will now start to come out. The pundits are all in a lather. I would much rather see several candidates bouncing back and forth for the lead then show “here is the annointed one”. BO has the Kennedy like verbal and presentation skills for video. HRC has been around awhile but she needs to show the personal side that seems to naturally happen for BO. JE talks well as you would expect for a successful lawyer, but I keep thinking what part of the message is he leaving out. Who actually has the best skills to lead almost does not matter. This is PR time to sell your image as better than the other candidates and PR has little to do with actual ability. From a PR view, BO is looking good.
While you have to give all these people credit for stamina, with all the time they spend campaigning who is doing the original job they were elected to? Edwards, Romney, and Thompson do not have another public job I know about, but all the others do. Must be nice.
Comment by zatoichi Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 9:31 am
I don’t understand how some people who claim to be Democrats wouldn’t vote for Clinton if she got the nomination. Instead these Dems would vote Red?? I think if people could manage to throw their support behind someone like Kerry 4 years ago, we could get behind Clinton who has actually spent her whole life working on behalf of women, children, and the poor. I really don’t understand why people hate her so much. Is it because she has always been a strong, independent woman who seeks power?
Comment by why all the hate? Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 9:32 am
VM, Obama didn’t “lose” 13 points from the last poll. He ended with 37 percent. Aggregate polling had him at just under 37 percent. Clinton went from 30.4 in aggregate polling to 39 yesterday.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 9:32 am
Hilary’s choking up rallied every woman over a certain age who’s had to be tough to compete in what is still basically a man’s world. As a man, I admit to a twinge of sympathy for her and was completely put off by Obama’s gloating and chest pounding. Call me old-fashioned, but when you best a woman, show some class.
By the way, Barack, last week was your high point. Now if you want to win, you’re going to have to fight. Some young gunslinger in the national media is going to want to make a name for himself, so steel yourself for the coming storms about your lack of record, your church, your real estate dealings and your law business.
Some of it won’t be fair, but life isn’t fair. You though it was over — it’s just starting. Cowboy up.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 9:32 am
Also, in response to the whole “Dynasty” thing… Clinton was a RODHAM to begin with. She shouldn’t be punished by changing her name due to marriage…
Comment by why all the hate? Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 9:34 am
Rob_N the short answer is people do not view HRC as a change. The better answer is that people who tend to support Obama and even Edwards have a hatred of HRC (which is a bit odd). HRC has always evoked a lover her or hate her repsonse. Few people who do not support her say, I like HRC, but Obama is my preferred canidate. It trends more like HRC is corrupt/evil/establishment/bush lite (whatever epitathic moniker you like) so I support Obama or Edwards. If I can’t vote for one of them I’m sending a message by voting Red. (notice the comment shortly after mine, this is an example of what I have noticed). Also look at HRC numbers, so far the majority of declared dems (meaning independents and repubs who voted dem in the primary) have voted for somone else. So the cirtical questions is what happens with these votes if HRC is the canidate. My projection is they break Red. So dems are poised to lose big by pushing the establishment canidate.
Comment by Ghost Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 9:35 am
I agree, wordslinger, that many women voters were repulsed by the ferocious and pervasive “Ding-dong the witch is dead” reaction to Iowa. But I didn’t see that from Obama.
Besides that reaction (which more of us should have seen), Obama played an overly cautious prevent defense, didn’t have a ground game to match Clinton’s and left some key issues on the table.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 9:35 am
“It’s odd how Clinton’s gender gets more comment than Obama’s race.”
You obviously haven’t been reading the news about Obama and haven’t been keeping up. Obama’s race has been all the rage even in Eurpoean news coverage. Bill Clinton even said that he couldn’t make Hillary taller, darker or a man - which considering the source, was the correct comment to make to the media bludgeoning she was taking.
So to cynically say that perhaps Obama should act more white isn’t thinking. If you wish to make a similar analogy, you would have been correct, (but still dead wrong) to ask if Obama should act more black. [Sentence deleted for profanity]
Comment by VanillaMan Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 9:35 am
He didn’t feature in much press last night - he rarely does - but they’re going to keep talking about a man named Michael Whouley. He’s to the nation what Mike Noonan is to Illinois. He ran Iowa for Kerry in 2004. He ran New Hampshire for Hillary in 2008.
One blog this morning referred to him as the “Keyser Soze” of Democratic field operatives.
Either this man has a genius for lucking into the right place at the right time, or he knows how to get bodies to the polls in a tight spot.
Comment by ZC Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 9:37 am
VM, European media doesn’t count.
Also, your Bill Clinton quote is completely wrong. I’m not sure where you got that but you can watch the video here
He didn’t say “darker.” Please, get your facts straight.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 9:39 am
“You’re likeable enough, Hillary.” — B. O. We didn’t know what we were seeing, but it was just one step in the evolution of the candidate as victim. On Monday, the candidate as victim dramatized with apparent deep emotion what she had said in the last debate, i.e. “it hurts my feelings.”
Sen. Edwards was quick to pounce on Sen. Clinton’s emotive moment as unsuitable for a commander-in-chief-to-be. Pounding on the candidate as victim only galvanizes her support, witness the HRCs strong showing among women in NH, but not IA. Edwards is really helping HRC and hurting BO with his strong rhetoric.
Look for more drama from the candidate as victim.
Comment by Anon III Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 9:51 am
Good point on Obama in the debate.
One other point I think that has been overlooked is the blunder he made at the end when all the candidates were asked what their biggest debate mistake had been.
Edwards and Richardson both offered up their bloopers. Clinton refused. Obama then agreed with Clinton. I thought at the time he missed an opportunity to once again tie her to GWB, who (you will remember) said he couldn’t remember a mistake when asked about it in an ‘04 debate.
Such is life.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 9:53 am
I wasn’t properly prepared to entertain the comment that “anon” made regarding the race.
So I scribbled and it showed.
Comment by VanillaMan Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 9:53 am
I’m always astonished by people supporting “dynasty” politics
Don’t live anywhere near Illinois, do we?
Comment by Pat Collins Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 9:53 am
Didn’t Obama play a role in registering votes..or something with the Clintons?
Comment by Wumpus Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 9:54 am
NH has history of being contrarians. These next 2 races will be better indications as to where this race is. Nevada especially because of the heavy union vote will be big when stating their case to contributers.
Comment by Kid Vegas Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 9:54 am
I was thinking like others here that Obama needs Edwards to get out and stop splitting the anti-Hillary vote.
I heard last night from a buddy in DC that Edwards is planning to stay in until the convention, and continue to accrue delegates. It’s entirely possible that Clinton and Obama stay fairly evenly matched and that neither one has a majority going in to the convention.
That leaves Edwards as the king-maker, and while I don’t know what his price might be (strongly doubt he wants the VP slot again), do you think he’d throw his support to Cinton? It might turn out to be good for Obama after all.
Comment by Don't Worry, Be Happy Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 9:58 am
“These next 2 races will be better indications as to where this race is. Nevada especially because of the heavy union vote will be big…”
Now THAT sounds contrarian and doesn’t fit any other states.
Comment by VanillaMan Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 10:03 am
I do see parallels between Obama and JFK, but not the JFK of 1960 — more like the JFK of 1956, when he came close to being tapped for vice president at the Dem convention. He lost (to Estes Kefauver if I recall correctly), but he attracted a lot of attention and didn’t get tagged as a “loser” as some feared.
I think Obama now is at a point similar to where JFK was in the mid ’50s — he may not win the nomination this time, but he will be in great shape for 2012, by which time he should have more national exposure, more of a national record on which to campaign, and he’ll be able to campaign against the mistakes of whomever does win the White House this time around.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 10:07 am
Obama is going to learn what others such as Rick Lazio (remember him?) have learned. Hillary can instantaneously morph from a strong, independent woman who can hang with the big boys into a meek woman victimized by big, bad men. This calculated act is a time-honored winner for Hillary so Obama needs to be very careful in dealing with her.
Comment by Independent Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 10:14 am
Change is never easy.
Senator Obama will battle on to victory.
VM says “Future primaries will not have those independent voters to support Obama”
Illinois has an open primary as does California and many other upcoming states, where independents are able to vote in the Democratic primary.
Comment by (618) Democrat Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 10:17 am
We needed Rich here to focus on the big point — the remarkable surge in Hillary’s numbers, and only Hillary’s numbers. She cleaned up the undecided vote from the final polling. This is a switch significantly outside the margin of error for all the polls.
What’s the consensus here? I’ve seen a lot of tin-hat stuff on other blogs about ballot fraud, but I’m going to go with an all-out revolt against the media by women voters, seeing as all the Edmund Muskie “tearing up” baloney came the day before the election right as the polling was finishing up.
Comment by Angry Chicagoan Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 10:23 am
What is the “fundamental change” that Obama keeps promising? Surely a “fundamental change” must manifest itself in something specific. Have I missed something?
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 10:23 am
All American media has focused on Obama’s race. Only recently has Hillary’s gender come up.
Comment by phocion Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 10:24 am
For a guy who claims to represent change, Obama is being smothered by constant references in this campaign as Kennedy-esque, Martin Luther King-esque and other half century old icons.
Obama, like me, doesn’t remember Kennedys, (except Teddy), or MLK, (except as a holiday), or race riots, 1968, civil rights marches, Woodstock, or Summer of Love. It seems that seniors need to recognize that this era is over and no one will replace their beloved martyrs.
So, I cringe whenever Barack dreges up these old icons in order to stimulate voter support and shroud himself in immortality. Its creepy and vapid.
He can’t have it both ways. His political solutions are throwbacks to the era of The Great Society. His economics a throwback to Keynesian economics. Like Al Gore in 1988, it seems as if Obama is a “young fogey”, bridging generations by introducing an era he doesn’t remember to young voters naive enough to believe their Boomer-age college professors.
Change? If Obama’s political positions represent change, it is “Back to the Future” 1958-style change that we evolved from over the past 25 years. I, for one, don’t want to return to the days of stagflation, nanny-state mentality, social unrest, disrespect for traditions and families, and free love. It didn’t work then, doesn’t work in Europe, and won’t work now.
How about some real change Senator? And how about explaining it in a way that doesn’t make you sound like a messiah, a martyr, a Kennedy, or other worn-out throw-backs. How about some meat on those ghostly bones you dig up and parade on stage?
Enough puffery!
Comment by VanillaMan Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 10:27 am
Obama’s “concession” speech last night sounded more like a victory speech. I couldn’t believe the audacity he displayed in references to Abraham Lincoln and JFK — obviously trying to liken himself to them! It was, quite frankly, disgusting.
I was, though, amused at his comments about how “our new majority” will effectuate change. Well, his “old” majority in Illinois didn’t do anything to bring about change. Quite the opposite, actually. When he was elected to the Senate, how did he bring about change? Why, he endorsed Todd Stroger, of course! Say what you want about how he couldn’t endorse the GOP candidate, but I’ll respond with two alternatives: 1-he keeps talking about bipartisanship and “bringing people together” … just a bit of talking out the side of his mouth, eh? 2-he could have simply not made an endorsement. But, he wants King Daley’s support, so he continues to turn a blind eye to the corrupt status quo at home.
So, outside of shiney public image and self-aggrandizing statements, please tell me how you trust this man to actually work for change on a national level, where the stakes (and yes, the juicy “steaks”) are higher and more profitable?
Comment by Snidely Whiplash Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 10:31 am
my thoughts - the incredibly sexist attacks in the traditional media (Chris Matthews, numerous dead tree writers) on Clinton after the “crying” incident led to a lot of women breaking late for Clinton as a way of issuing a big “F YOU”. And good for them (and I say this as an Obama supporter). The treatment of Clinton by people like Chris Matthews is absolutely appalling.
The other factor, I think, is that Obama was showing such a huge lead that a lot of independents who were going to vote Obama instead voted McCain to keep the nomination from Romney.
Comment by jerry 101 Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 10:32 am
VM, while your last post has merit, I would say that Obama is a year older than myself and I remember MLK and RFK.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 10:41 am
I don’t understand all the pundits and their nail biting. Who would have figured Obama to get as far as he has at this point in time? That is the story on the Democrat side of the fence. One win does not mean “momentum.” A winning streak is something else.
Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 10:43 am
And, Jerry 101, I agree with you. Chris Matthews is horrid, unwatchable and has a real Hillary problem (or is it all women?).
Years ago, he had a different show that discussed insider DC stuff. I met him at the 1996 convention and congratulated him on hosting such an excellent program. Then came Hardball and I stopped watching.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 10:44 am
Snidely makes a good point. Now that the Obama honeymoon is over, I can envision a national media story that focuses on his links, however tenuous, to what they still refer to as the “Chicago Machine.” Basically, how can he be an agent of change when he is a product of a profoundly corrupt political environment?
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 10:44 am
If gender and race cards are being played by any candidate, it leaves something of a Hobson’s choice . . . unless of course we can focus on substantive issues and concrete proposals to debate. And that those topics get our, and the rest of the media’s, only attention.
Comment by anon Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 10:47 am
I agree that this was a shocking, and big loss for Obama, since NH allows independents to just stroll up and vote in the Democratic Primary, (just like Illinois.)
Many other states, including several ones on Feb. 5, do not allow that. In those states, you have to be a registered Democrat to vote in the primary, which strongly favors Clinton for the future.
Comment by Anon Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 10:52 am
I think race and gender are “plus” factors here. Both Obama and Clinton would make great Presidents because of their experiences and policies. It would also be incredible to have our first African-American or female President.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 10:58 am
Anon I disagree. There were somthing like 4 polls released about Obama just prior to the primary. 3 polls had him winning, but had his support pegged at what he actually received. The 4th poll actually had Hillary up by 1 point, which would be in the margin of error for the poll. Hilary didnt pull Obama supporters from Obama, he did not lose any of the points polls showed he had gained. keep in mind there were a lot of people he either polled as undecided, or were supporting other canidates. So obama did not drop or lose any of his support. HRC made a great comeback by picking up undecidededs and supporters from Bidden and Kuicinik.
VM your really reaching to try and make this look bad for Obama, and it does not work. He pulled his numbers up from the teens and then low twenties to 37%! he held that 37%. He pulled out more delegates then HRC. He did not get the point spread he had hoped because HRC made up ground, but it was not made up at Obamas expense by him losing voters that had been supporting him.
Comment by Ghost Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 11:04 am
The most amazing stat for me in the exit poll was that Edwards while behind HRC beat Obama in the category most likely to win in November. That suggests that Obama has the idealist/dreamer vote in the primary, but these are pessimitic in the general.
Comment by Truthful James Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 11:13 am
===The 4th poll actually had Hillary up by 1 point, which would be in the margin of error for the poll. ===
The last poll had Obama up by one, not Clinton.
Suffolk was the only poll in NH that had Clinton leading throughout Obama’s bounce. When they finally switched, I figured Obama was a can’t lose proposition. Oops.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 11:14 am
My bad, I had the suffolk numbers reversed.
Comment by Ghost Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 11:16 am
Snidely– I believe there are some parallels between Obama and the two presidents you mentioned above. They were BOTH presidents who didn’t have much experience and/or grand resumes filled with fabulous feats of triumph. But the one thing that they did have was VISION. And their vision was something that benefitted the entire nation and moved it FORWARD.
Perhaps your “disgust” for Obama and intent to vent that sentiment made you forget about their quailifications as a candidate at one time. I just don’t see why he is such a bullseye for you. But so be it…
wordslinger– I think the “fundamental change” that he is referring to is not in some grand scheme of policy or initiatives because he is not in office at this point– nor does he know specifically what can and can’t be done at this point (so it would be unwise to state what he will do without knowing all the information). I think the change that he is referring to is being shown int the outpour of interest in this election. I think the 17-29 vote is one example of how he has galvanized a demographic that NORMALLy is overlooked because they are considered an inconsistent voting block.
Anon III and Rich– LOVE the comment on the “You’re likeable enough, Hillary.” I thought the exact same thing. Although, i didn’t think about how he could have capitalized on her NOT commenting on that position.
Comment by YouNeverSawMe Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 11:20 am
History will show that the Illinois senator won his neighboring state’s caucus and with the wind at his back and boundless media love, lost the first caucus.
Losing New Hampshire is bigger than losing Iowa. Clinton only had to wait 5 days and the bonfires and pitchforks were out for her throughout those 5 days. Obama’s is a bigger loss and he will have to wait a lot longer than 5 days to “fix” it, if he can. He better hope The Media doesn’t start looking behind his pretty prose and wondering what all the hoopla is about. We will see if the bonfires are set, the pitchforks are out, and if he gets grilled as much as Hillary was grilled after Iowa.
Good thing he is prettier than her.
Finally about Chris Matthews - after Iowa he gave Obama a tongue bath that would embarrass Caligula. Matthews said that Obama was “delivered” to us. Matthews slobbered on about Obama as if there was a Star over Barack’s birthplace and he was carrying Frankinsense to crown him king.
Matthews is absolutely nauseating and really hurts NBC, along with Olbermann.
Comment by VanillaMan Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 11:32 am
“Good thing he is prettier than her.”
Prettier than SHE.
Comment by VanillaMan Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 11:34 am
It’s gonna be an interesting ride.
One thing I’ll suggest before I head to session is that reporters may be hypersensitive now to any perceived backlash against Obama (race, etc.) that was seen against Clinton in NH.
In other words, all sides need to watch the gloating.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 11:37 am
I’m not giving up the fight for Obama. I can’t afford to go to South Carolina after 8 days in Iowa, but maybe I can go somewhere for a few days before the Feburary 5 election. As far as I am concerned New Hampshire was a draw. But Clinton’s plurality allowed her to ressurect her campaign so she defintely was the real victor.
I don’t think Obama voters will vote for the GOP, but some of the younger idealists and first timers might sit out the election because of disilluionment. That’s why Clinton really needs Obama as her VP if she ultimately prevails,even though she won’t choose him.
Comment by Captain America Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 11:37 am
Here’s an interesting blurb about NH ballot laws. Chicago pols have known about this forever — that the top of the ballot is best. How about a future QOTD — should Illinois switch to a rotating list of names, like New Hampshire wisely used to do?
Comment by Prairie Sage Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 11:40 am
The best/worst Mathews thing was the weird thing about Fred Thompson being a manly man who smelled of old spice and cigars and was so manly and ….
Ick.
The dude looks like he smells of bengay.
Comment by ArchPundit Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 11:45 am
Rich pointed out what happened best when he mentioned that Obama met his pre-election polling numbers—essentially the undecideds seem to have broken pretty uniformly towards Clinton.
The crying that wasn’t a cry was the lead on all three network newscasts and was the buzz–the press’ take on it was awful and women reasonably reacted.
Comment by ArchPundit Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 11:47 am
===#Matthews is absolutely nauseating and really hurts NBC, along with Olbermann.
Yeah, Olbermann is MSNBC’s top rated show. They should ditch him immediately.
Comment by ArchPundit Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 11:48 am
Politicalwire.com is reporting that Obama got the support of the Culinary Worker’s Union in Nevads , in addition to the State SEIU.
Comment by Captain America Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 11:50 am
“I believe there are some parallels between Obama and the two presidents you mentioned above. They were BOTH presidents who didn’t have much experience…”
Baloney. Kennedy had four times more years in Congress than Obama has and was younger. Clinton was only a couple years older than Obama, but had a dozen years as a governor. When Gore ran in 1988, he was 39 years old and had a decade in Congress. Yes, Abraham Lincoln had only two years in Congress, but didn’t spend them running for president - he had two complete years.
Rich and I had discussed this “experience” issue before, but many voters do not wish to elect a person with no national experience beyond a half term. I voted for Obama twice - but he was asking to be a senator, not a president. His qualifications in 2004 were suitable for the US Senate. Obama is a great guy! But he is not ready.
“I think the 17-29 vote is one example of how he has galvanized a demographic that NORMALLy is overlooked because they are considered an inconsistent voting block.”
Also baloney. History clearly shows that we have had young voters motivated by presidential candidates during most presidential election years. After WWII, young voters elected a generation of young men to national office, including presidents Nixon and Kennedy, and leaders such as Dole, . Young people made McGovern, Hart, Dean, Paul, Anderson, Clinton and many others presidential contenders.
So enough.
Comment by VanillaMan Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 11:51 am
Hillary got certain women who were catching on with Obama’s message of hope and change to switch over as they saw themselves relive moments they have had thinking about their children in Hillary’s teary moment. Oh wait, she is a woman like me after all and look she cares about the future too, she’s not just all spitfire.
Some moderates who said they were going to vote for Obama saw polls suggesting a big victory for him and wanted to do anything they could to stop a Huckabee/Romney Republican contest by voting for McCain.
Behind the scenes, Clinton called in every last favor he had left in NH. You probably won’t read about this, but you KNOW a lot of debts were evened last night or now Bill even owes some people big time. They pulled out all the stops because without a win in NH, the train could be off the tracks. It was time to throw every chip in and that’s exactly what happened.
How many percentage points was each one of these worth? 1? 2? Sure, Clinton won by 3% so these three items helped in a big way.
Also for people who talk about Iowa being the ‘weird’ state and NH being the real contest. McCain won NH in 2000, Buchanan won in 1996, Tongas won in 1992. Incumbents or VPs on the other side of the aisle won every race since ‘92 so you have to throw them out. So really the only time NH got it ‘right’ was Kerry in 2004.
Iowa was Kerry in ‘04, Bush in ‘00, Dole in ‘96 and Harkin in ‘92 as a favorite son. Incumbents/VPs on the other side of the aisle.
That’s not to say it is over for Obama or Clinton or McCain or Huckabee (or even Romney and Edwards), but let’s just try and stick to things that are true, okay?
Like it’s over for Thompson, Richardson, Paul, and Giliani.
Comment by A couple of things happened Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 11:53 am
With such a dismal record, why does ANYONE take the polls seriously? Remember the erroneous presidential polls in 2000 and 2004? Reciting “eenie meenie minee moe…” might be more accurate. Pollsters seem to be more interested in making news than in reporting it.
Comment by North of I-80 Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 11:59 am
Did the undecideds break uniformly for Clinton?
Based on the NH exit polling, it looks like people who made up their minds on election day split about 50-50 for Clinton and Obama.
Did the pollsters anticipate they would break much more heavily towards Obama, though? That could have been part of the problem.
Comment by ZC Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 12:12 pm
VM, the ratings suggest Olbermann is about the only thing keeping MSNBC’s prime time afloat at the moment.
Agree on Matthews though — to shamelessly borrow from the satirical take on British history “1066 and All That”, Matthews, rather like a certain Anglo-Scottish king, slobbers at the mouth and has favorites, and is therefore bad. But overall that’s putting it too mildly; I just had to use the slobbering part because it’s appropriate.
Comment by Angry Chicagoan Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 12:13 pm
The results of the New Hampshire primary astonished me. Now that the bloom is off the Obama rose, I expect the Rezco matter to finally become an election issue. I thought Hillary was worried that going negative when she was ahead was unnecessary and could backfire.
Now that she is the “comeback kid” and has won a primary unexpectedly, she might decide to dirty him up and try to remove the polish off this hotrod. What better way of doing that than introducing the country to Chicago politics at its finest.
She has to be careful though, because you could win the battle but lose the war.
Comment by Garp Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 12:19 pm
Ghost,
Yes, the superdelegates (governors, congress critters, political bosses, etc.) then you have how the normal delegates are divided and whether they are committed and if so for how many ballots and whether they are distributed winner take all or proportionally…
I’m beginning to think a bunch of drunken monkeys with a set of darts, some poker chips and a piece of graph paper could have devised a less convoluted system for nominating a candidate.
Is there a site out there that explains on a state by state level how delegates are determined, assigned etc and which states are proportional?
Comment by cermak_rd Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 12:20 pm
===Also baloney. History clearly shows that we have had young voters motivated by presidential candidates during most presidential election years. After WWII, young voters elected a generation of young men to national office, including presidents Nixon and Kennedy, and leaders such as Dole, . Young people made McGovern, Hart, Dean, Paul, Anderson, Clinton and many others presidential contenders.
Don’t let facts get in the way. Young voters are the least likely to vote and steadily declined from 1972 to 2004. In 2004 their participation increased and 2006 was one of the best mid term year since 1994. Appealing to history only works if you understand history.
Comment by ArchPundit Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 12:23 pm
“Young voters are the least likely to vote and steadily declined from 1972 to 2004.”
Gee, you don’t think that could be because there were fewer young people as we went from the Boomer generation to newer, smaller generations, do you?
Nah - that would complicate what it is you want to believe, right? Don’t let science get in your way!
Comment by VanillaMan Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 12:56 pm
ere’s an interesting blurb about NH ballot laws.
Imagine that. Democrats get control and they play with ballot laws to make them more easy for manipulation.
ALL the undecided went for Hillary? How wierd can that be? It’s almost like your book flying up since all the molecules went in the same direction at once.
Possible, but rather unlikely.
Comment by Pat collins Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 1:09 pm
VanillaMan–
After I disected your anger from the intiial point of your response, you made some valid points, but doesn’t make your opinion any different than mine.
You state that Obama’s ability to galvanize the youth is a falacy and is no different than in any other presidential election that we have had. Four year ago what was the turnout in Iowa? How about 8 years ago? We’re just looking at the first two states aren’t we?
Listen… I’m not typing to convince you or persuade you to join the “Obama Cause”, VM. In fact I appreciate your views. But to act as if their hasn’t been a greater showing in the 35-and-under aggregate is unreal. And to act that Obama hasn’t been a factor in that turnout is wrong as well.
Cheers!
Comment by YouNeverSawMe Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 1:13 pm
She is (HRC) 60+ years old, has been in the spotlight for years, been planning this run for who knows how long and she finally found her voice?!?
Comment by Wumpus Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 1:14 pm
===Gee, you don’t think that could be because there were fewer young people as we went from the Boomer generation to newer, smaller generations, do you?
==Nah - that would complicate what it is you want to believe, right? Don’t let science get in your way!
http://www.civicyouth.org/PopUps/04_voting.xls
Take your own advice. Facts are sticky things
Comment by ArchPundit Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 1:17 pm
Ghost,
Again, if Obama supporters want “change” they aren’t going to get it by electing Bush-On-Steroids, which is what all the GOP front-runners are (even Huck to a degree).
Hillary has also begun coopting the “change” meme and is beginning to speak to how she would do things differently.
It may be possible that some Obama supporters will sit it out in November, but I doubt it would be in large numbers.
–
Wordslinger,
Just because you haven’t bothered to look up the candidates’ position papers and policy explanations (including Obama’s) doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
–
VM,
I believe Arch was talking about percentages within demographics. In other words, younger voters voted in lesser quantities compared to their overall population than other age groups. Total quantities become moot when comparing percentage within those quantities. (That would be my interpretation based on what I recall of recent history.)
–
Pat,
Where’d you read that ALL the undecideds went to Hillary?
As for ballot access laws, American citizens ought to be allowed to vote. Period. Why would you have a problem with this?
Comment by Rob_N Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 1:25 pm
A year ago, who could have thought there was so much support for BO in NH? The focus on *change* definitely favors Obama over Hillary for the primary race. But heck, now all candidates are belting out the change tune. Some more creatively than others.
Unfortunately, America gets bored quickly. Change would have been a more effective theme to draw out over the coming summer. Given the timing, its being used to differentiate demo candidates rather than how it could more effectively be used - to differentiate the two parties. I just hope BO can sing a bar or two in whatever next song gets spun, but I’m a little afraid that he’s already sung his strongest tune.
Comment by Keep Smiling Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 1:35 pm
Here is a link of interest on Slate:
http://slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhead/archive/2008/01/08/did-n-h-voters-lie-about-supporting-obama.aspx
Comment by anon Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 1:44 pm
Hillary is sliding down the razor blade of life. She dasn’t diss Obama much because she needs him on the ticket.
Only enough to win, as the saying goes.
Comment by Truthful James Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 1:53 pm
When the race gets hot and heavy HRC will rise to the top. Then lose to some putz like Huckabee in November.
Comment by Don't say my name Tony Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 1:58 pm
S Carolina will be good for HRC no matter how it breaks. If she wins it continues her on the Big Mo, if she loses its beacuse of race. Obama has to win it or runs the risk of a moral defeat, will call it the big emergency brake on the big mo.
Comment by Ghost Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 2:51 pm
As a woman, I have to say I really was impressed the way Hillary stood up to the pressure Edwards and Obama put on her during her last debate. I have to say I am switching my support from Obama to Clinton. She just seems more “real” now. I have to say Barack is a great candidate, but the importance of a first woman president finally struck a chord with me last night. I am sure other women feel the same.
Comment by anon Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 3:38 pm
“After I disected your anger…”
Thats hilarious! What are you - a Care Bear? There is something wrong with a person who doesn’t want to debate points with another, but instead wants to go all squishy and complain that someone is “angry”, as if that negates any points made. Don’t faint on us, I might say something else that is judgemental!
“You state that Obama’s ability to galvanize the youth is a falacy…” NO I didn’t. You needed to be reminded that what is happening to Obama has happened before. Your breathless analysis on some historical involvement of young voters needed some grounding in reality.
I voted for the guy. Twice. So, don’t grab some smelling salts because I believe my senator isn’t ready for the Oval Office. He is NOT. What I didn’t know before I supported him was his arrogance in believing that out of the hundreds of Congresspersons in Washington, out of the 50 governors, or out of the hundreds of outstanding business leaders, he thinks HE should be president! What kind of an ego does this guy have?
If he shows himself to be an excellent senator I will continue to support him AS SENATOR. But just because I am not gullible enough to fall for his theatrical performances doesn’t mean I am “angry”. He doesn’t know what he is talking about enought to be believed. He hasn’t shown enough understanding of Washington to convince me he can lead it. He hasn’t shown me enough to convince me to support him for president.
Can you handle that?
So there - go lie down on a couch and fan yourself.
Comment by VanillaMan Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 3:58 pm
===Your breathless analysis on some historical involvement of young voters needed some grounding in reality.
And again, you don’t seem to understand that in Iowa–it was a historic turnout of young voters and an increase as a percentage of the electorate. This was different this year. 2004 was very different from years past as well, but 2008 took it to another level. Suggesting this is something that happens regularly is false.
The early estimates in New Hampshire suggest exactly the same sort of increase. If one wants to argue there is some outside force causing it, that is a reasonable argument, but that’s different than saying this is nothing new. It is very new and very dramatic.
Comment by ArchPundit Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 4:34 pm
Hey VanillaMan,
Don’t discount that squishy stuff. It worked for Hillary. I wouldn’t be surprised if they are all ballin’ before the end of the primaries. Lol.
Comment by Garp Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 4:38 pm
Well, I’ll give credit to Hillary for the slim victory over Obama last night. However, considering that she’s been running since 2001 for the job, has boatloads of money & emdorsements, shouldn’t she have gather more votes against a relative newcomer?
She should be sending a check over to Edwards to keep him in till the convention, without him she would be toast.
Comment by KenoMan Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 4:43 pm
I’m not so sure Edwards voters are all anti-Hillary voters. I suspect they’d split between the two front-runners and some who are Edwards supporters because they like being for the underdog may even head toward Kucinich.
I’m for Obama right now, but I do like Hillary. My partner is a Hillary supporter, so I attended a talk she gave in Ft. Madison, IA in early January. I came away impressed and surprised at some of the windmills she had tilted at (e.g. special ed).
Comment by cermak_rd Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 5:24 pm
Why didn’t Obama get the endorsement yesterday of the Independent Voters of Illinois? He has always receieved their endorsement before. What happened?
Comment by Dimmiecrat Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 5:42 pm
The dem candidates are all calling for “change” with no detail as to what that change may be. I think it is code for “We will take your dollars in massive tax increases and leave you with only Change”! They need to get specific very soon or the “change” buzz word will become meaningless and simply not heard.
Comment by A Citizen Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 7:01 pm
I agree Citizen - catchy slogan with no details. I also think Hillary was always closer in the race than the NH polls stated. The goofy caucus method in Iowa resulted in a much larger Obama win. That race was much closer than the result. This democratic nomination will be fun to watch. Each will have to spend a lot of money and the Clinton smear campaign should start soon. Tears, smear, jeers, cheers!
Comment by Holdingontomywallet Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 7:35 pm
The reason Obama lost was the pre-primary poll numbers. They predicted a hugh win for Obama. So the Independents moved to the Republicans to help McCain since that race was predicted to be much closer.
The media hurt their own guy.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Jan 9, 08 @ 9:02 pm
I agree with “Independent” — who said that Barack needs to watch out for Hillary, who can turn on & off the victim role and then quickly go into “one of the guys” role.
As a woman, can I just say that I’m disappointed that she pulled out the tears act.
There, I said it.
I think it was indeed scripted, while many others on TV say that it was genuine & unscripted.
I say BS — listen to what she says as she “tears up”. She says “you know, this IS personal for me — not political”.
This is a direct reference to the GOOD attack that Edwards made at the debate where he says that it’s “personal for him and academic for others (Barack?) and political for others (HIllary?)
So, my conclusion is that she turned on the thespian skills (okay, maybe not too tough to do when she’s exhausted & frustrated), and went into poor me mode.
I think she’s smart & probably a good person down deep, but I don’t think she can win in the general election if she is the nominee, ESPECIALLY if the republican nominee is John McCain.
Comment by dupage progressive Thursday, Jan 10, 08 @ 12:06 am