Inside Clinton's Narrow Comeback

Hillary Clinton has eked out a crucial win in New Hampshire, a state her aides have long staked out as the "firewall" in her quest for the Democratic nomination. At roughly three points, the margin of victory is far smaller than her lead in state polls over the past 11 months, which often topped 20 points. But Clinton's success will surely help stabilize her presidential campaign, which was rocked by infighting since her loss in Iowa. Rumors of a major staff shakeup had percolated for days: Campaign Co-Chair Terry McAuliffe already annouced that the campaign would "bring in more people to help," while James Carville and Paul Begala spent the primary day denying rumors they were taking over. On Tuesday afternoon, a Democratic source told The Nation that Team Hillary was still debating whether to hand the reins over to Steve Richetti, who served as President Clinton's Deputy Chief of Staff – the strategic post that Karl Rove made famous.

Yet Clinton cleared away the doubts and struck an inspiring note in her victory speech, telling New Hampshire voters, "I listened to you, and in the process I found my own voice. I felt like we all spoke from our hearts and I am so gratified that you responded!" She was met with roaring applause. Clinton likened the narrow victory to her husband's famous "comeback" in 1992, when he battled back to a surprising second place finish in New Hampshire. Then she offered a much more important parallel, vowing to give America the "kind of comeback" that New Hampshire just gave her.

The Clintons shared another political asset in New Hampshire, though farther offstage. Michael Whouley, the most respected field strategist in Democratic politics, was dispatched to overhaul the mobilization program in the state. Clinton aides had debated whether to deploy him in Iowa, where he had helped engineer John Kerry's huge comeback in 2004, or task him with fortifying the famous "firewall." Some feared that his efforts would simply be wasted in New Hampshire if Clinton lost Iowa, but the "Plan B" advocates won, and now they look pretty shrewd.

Obama took the narrow loss in stride, congratulating Clinton and delivering a dignified iteration of his stump speech. Reminding voters that he was "far behind" for "most of this campaign," Obama repeated his call for a bipartisan "new majority who can lead this nation out of a long political darkness." He did not shy away from reiterating his contrasts with Clinton, claiming the mantle of a different, bolder campaign that is "not just about what I will do as president -- it is also about what you, the people who love this country, the citizens of this country, can do to change it. That's what this election is all about!"

If the boisterous beginning of this presidential campaign proves anything – and elections still do officially start with voting – it's the empirical fact that a year of polls and predictions were flat wrong. Clinton was not an inevitable frontrunner, as her chastened aides now rush to emphasize; "cash on hand" is not even a rough predictor of political viability, as Mike Huckabee and John McCain are celebrating; polling remains unreliable, as every candidate says when the "second tier" comes calling; and while Iowa is powerfully pivotal, even the sum total of its caucus wisdom cannot dictate democracy in other states.

So Obama can only take cautious solace from his strong position in the next two states. I'm not talking about polls, of course -- especially since Nevada's tiny caucus electorate is inscrutable to surveys (its 9,000 attendees were 1% of the voting population last cycle) -- but rather his political and organizational footing. Obama will receive the endorsement of Nevada's most influential union, the Culinary Workers, and Iowa demonstrated his organization's prowess in a caucus state. His aides have also built a strong network in South Carolina, the first primary with a significant black population. Meanwhile, John Edwards could reemerge with a strong finish in his birth-state of South Carolina, which he won in 2004. Clinton has no clear foothold in either state; this week her aides debated whether to surrender both and focus on regrouping for Super Tuesday. But even after winning New Hampshire, ceding two weeks to a delegate fight between Obama and Edwards would be dicey, potentially undermining claims that she is a fighter with national appeal. (Democrats want a nominee who can compete everywhere, including pivotal southwestern swing states like Nevada, which reelected Bush by a scant 21,000 votes.) Yet if Clinton competes and loses both states, she would be heading into Super Tuesday on two weeks of losses. That's a tough slog either way, but then again, she'll have more than five days to turn things around.

Comments (51)

1. LOL. Well, as long as Hiillary is relevant again. 'Cuz it's all about her.

   Posted by gillygirl at 01/09/2008 @ 01:00am

2. Now the battle has officially begun.

   Barack should know that he's in for a blood bath at this point. It's an easy prediction that the mud will fly between now and "Super Tuesday".

   In regards to John Edwards, as much as I hate to say it, he really is now in danger of getting slapped with the Nader "traitor" label if he stays in it.

   That being said, I believe he probably will stay in the race at least through South Carolina, and I support him if he does --as dicey as that could end up being.

   The bottom line for me personally --it looks pretty clear that progressive hopes are now resting with Barack "the cypher" Obama for better or for worse, for good or ill.

   Here, by the grace of God we go.

   Obama has not been tested yet, but that is about to change.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/09/2008 @ 01:12am

3. I have never been a Hillary Clinton supporter. I will go into the reasons for that in a minute. But for the first time ever, I started feeling some empathy for her after her defeat in the Iowa Caucuses.

   Over the last several days, she has been vilified by the punditocracy as having been too aggressive in the New Hampshire ABC debate, and then too weak for tearing up when asked a question by a sympathetic voter. The last straw for me was when "protesters" carried posters at one of her rallies that said "iron my shirt."

   An obvious current of misogyny is at work here. Just for that, I am happy that she won New Hampshire. All the same, I do hope that Barack Obama turns out to be the nominee.

   Here's why.

   Hillary Clinton has always struck me as being rather un-empathetic. For one, I have never liked her politically compromising ways (not renouncing contributions from lobbyists as Obama and Edwards have done, voting for the Iraq war when a large number of her Democratic colleagues voted against it, being the beneficiary of corporate largesse, etc.) All of those individual facts only heighten my impression of her public persona as robotic, poll-tested, and distant. Subjective, to be sure.

   But the one thing that confirmed my previous prejudices for good was a joke Clinton made about Gandhi in 2004.

   Here is an AP report of that incident. http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/06/elec04.s.mo.farmer.clinton.ap/

   During an event [in St Louis] for Senate candidate Nancy Farmer, Clinton introduced a quote from Gandhi by saying, "He ran a gas station down in St. Louis."

   That was irritating to me in some ways specifically because I am Indian by birth. But I was not particularly surprised to hear it coming from Clinton.

   I am accustomed to a certain kind of racial ignorance from many native born Americans, particularly those from the older generations ("You're from India?! Oh my Gosh – do you know Dr. Patel?!!!" ), and I expect that people make jokes about Indians and gas stations when I am out of earshot, and often in my presence.

   But to hear that from a seasoned politician speaking at a public event, attended by the press, etc., was for me, a testament to Clinton's particularly tin ears, i.e., her lack of empathy.

   Clinton's assumption that this joke was not only acceptable, but appropriate to utter in a (very) public forum, underlines some of the criticism leveled against her; i.e., that her attempts to convey empathy often come off as insincere and wooden. A whole ethnic group (esp. a respected leader of said group) is reduced to an insipid stereotype. It reminded me of Newt Gingrich's reference to "Barney Fag" (referring to congressman Barney Frank), and now, to come full circle, to the "iron my shirt" hooligans in New Hampshire.

   I would have a hard time imagining Bill Clinton or Barack Obama making such a gaffe. I am very aware of the "Clinton, D-Punjab" memo from Obama's campaign, which he apologized for, claiming that it was not authorized by him, and B.C.'s Sister Souljah moment – the kind of pandering I despise, but see more as a political calculation than an unconscious slip.

   I have the impression that partly due to their hardscrabble upbringing, Bill Clinton and Obama have less trouble relating to ordinary people without resorting to stereotypes.

   Other Democrats (Joe Biden – describing Obama as "clean and articulate" among other gems, Dick Gephardt addressing a White Citizen's council meeting, John Kerry referring derisively to soldiers in Iraq – based on their social class), also give the same public perception of being aloof and distant, with good reason. And at least for me, not surprising, given their particular backgrounds and upbringing.

   I think it would be a mistake for Democrats to nominate HRC this year. Do we really need to reaffirm the (not completely unjustified) "latte liberal" meme yet once again? In Barack Obama, we have the opportunity to turn the page to a new generation that is less encumbered by the lumbering prejudices of the passing one.

   I have a lot of reservations about Obama's compromises on a whole host of issues, but am resigned to the fact that that is the price he has to pay, sadly, to become President.

   I believe, however, that given his record, he would be much more amenable to pressure from the grassroots in a way that HRC would not. The responsibility falls to us collectively to exert that positive pressure. But the right person needs to be in the White House; one who can listen with empathy and understanding. In my opinion, Hillary Clinton is not that person. Barack Obama may well be.

   Posted by amskape at 01/09/2008 @ 02:06am

4. Posted by AMSKAPE 01/09/2008 @ 02:06am

   nice post. Your final three paragraphs get to the heart of the matter for me, and really point to why I'm leaning more heavily towards Obama every day, even (or especially) with this recent 'defeat.'

   Posted by Rintrah at 01/09/2008 @ 04:06am

5. I am Black,female and now an Independent because so far no political party is doing my proud nation any good. I would like to say a few things about Mrs. clinton that bothers me as a female and as a rational thinker. 1.Why does she make Jackie Kennedy roll over in her grave by the way she dress? Do you believe that she shows respect to 'all" cultures or even elderly FEMALE Christians in those pants? 2. Why does she go out of her way to down grade Rev. M.L. King as she does? True, Dr. King was black but his "words" helped shape America in many ways. 3. How does Mrs. Clinton plan to act like she and her husband never critized the media for making a major fuss over a 'winner' of the political race as they did? 4. Does she have any idea that she is saying only the things that have already been said by Obama and Edwards when she says it. Example, MCCain had already said he had heard the voice of those in New Hampshire. Obama had just talked about those she talked about,etc. 5. Mrs. Clinton said that "words" were useless so what will she be doing with this new found voice? Lets not forget "experience" has been there for 35 years? So am I to forget those 35 years as valid because she has just found out who she is? 6. The word on cable news is how she will not allow Bill to speak for her/with her any longer. Is she coming our of the closet about Sex in the White House at long last now that she has no more use for Bill? 7. Is Hillary serious about bringing out any useful information on Obama or anyone else that she believes she will not get back much worst? Say, where has her mother been all of this time Hillary was in the White House? 8. What about that war in Kenya where that stopped 19 miles from the 'Obama' village and promised that no harm would come to Obama's family is going to be kept!!! How much control does Mr. Bush have over any war? Can he promise that any family in Iraq will be protected by Al Qaeda/Sunni/Shitte fighters? 9. Do either Clintons know that they were the first to play the race card or do they still believe that Blacks do not vote in America when Bill called Obama a "kid". Kid to a Black man means "boy", "nigger" in the South. Now where is South Carolina, Florida, Tenn. Texas,etc.....

   Posted by Lunky at 01/09/2008 @ 04:08am

6. ARRGHH! By the Eternal Blue Sky: The Koko Mongke Tengri! The Emasculator, the Imperialist Slut-Witch Socialist Bandit Clinton has won!

   (How's THAT for objectivity)

   Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 01/09/2008 @ 07:47am

7. Hope is lost. Hillary is unstoppable. I am a Republican and really wanted a chance to vote for Obama. I guess with Hillary in the lead it is now back to politics as usual and we will go back to scandal after scandal. It is truly a sad day for America. Thanks New Hampshire. Thanks a lot.

   Posted by abell12ct at 01/09/2008 @ 08:12am

8. In regards to John Edwards, as much as I hate to say it, he really is now in danger of getting slapped with the Nader "traitor" label if he stays in it.

   That being said, I believe he probably will stay in the race at least through South Carolina, and I support him if he does --as dicey as that could end up being.-----Posted by B_KOOL_66 01/09/2008 @ 01:12am

   Edwards in his speech last night said "2 down, 48 more to go" and gave rise to speculation he was going to stay in for the "long haul"...maybe PAST Super Tuesday. If he does that, you're right...he'll be tagged a spoiler and even some of his own people will insist that he support Obama to try to blunt Hillary before it's too late.

   Posted by Mask at 01/09/2008 @ 08:59am

9. I can't stand Hillary Clinton, she has blood on her hands, she has been George Bushs assistant in the Senate. McCains legacy is the same as Hillarys, the disaster in Iraq, the Detainee Torture Act - both of them are going to Hell for what they have done. Americans are truly asleep, insufficiently awake, to creeping authoritarianism. We are in a very, very, dark time for America. Hillary Clinton and her supporters have stolen and destroyed hope liberty for justice.

   Posted by conshame at 01/09/2008 @ 09:39am

10. Yeah, right, like I buy this crap, but in response to this:

    "But, have you all forgotten that the 2000 and 2004 elections were stolen, fixed, rigged, absconded with, etc.??"

    I never thought I would say this:

    It can't happen here--but it is increasingly the answer that makes the most sense only one week after the frightening NYTimes magazine expose of voting machine unreliability:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/magazine/06Vote-t.html

    But then what other mandate can you expect from a Supreme court that appointed Bush?

    Say when you will about polls, but ALL of the polls, reflected the increasing margin for Obama. The Clintons were desperate, disheartened--fast losing relevance and cash--the bandwagon was leaving the station and it wasn't theirs. The pundits are in a quandry--how could it be?? How could they be not only wrong, but so wrong? It was the old women, they claimed, but the one I watched this morning--said they all saw the roads jammed with cars for Obama events--and packed overflowing halls for Obama--while the turnout for the Clintons (yes the Clintons) was small--paltry--and what about the hugh turnout--there was no indication of enthusiasm for Clinton. The pundits come right up to the brink--re-running, rationalizing, re-working, spinning & searching--what could it be? where were we wrong? They never cross the obvious line drawn, because, of course, it can't happen here.

    What happened in Iowa must not happen again. It would be difficult to give Obama the Dean treatment--the folks back home are getting clued into that, but they still believe in the sacredness--the pureness of their singular beacon of democracy never realizing what a coincidence it was that folks who voted with paper ballots overwhelmingly voted for Obama vs Hillary's winning scores on Diebold Machines. Recall the long voting lines at the last election, the general demeanor of Bush--as a loser--not his cocky, brash bravado--and remember they pinned it all on the evangelicals and the "values" voter. Now watch the dynamic repeat itself--the dispirited Clinton campaign, the hugh turnout, the rationale spun into conventional wisdom. On top of that--the returns. Ever notice the returns barely--from start to finish, moved from 36% for Obama to 39% for Clinton%? I went to sleep before the final count but when I woke this morning it was 39 to 36. I tell you there is something fishy. Something stinks in New Hampshire and since there is so much invested in the Bush-Clinton dynasty it is going to be stinking up your town soon too.

    Posted by Lil at 01/09/2008 @ 10:01am

11. "1.Why does she make Jackie Kennedy roll over in her grave by the way she dress? Do you believe that she shows respect to 'all" cultures or even elderly FEMALE Christians in those pants?"- Lunky ::: I'm still waiting for the day a Hillary critic starts their diatribe on her policies and political gaffes, and not on her appearance. I stopped reading after number 1 Lunky, good work.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/09/2008 @ 10:02am

12. Hillary Clinton is not a "fighter" - that is ridiculous, just a manufactured media myth like the ones they made up about Bush, McCain, Powell - it's a lie! Hillary has cried on camera, arrogantly insisted she is the heir apparent on camera, Hillary has given the Republicans plenty of film to use in attack ads. Hillary does not know how to fight. If Hillary knew how to fight, she would not have ditched her career by voting for Bushs disaster in Iraq.

    Hillary may be an expert on getting her ass kicked, but she is not a fighter. What evidence? What proof says that Hillary is a fighter? Why does the Democratic Party continually get behind these Senators from Northeast states, Senators from Northeast states who get THEIR ASS KICKED.

    Posted by conshame at 01/09/2008 @ 10:03am

13. Folks should remember that Kerry had the shadowy Michael Whouley onboard too--but it ultimately couldn't save Kerry's sorry ass when it came to the voting machine returns.

    Posted by Lil at 01/09/2008 @ 10:04am

14. Time for John Edwards to get the hell out of the way, this is serious. John Edwards if you believe in what you said you believe this time around, you got to get out of there son.

    Posted by conshame at 01/09/2008 @ 10:07am

15. "Hillary Clinton and her supporters have stolen and destroyed hope liberty for justice."----Posted by CONSHAME 01/09/2008 @ 09:39am

    I guarentee if she gets the Dem nomination, atleast before November 4th....you'll sing a TOTALLY OPPOSITE tune in support of her.

    Posted by Mask at 01/09/2008 @ 10:16am

16. I also agree that the polls not matching the results is highly suspect. Also Edwards's numbers not changing was weird. The Diebold machines are going to select our President again, it seems. As A woman, I was impressed with Hillary's acting skills. Amazing that after all she's been through in the media THIS is what makes her cry! Also I guess she really likes Edwards's use of the word "personal" and has decided to adopt it, like his healthcare plan, etc. She nauseates me. It amazes me how after 7 years of George Bush, that voters are still so easy to manipulate. They tried the "inevitable" meme, it fails. So overnight she goes from all washed up to "the Comeback Kid". It seems America will get a soap opera instead of a leader. I'm glad she used the crying bit early and she can't use it again. Those of you who think Edwards should exit are ridiculous. He has moved up dramatically in the national polls, and you need to not be so susceptible to corporate media. Edwards has millions of supporters and has done very well considering the media blackout and negative coverage. He is the only candidate that resoundingly beats the Republicans.

    Posted by jeanruss at 01/09/2008 @ 10:37am

17. Mask, absolutely, and Hillary would make a great president. Dont be one-sided and quote just the bad things I said about Hillary. Hillary is NOT a fighter, she is NOT strong - there is nothing that makes me as angry as people accepting the propaganda that people in politics just make up. Like, McCain has principles. Bush is a centrist - yes, they said Bush was a centrist, yes they did. Colon Pile, he was supposed to be the one who was going to keep Dick Cheney under control, and Dick Cheney played him like a fiddle and Colon Pile never made a noise he wasnt supposed to until after the pre-emptive war based on lies was off and running. Hillary is the worst possible candidate that the Democrats could put forth, and to do it because people believe she is a "fighter"???? On what evidence???? Dammnit Americans wake up.

    Posted by conshame at 01/09/2008 @ 10:55am

18. Mask, absolutely, if it came down to Hillary vs. McCain or any other Republicans, it wouldnt take me a second to figure. I am a Liberal, I was right about Bush, I was right about Iraq - from the very beginning. With Hillary as President, America would quickly recover, and Hillary would make a great President, I am not going to elaborate but once again Hillary would make a great President, you can quote me on that Mask.

    But Hillary is not a "fighter". She is a weak candidate, she has already given the Republicans TV footage for commercials that dwarfs the Howard Dean Scream footage, she went from being an arrogant old bat to crying right on TV. There's your fighter. She would fold like a towel, especially against McCain. She would fold like a towel in an instant in a debate against a Republican, and should foreign events influence the campaign she would fold like a towel. Let me tell you why she would fold and why she has a weakness that practically ensures she could not win: because she is still afraid to be seen as soft on war.

    Posted by conshame at 01/09/2008 @ 11:04am

19. for the love of god, will people please realize that Obama's renunciation of official federal lobbyist money means absolutely nothing?

    go to sourcewatch.org and look up bundling.

    go to whitehouseforsale.org

    go to sourcewatch.org and look up Barack Obama/Campaign Financing

    the only difference between their war chests is Obama's vacillating pretense to purity.

    Kucinich '08. dearly beloved, let us pray. a victory against conventional wisdom, for the very least, is a beautiful thing.

    Posted by Ryan444 at 01/09/2008 @ 11:07am

20. I am thrilled that Hillary won last night because of the outrageous sexism that has reared its ugly head again. Gloria Steinham wrote in the NY Times yesterday that sexism is acceptable but any challenge to Obama would be viewed as racist and that is unacceptable in the U.S. She is right. Just waiting in line this morning for my daily dose of Starbucks, three men were talking about the NH results. While one was thrilled, another said "I will never allow a woman to be president. Can you imagine what 'they' will do?"

    THEY might actually get something done about children and poverty in this country. THEY might actually establish relationships with other countries rather than execute a bunker mentality. Remember Bush, "you are either with us or against us"?

    But THEY do not matter in this discussion. Hillary does. And I say "Go Girl!"

    I have reservations about Clinton but I also believe that Obama has many questions to answer and has not yet. His campaign is inspiring but dreams do not get it done alone.

    I wrote his campaign to ask about one issue in particular and have not yet received a response. It has been more than a week. On Jan 1, the Chicago Sun Times reported that Obama chose not to support the Democratic challenge to the results in the state of Ohio during the 2004 presidential election. To quote the Sun Times "He faced angering party leaders on his first day by voting not to join Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and African-American congressmen in rejecting the vote totals from Ohio, where Democrats say faulty voting machines and bad voter-registration policies threw the close election to Bush." Obama said through chief strategist David Axelrod that "he voted to accept the results because Kerry himself said he did not want to fight it."

    How could he have made that decision? While thousands were clearly disenfranchised through the voting process in Ohio, he chose not to fight. At least, as a "civil rights leader" he could have displayed more political accumen than to fold to the Republicans and challenge the vote, regardless of what Kerry's position was.

    At the least he missed a political opportunity to challenge the status quo, to challenge the manipulation of the elections by the Republicans, and to make an important political statement. At worst, he did not stand up for the disenfranchised, especially the African American population. For a candidate of hope, how could he have abandoned so many?

    This decision of 2004 makes me question his ability to take difficult stands in the future. How can I support him when he did not take the opportunity to make a stand in Ohio?

    I have spent a great deal of time digging (because that is what you have to do because God knows, the mainstream media is barely reporting on this) and there are more and more questions that arise about Obama's record. Just today in the Chicago Tribune, John Kass writes about his dealings with someone who is being investigated by the FBI. Apparently there are many questions about Obama's financial dealings with this man.

    He does need to answer questions. The problem is, no one is willing to ask him.

    Posted by smkinmo at 01/09/2008 @ 11:24am

21. "In regards to John Edwards, as much as I hate to say it, he really is now in danger of getting slapped with the Nader "traitor" label if he stays in it."

    Posted by B_KOOL_66 01/09/2008 @ 01:12am

    While I'm not a Democrat, I could never consider Edwards a "traitor" as long as he continues to say the things that need to be said. Edwards' performance up to this (early) point shows that his message has legs. If either Obama or Clinton fail to recognize the import of his populist message while failing to garner a clear majority on the merits of their own respective politics, shame on them, not him.

    Posted by drhammer at 01/09/2008 @ 11:27am

22. "I am thrilled that Hillary won last night because of the outrageous sexism that has reared its ugly head again."

    Posted by SMKINMO 01/09/2008 @ 11:24am

    First, a disclaimer: I truly believe that the introduction of at least some feminine sensibilities to the office could very well help return this country to a position of admiration, if not greatness.

    But to me, the reference to "outrageous sexism" is both hyperbolic and hysterical, and sets off MSM alarm bells, despite your claim of digging beyond such sources of information.

    Additionally, how long has the Chicago Tribune not been considered part of the mainstream media?

    Posted by drhammer at 01/09/2008 @ 11:38am

23. Posted by LIL 01/09/2008 @ 10:01am | ignore this person

    Here's a testament to how voters think. Picture in your mind the democratic candidates. When you say "vote rigging" who comes to mind?

    That's what the HRC machine has to overcome.

    I'm not buying the vote rigging thing personally. That would be too dumb to do for such a small state. Now, if this same scenario happend in say, New York, then I'd give it more credibility.

    Posted by FritztheCat at 01/09/2008 @ 11:55am

24. For DRHAMMER, one only need to pay attention to the comments about Clinton's attire, makeup, and 'crying jags' by MSM like MSNBC and CNN to hear that sexism is part of the narrative that is being pushed forward. Nothing was more fun than watching Chris Matthews body language last night on MSNBC when he realized what a close race this really was going to be.

    Yes, the Trib is certainly part of the mainstream, but the Kass piece was a commentary and not a news story. My point is, where are the news stories in the MSM that push for answers to the questions we have? The Chicago Sun Times, another MSM outlet, published a very small article on Jan 1 which was buried in the middle of the paper on New Years Day. Let's give some light to the questions and not marginalize them by raising them only through commentaries, the middle of the papers or on days when few read the papers

    Posted by smkinmo at 01/09/2008 @ 12:01pm

25. In regards to John Edwards, as much as I hate to say it, he really is now in danger of getting slapped with the Nader "traitor" label if he stays in it.

    this really stupid. these are the PRIMARIES. Nader was the ELECTION .  

    Posted by brannigan at 01/09/2008 @ 12:02pm

26. I can really relate to LIL's concerns over black-box voting.

    I just don't think that it makes sense to resort to such skullduggery in a 22-delegate primary.

    Posted by drhammer at 01/09/2008 @ 12:05pm

27. Not so much the 22 delegates--but the perception of an eroding candidacy had to be transformed. For example read the headline of this particular article:

    A "fighter finds her voice"..."Hillary Clinton roared back" and to think we all thought it was a vote of sympathy for poor widdle Hillary in the final moments.

    Posted by Lil at 01/09/2008 @ 12:13pm

28. and Hillary would make a great President, I am not going to elaborate but once again Hillary would make a great President, you can quote me on that Mask.----Posted by CONSHAME 01/09/2008 @ 11:04am

    Okay....

    "Hillary Clinton and her supporters have stolen and destroyed hope liberty for justice."----Posted by CONSHAME 01/09/2008 @ 09:39am

    (Should we check in with you hourly for updates???...heheh)

    Posted by Mask at 01/09/2008 @ 12:14pm

29. Well, Fritzthecat, my intuition as a woman says something is amiss. and if you say anything you are a dirty sexist chauvenist pig misogynist..

    (Hey, I could start to like this;-))

    Posted by Lil at 01/09/2008 @ 12:15pm

30. "If either Obama or Clinton fail to recognize the import of his populist message while failing to garner a clear majority on the merits of their own respective politics, shame on them, not him."----Posted by DRHAMMER 01/09/2008 @ 11:27am

    Why should THEY take up the message of the guy coming in second and third?

    Posted by Mask at 01/09/2008 @ 12:16pm

31. Bravo Hillary. I love having to eat my own words in American politics. What a great night for an incredible woman.

    For me, this is the first night Hillary has really stepped out of Bill's shadow. I don't count the NY Senate where she has no opposition from either other Democrats or even the Repubs. This was her first great victory. Personally, I'm sick of Clintonista politics. But this was a great night for Hillary, and even though I'm not backing her, I'm simply happy for her as a human being. What a reaffirmation for her. A wonderful moment to witness.

    Let the race begin!

    Posted by Scrub at 01/09/2008 @ 12:17pm

32. LIL, you weren't planning on voting for Hillary OR Obama anyway, were you?

    Posted by Mask at 01/09/2008 @ 12:18pm

33. So, you mean if I don't support Hillary I am not included in the conversation?

    Oh, what a surprise. Mask, maybe you would really be at home over at the partisan Democratic Underground as opposed to say, The Nation.

    Posted by Lil at 01/09/2008 @ 12:29pm

34. Posted by LIL 01/09/2008 @ 12:13pm

    I understand your point, but the tactic would still seem disproportionately risky for the questionable payoff.

    Considering our collective ADHD, I don't see how the "Hillary Clinton roared back" narrative could provide much currency as far off as February 5th.

    Posted by drhammer at 01/09/2008 @ 12:37pm

35. Posted by LIL 01/09/2008 @ 12:29pm

    No, I'm saying it's odd that somebody who considered DENNIS KUCINICH a sell-out for supporting Obama in Iowa....

    is now trying to push a "Hillary stole Obama's primary" line worse than even the strongest Obama supporter.

    Just....curious.

    Posted by Mask at 01/09/2008 @ 2:26pm

36. Not so much interested in the politicians as the politics.

    Posted by Lil at 01/09/2008 @ 2:52pm

37. Well, Fritzthecat, my intuition as a woman says something is amiss. and if you say anything you are a dirty sexist chauvenist pig misogynist..

    (Hey, I could start to like this;-))

    Posted by LIL 01/09/2008 @ 12:15pm | ignore this person

    My male intuition tells me I probably shouldn't touch this. :)

    Posted by FritztheCat at 01/09/2008 @ 2:53pm

38. Posted by LIL 01/09/2008 @ 2:52pm

    So you don't are who wins the nomination...just how the other guy/gal lost it?!?!?!

    Posted by Mask at 01/09/2008 @ 4:04pm

39. wonder why the media are hyperventilating about this oh so narrow result? look no further than here.

    Posted by brannigan at 01/09/2008 @ 4:32pm

40. Have we agreed upon what we mean by Change? The candidates certainly haven't (not to imply that such should be the case).

    Here's how one voter perceives it:

    Change for Hillary Clinton means movement in the context of specific policies. It means a long series of battles - most likely, as part of a political war with institutional Republicans. It is important to note that her conception(s) of change, as evidenced by the content of her New Hampshire victory speech, are an amalgam of those formulated by Obama and Edwards.

    Change for Mitt Romney involves the fabric used on Oval Office furniture.

    Change for John Edwards is about an all out attack on corporate America and its lobbyist minions. In the context of the long and venerable history of populism, the Edwards variety is mild enough. It also represents a philosophical plank that belongs in almost any Democratic Party platform.

    Change for Rudy Giuliani is about marital partners (a cheap shot, but he's laughing, too) and . . . yes . . . 9/11.

    Change for Dennis Kucinich is about the evolution of our species in the grander universal context. Both he and Ken Wilbur are correct, but they're not doing well on Amazon.

    Change for John McCain is about . . . not changing.

    Change for Bill Richardson requires a constant recitation of key resume elements that convince the opposition that he's so much brighter and more experienced than they are that they should go check with HR about applying for another position. Oh, and weight loss.

    Change for Ron Paul is all about a long-held resentment involving the IRS. He also believes in the restoration of Jeffersonian democracy, which will require a return to turn-of-the-century (18th to 19th) government budgets (down to the cent).

    Then there's Barack Obama, for whom change is about the sort of transcendent change that happens once every couple-few generations. Obama believes that Change is a matter of massive re-definition. He doesn't just wanna move around the furniture. He wants to move us all to a different neighborhood, one in which our previous definitions of conservative, liberal or progressive are re-aligned in a manner that asks us to exceed ourselves. Given such Change - the sort of event horizon that would even defy notions of coalition or triangulation - the electorate would be energized in a manner that would bring about an effortless movement toward progressive policies. In other words, for Barack Obama, Change is a Gandhian thing.

    I like his definition.

    Posted by VitalCenter at 01/09/2008 @ 6:48pm

41. Hillary's success can be summed up in a word. Diebold.

    As was the case with Kerry in Ohio, the polls and the pundits were not wrong. What smells is that it is only the Obama/Clinton numbers that wavered so drastically on 1/8/08. All other percentages about all other candidates of parties held true to polls within one or two points. Could it have been that whites polled for Obama, and then voted Hillary when the curtain was drawn, when it was safe to be racist again? Maybe, a little bit. Was it that Hillary's quasi-emotional display swayed independents? Undoubtedly that had some effect.

    But when you take into account that the polls had Hillary down by 10 - 16 percent, and then she surged to override the polls by 3%, indicating that the polls were wrong by 13 - 19%, then something begins to smell very bad about the situation.

    I reiterate: the polling data about all other candidates in both parties is accurate to within a couple of percentage points. If you add in the racism factor mentioned above, with the emotional performance, that would add a few percentage points. But a 13 - 19 percentage of error in the polls? I doubt it.

    For what it is worth, there are confirmed reports that votes for Ron Paul were neutralized, flat-lined (is in tossed out) in at least three N.H. counties. I'm not a Paul supporter, but his numbers were very large in some very tiny towns, and we have many personal verifications (ravings) on this small stage that none of the votes cast for Ron Paul were "disincluded."

    Was it the tears, the inherent racism of N.H., or was it a rigged vote? Science, logic, and humanism would suggest that it could have been a bit of all three.

    Posted by carrion at 01/09/2008 @ 8:16pm

42. Very thoughtful post CARRION.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 01/09/2008 @ 8:20pm

43. Hillary's success can be summed up in a word. Diebold.

    As was the case with Kerry in Ohio, the polls and the pundits were not wrong. What smells is that it is only the Obama/Clinton numbers that wavered so drastically on 1/8/08. All other percentages about all other candidates of parties held true to polls within one or two points. Could it have been that whites polled for Obama, and then voted Hillary when the curtain was drawn, when it was safe to be racist again? Maybe, a little bit. Was it that Hillary's quasi-emotional display swayed independents? Undoubtedly that had some effect.

    But when you take into account that the polls had Hillary down by 10 - 16 percent, and then she surged to override the polls by 3%, indicating that the polls were wrong by 13 - 19%, then something begins to smell very bad about the situation.

    I reiterate: the polling data about all other candidates in both parties is accurate to within a couple of percentage points. If you add in the racism factor mentioned above, with the emotional performance, that would add a few percentage points. But a 13 - 19 percentage of error in the polls? I doubt it.

    For what it is worth, there are confirmed reports that votes for Ron Paul were neutralized, flat-lined (is in tossed out) in at least three N.H. counties. I'm not a Paul supporter, but his numbers were very large in some very tiny towns, and we have many personal verifications (ravings) on this small stage that all of the votes cast for Ron Paul were "disincluded."

    Was it the tears, the inherent racism of N.H., or was it a rigged vote? Science, logic, and humanism would suggest that it could have been a bit of all three.

    Posted by carrion at 01/09/2008 @ 8:20pm

44. For those of you who have brains Read on below. For the rest of you.. Don't bother.

    Search Google.. Diebold Voting fraud.. Once again our votes mean nothing at all. Think i am full of Cow dung? Mehh.. Proof is in the pudding. So to speak.

    Search out On google Ron Paul Votes not counted

    Do your own research.. Don't take my word for it .. Find out the truth for yourself..

    Posted by Dav805 at 01/09/2008 @ 8:42pm

45. Posted by CARRION 01/09/2008 @ 8:16pm

    Because it SURE can't be that NH Democrats agree with Hillary more than Obama.

    That's just crazy talk! It's GOT to be race hatred and conspiracies!...it's.....it's.....it's.....just GOT to be!

    Posted by Mask at 01/09/2008 @ 10:36pm

46. There's an unconscious self-destructive force within liberals. Or to say it another way, we don't know when to unify, solidify, and really fight. And we lack imagination. Look at how Gore folded when he should have challenged based on strong evidence of Ohio voter fraud, look at milk-toast Pelosi and Reed. Here's what will happen soon: Herd democrats will rally in fear around Hillary, the known quantity. Corporate media will see to it. Hillary's the republican dream. Then in the heat of the real deal big election severe McCain on Rudy will spout terror terror terror everywhere, more so the next little Swiftboatees, a vote for Hillary is a guaranteed mushroom cloud. And voila, it's 2000, and 2004 again. Solution? It's beyond ego, it's wild, huge & free (so it will not see the light of day):

    Suddenly every media outlet has only one story, the mysterious super secret summit that every major progressive leader is attending. Get Spielberg to secretly manage all the imagery.

    After unprecedented hype and No News, just huge anticipation... Barack and Hillary walk out before the cameras: They are a history-busting team. On message, ONE, inseparatable. ONE on Iraq, healthcare, economy. ONE on kicking any neocon ass. ONE on healing history, setting a new course for minorities and women and children.

    They've (and all the big names, Oprah, Edwards,) have achieved SINGULARITY -- and it's all message- (a synthesis of Obama's, Hillary's, Edwards, Richards, Kuccinich). BUT it is singular, one playbook, perfectly consistent (taking this page as it were from the neocons!).

    Page 1? The approach to the primaries: Edwards, Kuccinich drop out. Everyone but Obama and Clinton. And all they will do every second is expound on their vision. They will let America decide who will be president and who will be vice president. Meanwhile this unified team crystalizes, Edwards on corporate greed, Richardson on middle east peace, Biden wherever he shines best--- BUT unified, don't give the media a millimeter as they salivate for news of in-fighting. This is what I mean by stopping the self sabotage and out-imagining the good folks who keep voting for folks like we have in OUR whitehouse.

    Posted by Obama at 01/09/2008 @ 11:50pm

47. There's an unconscious self-destructive force within liberals. Or to say it another way, we don't know when to unify, solidify, and really fight. And we lack imagination. Look at how Gore folded when he should have challenged based on strong evidence of Ohio voter fraud, look at milk-toast Pelosi and Reed. Here's what will happen soon: Herd democrats will rally in fear around Hillary, the known quantity. Corporate media will see to it. Hillary's the republican dream. Then in the heat of the real deal big election severe McCain on Rudy will spout terror terror terror everywhere, more so the next little Swiftboatees, a vote for Hillary is a guaranteed mushroom cloud. And voila, it's 2000, and 2004 again. Solution? It's beyond ego, it's wild, huge & free (so it will not see the light of day):

    Suddenly every media outlet has only one story, the mysterious super secret summit that every major progressive leader is attending. Get Spielberg to secretly manage all the imagery.

    After unprecedented hype and No News, just huge anticipation... Barack and Hillary walk out before the cameras: They are a history-busting team. On message, ONE, inseparatable. ONE on Iraq, healthcare, economy. ONE on kicking any neocon ass. ONE on healing history, setting a new course for minorities and women and children.

    They've (and all the big names, Oprah, Edwards,) have achieved SINGULARITY -- and it's all message- (a synthesis of Obama's, Hillary's, Edwards, Richards, Kuccinich). BUT it is singular, one playbook, perfectly consistent (taking this page as it were from the neocons!).

    Page 1? The approach to the primaries: Edwards, Kuccinich drop out. Everyone but Obama and Clinton. And all they will do every second is expound on their vision. They will let America decide who will be president and who will be vice president. Meanwhile this unified team crystalizes, Edwards on corporate greed, Richardson on middle east peace, Biden wherever he shines best--- BUT unified, don't give the media a millimeter as they salivate for news of in-fighting. This is what I mean by stopping the self sabotage and out-imagining the good folks who keep voting for folks like we have in OUR whitehouse.

    Posted by Obama at 01/09/2008 @ 11:50pm

48. There was obvious voter fraud in New Hampshire. Jennifer Call of Sutton County, NH admitted Ron Paul's votes weren't counted, so who is to say Clinton didn't go Bush on New Hampshire? It sure would be nice to see her plane crash.

    Posted by thinkpeople at 01/10/2008 @ 09:40am

49. Where is Bobby Kennedy on this one (Diebold Election Fraud)? Oh that's right, he endorsed his first Republican- Hillary Rodham Clinton for the nomination. The Clinton cronies will all say you are a conspiracy nut or are sexist.

    I'm telling the Democratic Party that if this Repugnican (Clinton) gets the nomination, I'll be sitting at home on election day 2008. No vote, no money. no work. I'm sure I am not alone, but will let this fake Democrat fail in November.

    Posted by NoPCZone at 01/10/2008 @ 12:58pm

50. I'll be sitting at home on election day 2008.

    who cares? it's not about you.

    Posted by brannigan at 01/10/2008 @ 1:39pm

51. What's interesting is the number of Democrats who really, really don't like Hillary Clinton and really, really distrust her. I'm one of them. But what worries me is that she will win by machine, we will all know it, some will forgive and some won't, and the kind of anger and bitterness which was sired by and born of the Republicans in the '90's, then fed and poisoned by the Bush "election" and 8 years in office, will continue to be with us through one or two Clinton-part-deux administrations. An Obama victory would hardly have such an outcome. Not to mention that Obama has a grateful, moderate Republican constituency as well as progressives.

    One thing to keep in mind: the dislike many of us feel is part and parcel of the distrust we have for the Democratic party leadership. Could a Clinton victory this year mean some serious membership losses for the Democratic party? A lifelong Dem, I left the party a few years ago when it had moved too far right, become too corporatist and authoritarian. Since then, I've become aware of many more who are dropouts. Quite apart from voters, the Democratic party, which fielded some very good candidates this year, looks as though it used most of them as window dressing. Party leadership would seem to be putting its clout and machinery behind the candidate who most closely resembles the current president. That's a Democratic party?

    Posted by saetias at 01/10/2008 @ 3:17pm