The Clinton team touted New Hampshire as a friendly “firewall†state that would stop Sen. Barack Obama’s roaring momentum after his Iowa caucus victory, but that strategy appears to have gone up in smoke.
On the eve of the New Hampshire primary, several polls showed Obama with a double-digit lead over Hillary Clinton, with independents breaking decisively for him.
She’s almost certainly going to lose New Hampshire, which means she’ll likely lose South Carolina, too. And then Obama’s momentum will be hard to stop. Are we witnessing the end of the Clinton era in Democratic politics? Sure looks like it.
58 Comments
I highly doubt this would be the end of the Clinton era in Democratic politics.
It would be the end of Hilary’s campaign for the office of President though.
Thankfully.
too early to tell she may win or not
Clinton vows to continue presidential battle
http://real-us.news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080107/pl_nm/usa_politics_clinton_dc
I have to agree with too early to tell, underdogs are always able to come back. Hillary for all her faults is a political war horse. There maybe no market for war horses this go around, it all depends if this time the public really means it when they say we want a change.
I have to admit some surprise when Biden dropped out and he did not do well. He was a better pick then Edwards. But then it is possible that other do not see it the way I do I got some new glasses last week!
Got rid of the rose colored ones but still support Ron Paul, OK I let that for an opening. LOL
I think that most people have grown tired of Dynastic politics, many have pointed out that if Hillary is elected, and serves two terms, we would have either a Bush or a Clinton in the White House for 28 years.
If a Clinton wins again the White House for two terms, we would also end up having a person with a degree from Yale in the White House for 28 years.
Maybe that’s why Barack Obama, with his Harvard Law degree, bills himself as the candidate of change.
I suspect both parties are going to rue the front-loaded primary season. By all accounts, the nominees will be decided by or on February 5th.
And then what?
The media will want stories and will dig deep to find them. The candidates will be asked about any and every event of the the day, every day. The stage will be set for a gaffe.
As with all “gaffes,” it’ll probably be meaningless. Jerry Ford lost to Jimmy Carter by declaring, “the Polish people are not oppressed.” It sounded absurd at the time but Ford was prescient in his recognition that the Polish people were fomenting an anti-soviet mindset that would help trigger the end of the Cold War. Ed Muskie swept a snowflake from his eyes and was branded as a weepy weakling. It was a slow news day.
If things go as the pundits thinkg it will, February 5th will lock in a Huckabee v. Obama general election race. Then someone will ask the Huckster about him about Elvis and he’ll say he preferred Chuck Berry or something, and the Republic Party radicals will accuse him of “turning his back on his race” or somesuch.
Britany Spears will die and Obama will express sympathy that a “beautiful young woman” fell so hard and Limbaugh will claim, “See?! See?! He’s a black man and he lusted after a young white woman!!!” Or something.
Then Newt Gingrich or Jeb Bush… or Hillary Clinton or Michael Moore will offer themselves up to save their party from whomever won the front-loaded primaries.
There’s a certain legitimacy in critiques of “the media” that notes how journalists tend to stir up controversy. That’s what sells magazines and garners ratings. And 8 months of established candidates is too much time to not brew up a gaffe or scandal.
Hell, we might even end up with every journalist’s wet dream, the *brokered* convention.
I’m also an old dude. Although I was too young to vote in 1968, I remember getting excited about Gene McCarthy then embracing Bobby Kennedy’s candidacy and believing America might really change! I remember when my sister woke me up that June morning and told me what’d happened to Bobby. 1968 was a motherfuc# of a year. And it resulted in Nixon.
Forty years later, I’m feeling a bit of deja vu. If men will show up in New Hampshire and heckel Senator Clinton with chants of “Iron my shirts!” the gender issue will show its ugly head if she happens to get the nomination. The core of contemporary American conservatism is tacit racism and the Secret Service is already afraid that Obama is a target.
The dominant conservatives hate Huckabee’s “conservative socialism” and are horrified that Romney and Rudy might not succeed in this season that craves a departure from traditional Republic Party economics.
Oil’s a hundred bucks a barrel and the dollar is worth less than the Canadian Looney and the Euro. American unemployment is on the rise, and all those Republic Party stalwarts can make money only by sending more jobs to Asia.
George WMD Bush has a whole year to screw up even worse than he’d done so far.
I have confidence in him. I believe in him. He’ll do it.
She has the cash and organization to fight all the way to the convention floor and it is still early in the game. My guess is that she will stay in and hope for Obama to make a big gaff of some kind or run out of steam. But it is my hope that we can now lay the past behind us and move on to a new day in America. We do not wish to go back to the last century. And honestly, I do not hate Hillary as some people do but I just do not think that 4 or 8 more years of her and Bill and Whitewater, Monica, Travel Office, Rose Law Firm, Elian Gonzales, Waco and all the other stuff the country went through then are what we want to go through now. We do not want a replay of the 90s. It is time to wipe the slate clean and begin a new day in America and look to our future. We need to pass the torch of leadership on to the next generation and Obama represents that. The Clintons will still be around and they are still valuable to the country in many ways but they need to recognize that their day is over and a new day has risen for a new generation. They have had their day in the sunshine and it is somebody else’s turn.
The fall of Hillary, and I do think this is a fall, I will be extremely surprised if she pulls this one out, probably has to do with a recognition among voters that the nomination of Hillary will guarantee an extremely divisive campaign. I am not sure what I think of Barack Obama. He seems inspirational, and he campaigns brilliantly, but I have yet to get a read of what kind of president he will make (I think the Democratic candidates, and most of the Republican candidates, would probably make a much better president than the by and large utter waste of space we have had for the last seven years). I feel somewhat bad for Hillary. She is probably not the nicest person in the world, but she is a legitimate candidate and I think she would make a good president (but she would be hampered by an extremely hostile Republican party), and at one time she looked like the guaranteed nominee. Obama is already pretty much of a lock, I suspect, particularly if he gets some of the independents to break for him.
Right now, I am not sure who the Republican nominee will be. Romney seems to be fading. McCain and Huckabee both have some negatives in a Repubican primary. The old guard will be torn, and the Christian Right will be torn between the across the board conservatives and the social but not necessarily economic conservatives. Both McCain and Huckabee are probably the two Republicans with the best chance in the national election, because they both may have some acceptability to independents and be sufficient to keep some of the foul weather voters home(although Huckabee’s Christian Right credentials would be a two edged sword, it will inspire the CR base, but it may also turn off the foul weather voters and get them out of their holes to vote).
I suspect Obama is pretty close to a lock (he may benefit from a surprisingly strong showing by Richardson in NH, but I could be quite wrong on that).
Speaking of third party candidates, I wonder if Ron Paul may break for his original party roots after the primary, taking his war chest to run under the Libertarian Party banner.
Re: My comments on Ron Paul…
http://www.lp.org/
Nope. Probably not, unless he decided to run as a VP candidate.
If Oabma wins today, especially if he wins big, I hope Hillary has the smarts to realize it’s over. At least this chapter.
She can have a very important role with an Obama administration pushing health care and other initiatives in the Senate. Bill can and should have a major role as ‘elder statesman’. A unified Democratic Party can easily crush the Republics in November.
Stick a fork in her. She’s done.
And as much as MH and I disagree on so many things, I agree with him that the front-loaded primary schedule is a recipe for disaster. I think he’s exactly right that we may well end up with candidates that, by November, have been gaffed to death, picked apart by a media desperate to get a “story” and sell papers.
Given the primary schedule, perhaps a brokered convention is a good thing. Certainly, I’m not convinced that the modern process, where the nomination race is dominated by primaries producing “bound” delegates and the conventions are little more than campaign sendoffs for the already-christened nominees give us better presidential candidates than the “smoke-filled room” era when conventions actually selected candidates.
And MH trots out the usual “Republican=racist” BS meme. This country has a history of racism, sir, without any doubt. Our history of slavery and segregation is our nation’s deep shame. But both parties have long since repudiated same. And in fact, sir, it is the Democratic party of the old south that was the bedrock of Jim Crow and segregation. It is not the Republican party, for example, who’s delegation includes a former Grand Dragon of the KKK. Let’s bury this bit of nonsense, shall we? Part of what’s remarkable about Obama’s rise is the lack of the issue of race – and thank God for that. I very much hope it stays that way.
GMC – we differ frequently but, to your comments above – agree 100%. Especially about Jim Crow.
GMC, while I think the charge of “racist” is thrown around FAR too cavalierly when it comes to Republicans by some Democratic/liberal activists on this blog, there is something to the charge that the Republican party has in the recent (within the last 25 years) past played on these issues. The old Democratic party in the south you are talking about by and large turned Republican (individuals like Robert Byrd, btw one of my least favorite senators of either party), largely over the issue of “state’s rights”, and also over Lyndon Johnson’s “betrayal” of the sourthern Democratic Party over his heavy handed but downright courageous support of the Civil Rights Act. It is true that this state’s rights issue has now largely shifted from civil rights legislation to religious issues, but the arguments are the same (and you still hear a lot about the really, for the most part, non-issue of “reverse discrimination”). The old south mentality of “we as the majority ought to be able to do what we want in our own state and communities without pointy headed federal interference” is very much alive, and is now solidly a core belief of one of the primary Republican constituencies. It now tends to be expressed as having the Ten Commandments in the courthouse and having school days opening in prayers that end “in Christ’s name”, but it’s the same sentiment. Look at the Texas Republican Party platform.
(individuals like Robert Byrd, btw one of my least favorite senators of either party) should be:
(individuals like Robert Byrd, btw one of my least favorite senators of either party, being a notable exception)
BTW, your (GMC) statement: ” Part of what’s remarkable about Obama’s rise is the lack of the issue of race – and thank God for that. I very much hope it stays that way.”
I strongly agree with you, even if I am not inclined to “thank God for that” myself. ;-)
As Iowa and NH go, so goes the nation! That’s what it seems to others are saying. Well, I don’t agree. Starting tomorrow voters will begin to learn Obama talks about change in a generic fashion, but he is saying nothing about what changes he would make. Maybe he doesn’t know, or doesn’t want voters to know. He also has other problems which will come out. He has never been vetted, but he will be now, one way or another.
Hillary had to go bye bye everyone is tired of the same old thing. Bush Sr. 4yrs, Bill Clinton 8 yrs, GWB 8 yrs. WE NEEDED A CHANGE. But how in anyones right mind can you start to elect an individual that will not salute the FLAG of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA and have him president? The Democrats are cutting their own throats! I for once will not vote a straight REPUBLICAN TICKET. If it has Rep. or Dem. after the name I want nothing too do with it anylonger. I do want a change for the better. You can put a new cover on a book but its the same old story and people are getting tired of it.
Can someone please help me figure out, who out in this world is a good choice too lead our country, that is going to help lead that change!
With both the Republican and Democratic partys well entrenched in our society how can we expect change?
Why vote when whomever wins is actually going to lose because of the gridlock in our government!
Why cant we all just get along for 4 yrs and get things back to the way they used to be.
Hillary is still in the Senate, wing-nuts.
Read it and weep . . .
“But how in anyones right mind can you start to elect an individual that will not salute the FLAG of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA and have him president?”
What the hell are you blathering on about, P-mkr?
Sherm
Posted January 8, 2008 at 9:35 am | Permalink
As Iowa and NH go, so goes the nation!
————————————————————————–
Is that because:
1)IA and NH are representative of a fairly homogenous nation, and thus a good sample of how all of the US will vote?
Or
2)Do people jump on the bandwagon of whoever is ahead, in order to be on the “winning” side?
I would hope people would have the courage to vote their convictions, instead of just tagging on to the perceived winners band wagon.
We will never get a nominee who best represents our interest, if we forgoe our convictions and vote with our 2nd or 3rd choice to go with the winner, whoever is ‘most electable’ as determined by the polls and the early voting states.
Do you let the polls and the early voting states to determine YOUR vote?
Do you vote for the most electable (or your own Party’s favorite), instead of voting for the candidate you believe best represents you?
If so, then we’ll continue to get politicians who do NOT best represent the People.
It is SO stupid that our top candidates are chosen pretty much by two small conservative states.
The first primary SHOULD be in Massachussetts.
I had little respect for Bill Clinton. He was really a Republican. Senator Clinton is different. I believe in her.
Peacemakergdom ..
Ron Paul 2008 . com
I think Hllary is doing so badly, because dems. are so tired of hearing the right whine about her, and want to put the non-scandal scandals behind us and move on.
Dems. are taking the high road with regard to healing the nation, even though pa6-back is sooo alluring.
A few brief thoughts
1) Hillary’s in trouble, and so is Edwards. But money-wise, Edwards is in worse trouble.
2) No way in hell, MH, that the Huckster is going to win NH–polls shows him holding third. McCain will win, but might fizzle after that. Unclear what happens after that.
3) Dem racists jumped ship in the 60-80’s. It’s more subtle these days, but guess where they went? P.S. I like Byrd on a several issues, can’t stand him on some others. SSDD.
4) Ron Paul will hang in there, driving the establishment nuts. He won’t get the nomination, but good for him anyway!
5) The swiftboating of Obama will begin even before South Carolina.
pay-back
Obama supports gun bans.
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm
Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions
Principles that Obama supports on gun issues:
Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.
It’s droll that “GMC70″ decries the “meme” that the Republic Party is racist, then turns around and offers the Byrd/Klan canard. Forget for a moment that Byrd renounced his KKK connection (konnection?) *70* years ago or something. Forget history (and be doomed to repeat it) that reveals that in some backwater places (i.e., West Virginia in the 1930s) Klan membership was about as innocuous as joining the Rotary Club; and that Byrd was a very young, and very abititious, politician both when he joined and when he denounced his involvement with the Klan. It was an act of personal integrity and political courage to — in the 1930s — renounce membership in the Ku Klux Klan.
Talk about dredging up a “meme,” “GMC70.”
There’s a real-world, real-time reason why the thinnest book in the world would be “Who’s Who of African-American Republicans.” There’s a reason why Hispanics view the whole immigration debate as thinly-veiled racism. There’s a reason why the most articulate spokesperson of traditional Republic Party “values” — Alan Keyes — is a joke when Republic Party partisans enter the voting booth. There’s a reason why J.C. Watts got frustrated and quit his career as Newt Gingrich’s “House nigg*er.” There’s a reason why David Duke chose the Republic Party in his desperate attempt to bring his version of Klandom into mainstream politics. The rank-and-file Republic Party voter no longer supports the GOP because it’s “the party of Lincoln.”
You know that, “GMC70.” Accept it. Own it. Live with it.
Obama voted against this Bill, which passed and became law.
Obama supports lawsuits against gun manufacturers.
http://votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V3597&can_id=9490
Firearms Manufacturers Protection bill
Bill Number: S 397
Issue: Gun Issues
Date: 07/29/2005
Sponsor:Sen Craig, Larry E. [ID]
Roll Call Number: 219
Bill Passed (Senate)
How members voted
.
Read statements made in this general time period.
Official Title of Legislation:
S 397: A bill to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others.
Project Vote Smart’s Synopsis:
Vote to pass a bill that provides liability protection for manufacturers, dealers or importers of firearms or ammunition products, as well as their trade associations, for harm caused by criminal or unlawful misuse.
Sponsor:Sen Craig, Larry E. [ID]
I guess he took a day off from his other ‘activities’?
MH –
Keep telling yourself that; if it makes you feel better, fine. Doesn’t make it so. The rank and file Republican is proud of being of the party of Lincoln. The Democratic party is the party of Jim Crow, though it has long since repudiated that history, and I don’t need to lower myself to accuse current democrats, as a package, of being closet racists.
Accept it. Live it. Love it. And blow it out your ass.
Hillary has campaigned as if electing her is somehow the same as a vote for Bill Clinton. Even Democratic Primary Voters know that it matters little who the President sleeps with, it’s who is President that matters.
I recall Bill Clinton proving that several times while in office.
Breaking wind:
Sources at the scene report that Monkeyhawk stuck GMC with a pin. GMC then reportedly blew up. Details at 11.
And I particularly love this bit of turd-polishing, MH:
“Klan membership was about as innocuous as joining the Rotary Club.”
Uh-huh. Ask the blacks in the South how innocuous that was. Especially in those “backwater places.”
Gosh. What’s a bit of lynching amoung good ole boys, huh? It’s just an excuse to git out o’ the house and put down a few cold ones, just like those ole boys down at Rotary. Right?
Riiiight.
Do you have anything substantive to add, JR?
I didn’t think so.
“GMC70″ –
Yup. The Democratic Party *was* the party of Jim Crow. Then came the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Republic Party embraced Strom Thurmond and Phil Gramm and a host of former Democrats who couldn’t live with a Democratic Party that finally accepted that “all men (and women) are created equal.” And, yup, the Republic Party still tries to claim the mantle of “the party of Lincoln,” despite all evidence to the contrary.
But what’s really droll is how you’re reduced, in what was previously a fairly civil discussion, to “…blow it out your ass,” as refutation.
Nope. You “…don’t need to lower” yourself. Not when your best argument is “blow it out your ass.” You’re already low enough.
Nope. You “…don’t need to lower” yourself. Not when your best argument is “blow it out your ass.” You’re already low enough. MonkeyHawk
——————————————————————————————————–
This from the biggest F bomb dropper on the blog.
MH, you’ve been taking the lowest path for quite some time.
No go acting like ya got religion all of a sudden.
MH –
Please don’t insult my intelligence by pretending that there was anything civil about your accusations. I simply met your attitude as it was.
That’s the beauty of accusations of racism, of course; one can accuse away, with little if any real evidence, and instantly put the accused on the defensive, forced to “prove” a negative. The more one denies, the more attention is drawn to the accusation. Very slick.
As to your concession that the Democrat party (two can play that game) was the party of Jim Crow, welcome to reality, even if grudgingly. As I’ve noted, the Democrat party has long since repuciated that past. The Republicans, of course, didn’t have that past to repudiate; the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which you tout was passed with REPUBLICAN votes, or it wouldn’t have passed at all. And yes, you’re welcome.
sssssssssss boom wah
The sound GMC makes when he explodes. Aw these days Republicans are not so racist as in the past.
They treat EVERYBODY who isn’t them like crap.
Political commentary by JR….
When he says that Bill Clinton was really a Republican who on Earth would listen to him?
I didn’t think you could be that far left.
Oh, man. This is getting too easy.
F’r sure, “GMC70,” the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed with “REPUBLICAN” support… back in the day when there were liberal Republicans… like Edward Brook, Everett Dirksen, Nelson Rockefeller, Margaret Chase Smith, Bill Scranton… y’know, all those traditional Republic Party stalwarts who were summarily drummed out of the party.
For a current Republic Party partisan to try to take credit for LBJ’s Civil Rights legislation is disingenuous at best; ignorance most likely; categorically dissemblance at worst. Choose one, “GMC70.”
MH – nowadays such Republicans are called RINOs.
The Civil rights Bill of 1964 was more about North versus South mindsets than political party versus political party.
Some names of the Democratic Party that are familiar even today showed the opposition by southern Democratic and Republican party members alike.
” Most Democrats from the Southern states opposed the bill, including Senators Albert Gore Sr. (D-TN), J. William Fulbright (D-AR), and Robert Byrd (D-WV). Wikipedia
That version of the bill pushed by J.F. Kennedy was actually templated from the 1875 Civil Rights act.
“The Civil Rights Act of 1875 (18 Stat. 335) was a United States federal law proposed by Republican Senator Charles Sumner and Republican Congressman Benjamin F. Butler in 1870. The act was passed by Congress in February, 1875 and signed by President Grant on March 1, 1875. The Act guaranteed that everyone, regardless of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, was entitled to the same treatment in “public accommodations” (i.e. inns, public conveyances on land or water, theaters, and other places of public amusement).” The law was generally ineffective and not enforced. The withdrawal of Federal troops from the South caused it to only be enforced rarely by some federal officers and some private citizens.
The Act was challenged and brought to the Supreme Court in 1883. The Act was found unconstitutional on the basis that the Act regulated actions of private companies rather than actions of the state governments.
Many of the provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1875 were passed into law in the 1960s with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fair Housing Act using the federal power to regulate interstate commerce.” Wiki
MonkeyHawk,
Lets look at some of the facts:
-79% of the Republicans voted yes and only 63% of the Democrats voted yes.
-In the Senate it was 21 Democrats who voted No and only 6 Republicans who voted No.
-It was the Democrat Senator Byrd who filibustered the bill for 14 hours.
So it appears as if you are the one who is being:
disingenuous at best; ignorant most likely; categorically dissemblance at worst. Choose one, MonkeyHawk.
Once again, MH, you’re welcome. As to the last, try the one option you conveniently left off the table. Truth.
Keep polishing that turd.
And JR, you still have nothing of substance to bring to the table, other than lame insults. Which you then follow with this little non sequitor:
“They treat EVERYBODY who isn’t them like crap.”
Do you understand irony, JR?
Pot, meet kettle . . .
Do you let the polls and the early voting states to determine YOUR vote? Max
No I don’t Max. That’s why I hope I see a ballot with Ron Paul on it. Even as an independent.
I listened to the mantra that I was wasting my vote the last time that came up – and wish I had voted my convictions. Even if I knew I was the deciding vote, I am going to vote for the best man, and screw the party.
If it ain’t Fred Thompson on top, then I’ll keep looking. But Law and Order just isn’t the same without him. It sure will not be John McCain, the originator of the Campaign Reform Act of 2002. I see that as just another step to place personal priorities above the constitution. Free speech is no small item to me. Neith Romney nor Huckabee excite me. Obama on the other side is after second amendment (still want to know his plans for the “evil corporations”).
Are we going to be left with voting for the candidate who appears to each of us to be the lesser of two evils again?
The interesting thing, now that Obama is the front runner, is whether he will receive the kind of scrutiny by the media that front-runners get.
He’s campaigned on an amorphous “hope & change” theme. But he seems, so far, to have offered little in terms of substantive proposals. Hillary, bless her dark little statist heart, is correct on that score. I suspect that Obama, as appealing a candidate as he is, is long on rhetoric and short on substance, just as he is short on resume.
The Democrats with the legitimate resumes (Dodd, Richardson, for example) aren’t even in consideration, as it turns out. . .
Lets all hope their era is over!!
GMC – the interesting thing will be to see if Dodd and Richardson ‘close ranks’ with Obama. I think they will.
Ben –
Yes, they will; they will support the democratic nominee (presuming it will be Obama), as I would expect, and as (from their perspective) they should.
That said, it should be noted that while Obama is in the catbird seat, the primaries have truly only just started. He’s out of the gate in front, and in a front-loaded season where early momentum can be so important, that’s a huge advantage. Hillary was running on inevitablity,.and that’s now gone. Without that aura of inevitability, she’s very vulnerable; I think she’s done.
Too bad; personally, I’d rather run against Hillary, and the GOP has been strategizing for exactly that. Time to shift gears, I guess.
Interesting times, as always.
Yes, interesting times. Watching both Hillary and Mitt fade makes me think everyong is ready for some new faces.
I recall long ago I said Hillary would not be the nominee. I think she has simply become too ‘old’ (not years, just exposure) and people are ready for change. However, on the other side we see McCain resurgent. My guess there is that Romney just seems too plastic and New englanders are not ready for a preacher.
In four seeks it will probably be over – at least on the dem side.
I was just talking to a colleague about how I have been surprised at the rise of Sen. Obama. I have liked his message, and the fact that he is not yet a hardened politician since he came on to the Presidential scene. But I didn’t realize how many other people support him as well, including my colleague. Sen. Clinton just has too much baggage, and even me being a huge Bill Clinton fan (he was the first President I was able to vote for and voted for him twice), I’m tired of the Clintons in office, and the Bushes.
American Way
Even if I knew I was the deciding vote, I am going to vote for the best man, and screw the party.
If it ain’t Fred Thompson on top, then I’ll keep looking.
Are we going to be left with voting for the candidate who appears to each of us to be the lesser of two evils again?
————————————————————————————————–
We are in the minority AmWay. No one votes on their convictions anymore.
I am with Fred, the Consistent Conservative.
If Fred isn’t the nominee, then yes, we do vote for the lesser of two evils again.
Wondering if the obituary is premature. In the link, the author suggests one way Hillary might be able to use the existing rules to achieve the nomination. Proportional delegates, “Super Delegates”; it might happen.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2008/01/clintons_plan_b.html
VT – he seems to base his analysis on them being tied at the end of the primaries. If Obama wins the primaries then I don’t think the ’super delegates’ would want a repeat of 1968.
True, Ben; but, given the “Super Tuesday” thing, upon which I believe Mr. Giuliani is counting, the linked article raised a potential scenario that I didn’t think existed, although I’ve been having the infamous “gut feeling” that writing Senator Clinton off now was a bit premature.
To me the real possible premature aspect of it is that she just might do well on Super Tuesday. That would change everything.
“”"5) The swiftboating of Obama will begin even before South Carolina.”"”
And unlike Kerry I am quite sure Obama will deal with it when it happens.
“The fall of Hillary, and I do think this is a fall, I will be extremely surprised if she pulls this one out, probably has to do with a recognition among voters that the nomination of Hillary will guarantee an extremely divisive campaign.”
In light of the most recent results in New Hampshire…Eyuggh! Shoeleather in the evening.
VT – your gut was definitely right!