Obama will be the nominee.
I'd rather have Edwards :-(
Bill Richardson made about three or four comments in last night's debate in which he basically was making Obama's case for him, but he went a step beyond Obama in asking the American people for sacrifice, which I liked. Richardson made his executive experience his main case, said a couple of time that he was the only one who had actually balanced a budget.
Clinton made some smart attacks on Obama but he parred them well enough (in my perception). She managed to come off knowledgable and competent, which is going to remain her main message. She also managed to look human. The message that she had been bringing change for 35 years is one she should drop ASAP IMO because it comes off a bit desperate, but that is my perception again.
Obama's main message seemed to be 'bringing people back into government'. He talked a lot about government transparency, public participation. Brought a few examples on how he had worked for that. This was new to me; it fit in well with his overarching theme of change and hope.
John Edwards was on message nearly all the time about the corporate lobbying machine and how he personally embodied the struggle against that.
At the end of the debate, the candidates had the chance to bring up a regret from one of their previous debates, but only Edwards and Richardson chose to be sports. Hillary was a bit lame in bringing up the line that she'd let the pundits decide, and talking about how the debates had shown that the Democrats were just much more engaged in the problems the next president would face. Obama was even lamer in parroting Hillary and using that to stay on message.
The message that she had been bringing change for 35 years is one she should drop ASAP IMO because it comes off a bit desperate, but that is my perception again.
Wasn't the quote something like
"We've had 35 years of change now?"
Semantic disaster clean-up on aisle 1 please.
Her problem is that, while Dems like her and are obviously excited by the prospect of a female candidate, she's up against a change elections. I had no idea the electorate was so strongly looking at change rather than experience, but it's gone from the storm I expected to a tsunami. Even the splitting of the change vote between Edwards and Obama isn't going to be enough for her, as Elizabeth Edwards pointed out, because undecideds are breaking to O and E.
Edwards is actually catching up to her in New Hampshire (he's up 6%, she's down 10%, O's up 10-15%), which I'm stunned by, and he really got to her in last night's debate. (I'm really glad Clinton didn't come packing, because I think she might have shot Edwards.) Edwards, in short, smells blood with Clinton. It makes sense, because pushing out Clinton gives him a one-on-one chance with Obama while also pairing himself with Obama, leaving the door open to the Veep slot if he fails to take the nod.
It was painfully obvious how this election was going to come down last night. Edwards and Obama were sat on the left, with Richardson and Clinton on the right, and that was the fight it wound up being. (I can only assume Richardson has decide to give up on any hope he might have had for VP with Obama, should O become the nominee.) That's not a fight Clinton and Richardson are going to win, especially given that Richardson's people fled to Edwards and Obama on Thursday. Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
I do believe the Democrats were just more engaged in the problems the next president would face as you say because as I see it, they have a lot more at stake -- the "disadvantage" of non-incumbents if you like.
Clinton had good and bad moments. Her response to the question on likability was cute, and the little exchange between she and Obama that followed, even more so. It was sort of girlie, but I think it helped to remind people that, yes, she's not a robot.
Obama was successful last night by not being rattled. He needed to stay calm and avoid a big fuck-up, and he did so. Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
But difficult to put a good, intelligent woman down -- expect Hillary to bounce back. As I've said, Bill Clinton, who was once tagged the "first black president" of the US, is still a vote getting force to reckon with. Pundits are saying on that he's still capable of drawing the black votes for his wife.
Obviously, Hillary will have to work double or treble time to catch up, i.e., attictude change. But at this point, nobody should count her out of the running, not even with the 'catastrophic' survey ratings she's getting a couple days away from the NH primary.
Hilary responded by saying that it is one thing to talk about change and quite another to actual do it, and that she's been doing it for 35 years - and giving some concrete examples that have helped real people in New Hampshire.
Why would you vote for Edwards based on his wordy excerpt here in which he basically endorsed Obama? He is defining himself out of the race.
It's now about Obama rhetoric of change against Clinton track record - and however you might interpret that.
OK -I'm reading a lot into one short exchange, but if this is the bit that is making headlines, then it isn't doing Edwards any favours. notes from no w here
By the way, it was you who made me aware that Euro Trib existed when you mentioned it in one of your posts in Charles Bremner's. Thanks -- great idea.
Know what? As far as this space is concerned, we will be very happy if, come nomination time, candidates are narrowed down to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. (Of course, this blog understands that one of them has got to be the running mate of the other after the 'investiture.')
I don't think Hilary will agree to be the VP nominee for anyone. If you've lived in the main house it's hard to move out to the gate lodge! notes from no w here
The comment appeared to be off the cuff, but maybe he knows what he's doing. He is mostly wrong. In my reading Anbar stabilised as a reaction to Shi'ite death squads e.g. an external enemy that required the Sunnis to pull together and kick out the shit-stirrers of Al Qaeda -- who are overrated anyway. But this could be a good fight for him to be in.
I edited your inline links and added the titles of the items you were linking to.
Long URLs can break the rendering of the page on some people's comuputers. We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
That's absolutely great. Thanks. Was trying to do it but wouldn't work. Am new on this html formatting thinggy.
It ain't right, but that's reality. keep to the Fen Causeway
However complaining that our commentary, in accepting conventional wisdom to the detriment of preferred truths, actually brings that CW into existence presupposes that we are, in any way, a part of the US election commentariat; we are not. We are observers, partizan maybe but we do not provide the narrative, we note it. keep to the Fen Causeway
As I've said in the past, I know my Yankees well having grown up among them.
They are back to the wall contrarians.
Edwards has to shock people in H, and I wouldn't be surprised if he did.
This region of the US is well known for pulling big surprises in the past.
Mike Dukakis, Paul Tsongas, Jerry Brown, and many more, have all won shock primaries in the recent past.
As I said in a comment above, Elizabeth Edwards seems to have nailed something: Even with the "vote for change" group split, Clinton may not have enough to win. With either Edwards or Obama out, she almost certainly hasn't got it. Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
I say Obama's in the high-30s/low-40s, Clinton's in the mid-20s, Edwards is in the low-20s, and Richardson's at about 10%. The undecideds will go to Obama and Edwards again, and for Hillary, as the old saying goes, that may be all she wrote.
And she's got nothing to fight on now. Obama and Edwards (with a little help from Dodd in Philly) have laid complete waste to her campaign. And now that Edwards has clearly chosen sides in the Obama-Clinton fight, it really might be over for her.
My only hesitation about declaring her dead comes from my knowing how powerful and well-funded the Clinton Machine is. Remember, Clinton's got the best in the business behind her. Obama's got some big shots, but his ground game is, in the end, run by kids -- kids who outsmarted the old guard in Iowa, granted, but still kids. The Obama campaign comes with that danger as sort of DeanforAmerica 2.0.
All that said, TBG seems to have gotten it right on the horserace. Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
It could cut either way. If they think that the Democratic race is over and vote in the Republican primary, then Obama's numbers drop. If they decided that they can't stand Hucakabee or Romney, and want McCain (an d that their vote will make a difference) because he's a secular conservative, McCain draws that support away from Obama. And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg
McCain needed a Clinton win in Iowa, perhaps even more than Clinton. Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
In the 2004 Illinois Senate race, the Republicans did horribly because their guy was the subject of divorce proceedings where it was revealed he took his wife to strip clubs. A cardboard cut out of a child molester could have won that race against his replacement, Alan Keyes.
In Indianapolis in 2007, it looked like it was over for the Republicans after there endorsed candidate in the primary talkes about how the Democratic party was beholden to "the Jews." We laughed so hard we cried. Then, the replace hi with this roughneck ex marine Greg Ballard, who beat the incumbent Democratic mayor with a serious cash disadvantage.
It's unnatural for races to be static, and most often a sign of apathy or media bias. The latter being the clear case here. And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg
In the 2004 Illinois Senate race, the Republicans did horribly because their guy was the subject of divorce proceedings where it was revealed he took his wife to strip clubs.
The Republicans angered the Star Trek base, which has been the main source of their downfall ever since...
Edwards was on This Week this morning. Richardson was on Late Edition. Elizabeth Edwards was on Hardball the other night. Clinton's been on television demonstrating her "retooling" at rallies and Q&As. Obama's gone dark (no pun intended), with the exception of a few analyst stating that he now has got to win New Hamster.
This is to say nothing of the media "bias" involved with having St John McCain apparently on for the full hours of both Face the Nation and Meet the Press, despite having come in fourth in Iowa and barely outpacing Ron Paul.
It's a tired narrative. The evil press is out to get everybody (and nobody, if you believe the Clinstones' line on Obama) somehow. Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
And this is why the Iowa winner has won the nomination less than half of the time.
Actually, you think the New Englanders are bad at picking winners?
Well, only one non-incumbent (i.e. a candidate who wasn't President already at the time) who won the Iowa caucus has gone on to win the presidency.
GWBush. The Iowans sure picked a winner there.
All other candidates who won the Iowa caucus have failed to win the Presidency.
Which reminds me of certain corporate HR hiring policy: when reading resumés, there's a tendency to short list applicants whose university record posts 1st or 3rd best, to the detriment of the 2nd best; theory according to some HR folks is either you choose the first for obvious reason (second best tried hard but wasn't clever enough to be first) or you choose the 3rd who is just as good and could have been first if he/she had tried hard enough but had the sense to enjoy life, hence clever and fun.
And I do think you just may be right.
And the economic advice that they have is that the answer financial liberalism with government interventions only where needed to sustain the status quo. Most damningly, Obama's been parroting the idea that the reason that American workers are losing there jobs is because they are uneducated, and that if we invest in education everything will be better. The problem is that this decade had been one where job losses have been occurring among the college educated.
After all if a person who's earned a college degree in IT can't compete, how can you really say that the issue here is education. It's blaming the victim on Obama's part, and it's the reason that he's dangerous. Because he gets a pass on these things tha Clinton does not. I deal with university aged students daily, and they all think that when they leave university, their education will assure them a good job. They buy the myth that people who are unemployed are lazy and uneducated.
These are the people most fervent in their support for Obama, people who don't understand that their education doesn't change the fact that there are those who live by wealth and those who live by work. And their education (indoctrination) leads them to believe they will belong to the former group rather than the latter once they graduate. And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg
I can live with Hillary, if it comes to that, and even enjoy seeing history made. I'd rather live with Barack and also see history made. But my heart is with John and seeing an entirely different kind of history being made.
You said, "But my heart is with John and seeing an entirely different kind of history being made."
Care to explain?
Barack will make similar history as our first black President. Whatever else, it would mean a tectonic shift in the meaning of race in our culture. I think he is not quite the insider that Hillary is, but as much in the go along to get along mold. And I'm afraid his race will constrain his ability to bring any meaningful change on any issue that could be even remotely construed as driven by racial considerations. There are a whole raft of such issues, from immigration to poverty to very status of brown people as second class citizens that need serious attention. Yet he more than any of the others would have to tread very softly, ironically, because of his identity.
John Edwards is, to my mind, the only authentic populist in the race. He has thrown down the gauntlet to the existing power structure in Washington. He speaks clearly and passionately about the toxic influence of corporate money on our democracy, of corporate lobbyists on our government. He speaks I think from his heart about the plight of the truly poor and the shrinking middle class, the shameful lack of health care for too many of our citizens, the unfair advantages of wealth and privilege at the expense of the rest of us. I think he would be right at home here on ET. I think he means what he says about taking on the special interests and the entrenched power structure. I think he will shake up that structure and at least try to return power to the people. Whether he can succeed is another question entirely, but at least he will try. Which is more than I really expect from the others.
Many doubt his authenticity and his sincerity when he talks of these things. I believe him. I think he has not forgotten where he came from. He speaks to my heart. His story is compelling. Where he comes from and who he is as a person is much closer to me personally than any of the others. Hillary and Barack are Ivy League. John is one of us. Somewhere in cyberspace, the ghost of de Chardin is smiling.
February 5 Controversy Under Democratic National Committee rules, no state may hold their primaries or caucuses before February 5 with the exceptions of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. Florida Governor Charlie Crist (R) violated Democratic party rules in signing a bill on May 21, 2007, to up the date of his state's primary causing a chain reaction which moved many other states' primaries and caucuses to much earlier dates. Accordingly, the Democratic National Committee has ruled that Florida's delegates will not be seated, or, if seated, will not be able to vote, at the National Convention. Furthermore, the DNC has also stated that it will forbid any candidate from receiving delegates should they campaign in the Florida primary.[10] The DNC Rules Committee met on August 25, 2007 and ruled that Florida would have 30 days to move its primary date at least 7 days later than the current date of January 29, or else lose all of its delegates in the Democratic primary. Florida officials said they may challenge the ruling on legal grounds and protest the 2008 convention; additionally, the actual implementation of such a decision might prove to be difficult.[11] Michigan has moved its primary to January 15, also in violation of party rules. On December 1, the Democratic National Committee voted to deny Michigan's request to hold its primary on January 15 and declared that Michigan's delegates will not count in the nominating contest unless Michigan moves its primary to a later date.
Under Democratic National Committee rules, no state may hold their primaries or caucuses before February 5 with the exceptions of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.
Florida Governor Charlie Crist (R) violated Democratic party rules in signing a bill on May 21, 2007, to up the date of his state's primary causing a chain reaction which moved many other states' primaries and caucuses to much earlier dates. Accordingly, the Democratic National Committee has ruled that Florida's delegates will not be seated, or, if seated, will not be able to vote, at the National Convention. Furthermore, the DNC has also stated that it will forbid any candidate from receiving delegates should they campaign in the Florida primary.[10] The DNC Rules Committee met on August 25, 2007 and ruled that Florida would have 30 days to move its primary date at least 7 days later than the current date of January 29, or else lose all of its delegates in the Democratic primary. Florida officials said they may challenge the ruling on legal grounds and protest the 2008 convention; additionally, the actual implementation of such a decision might prove to be difficult.[11]
Michigan has moved its primary to January 15, also in violation of party rules. On December 1, the Democratic National Committee voted to deny Michigan's request to hold its primary on January 15 and declared that Michigan's delegates will not count in the nominating contest unless Michigan moves its primary to a later date.
One thing to bear in mind on Florida is that 15% of Floridians are black, making them an even larger share of Dems, and they are dedicated voters like you wouldn't imagine, especially after being disenfranchised in 2000. (Bush may have won, but he turned voting into a religion for black in South Florida.) If AT is right, and every black voter shows up to vote for Obama, Clinton is either going to need to produce record turnout or lose badly.
I think the press is overstating Clinton's inherent strength in the beaches-and-fruity-drinks state. The basic pieces of the Florida Democratic Party break down this way:
In the South of the state (but North of Miami), you have the (Democratic) retirees, blacks, Latinos, and middle- and working-class professionals. (The Republican retirees live on the West Coast of the state, out near Punta Gorda [what's left of it] and Sarasota and the like.) That's a mix of Hillary and Obama, but it probably favors Clinton. She must win there, or she will not carry the state.
Miami is, or should be, one of Obama's three strongholds, one of the others being collectively the college town (Tallahassee, Gainesville, Pensacola, parts of Orlando, parts of Jacksonville), and the third being the Tampon Bay area. Expect massive turnout in areas like Liberty City and around the University of Miami.
Then you've got the Jacksonville area, which is less heavy on retirees, more heavy on blacks, military personnel, and young and middle-aged workers. Edwards must do well here to have any half-decent showing in the state. The area is going to be inclined to Obama and Edwards.
Tallahassee is overwhelmingly young, hyper-liberal, and towards the middle of the income ladder. This is the area I'm most comfortable making predictions on, having walked those precincts. Tally is 1/3 black, and neighboring Gadsden is majority-black. Jefferson is the neighbor on the other side of Leon County, and it's likely the most Edwards-friendly, being primarily farmland, but Obama gets some support near the Leon-Jefferson border where there are a few Tallahassee suburbs. If Obama doesn't win here, he's in trouble. Ditto Gainesville.
The Orlando-Kissimmee area Democrats are mainly young professionals, but the area is generally very wealthy and borderline-psychopathic Republican.
The big problem for Clinton is that she's going to be relying on the retirees in a state that, contrary to the common wisdom, is not overwhelmingly a state of retirees. Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
A CNN/WMUR poll out of New Hampshire reported:
DEM: Obama 39% Clinton 29% Edwards 16% Richardson 7% Kucinich 2%
Leaving 6% undecided
"Obama is gaining 3% per day."
GOP: McCain 32% Romney 26% Huckabee 14% (!) Giuliani 11% (!) Paul 10% Misc 2%
Leaving 3% undecided.
Both winners of the Iowa caucuses have gotten bounces, Obama more than Huckabee. Huckabee and Giuliani have traded places so it's looking like Huck will come in the top 3 in NH -- which is all he needs going into South Carolina.
It looks like Obama is going to win NH. The only question is: by what margin? IF he wins with 50% plus it's going to get real hard for Edwards to maintain his soft support in South Carolina and Tsunami Tuesday (TT.) Obama WILL win South Carolina and with a high likelihood of swamping Clinton and Edwards.
The GOP is in deep trouble. If McCain wins New Hampshire, as it appears and Huckabee wins South Carolina, as is likely, wither the R and the Mac? If Paul keeps getting the Wacko 10% all the way through TT and Huckabee wins the South, as is likely, there's no room for an out-right winner. There's clowns in one corner, jokers in another, and not enough room in the middle.
Projection: Obama is the clear favorite to and through TT, Feb 5. Could wrap it up.
The GOP is heading towards a brokered (i.e., Free-for-All) convention.
ceebs asked:
When did [a brokered convention in the US] last happen? it does look somewhat entertaining if it turns into a knock-down drag-out fight at the convention.
Me: I'm double-checking but IIRC in the 1950s.
[I note 'swedish kind of death' asked the same question in shergald's How Obama Lost in Iowa diary.] By popular request ... Madness takes it's toll. Have exact change ready.
industrial buckets of popcorn. Sounds good. Make mine with extra salt and butter, please
plenty of throat medicine, to deal with the damage from cackling evily as it all kicks off? I prefer to chortle with glee, snicker with delight, and laugh merrily. YMMV but it saves the cost of the throat medicine. By popular request ... Madness takes it's toll. Have exact change ready.
It didn't work out so good. ;-) By popular request ... Madness takes it's toll. Have exact change ready.
The GOP avoided one in 1976 with some hanky-panky involving the Mississippi delegation. By popular request ... Madness takes it's toll. Have exact change ready.
USA Today/Gallup (January 4-6) Obama 41 Clinton 28 Edwards 19 Richardson 6 McCain 34 Romney 30 Huckabee 13 Paul 8 Giuliani 8 Thompson <3 Hunter <3 The surveys of 776 New Hampshire residents who are "likely" to vote in the Republican primary and 778 New Hampshire residents who are "likely" to vote in the Democratic primary were all completed after the news from Thursday's Iowa caucuses had been reported. Each figure has a margin of error of +/- 4 percentage points. So Obama's lead is "outside" that range, while McCain's is not. See the full results here.
USA Today/Gallup (January 4-6)
Obama 41 Clinton 28 Edwards 19 Richardson 6
McCain 34 Romney 30 Huckabee 13 Paul 8 Giuliani 8 Thompson <3 Hunter <3
The surveys of 776 New Hampshire residents who are "likely" to vote in the Republican primary and 778 New Hampshire residents who are "likely" to vote in the Democratic primary were all completed after the news from Thursday's Iowa caucuses had been reported.
Each figure has a margin of error of +/- 4 percentage points. So Obama's lead is "outside" that range, while McCain's is not.
See the full results here.
I guess the Clinton-Approved design for an early decision is working just fine. By popular request ... Madness takes it's toll. Have exact change ready.
If I'm a higher-up in the Obama campaign, I'm seriously thinking about telling some of my precinct captains to try to push some folks to Edwards, because a third-place finish for Clinton here would almost undoubtedly be the end. Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
What about FISA?
Is Social Security in "play"?
http://www.correntewire.com/two_simple_litmus_tests_for_obama
Faced with Obama's record, I'm left with "the phone booth theory". That is Lambert's analogy for the idea that Obama, once elected will, akin to Clark Kent going into the phone booth and coming out Superman, turn on a dime and govern as a "progressive".
Right now he (and Hillary) are making far too many appeals to what was once called the "moderate Republican" voter.
Another post from Corrente that you might find helpful is one that talks about the differences between the words Liberal and Progressive.
http://www.correntewire.com/the_difference_between_liberal_and_progressive
