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. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin