NH Primary Update

This is particularly damaging for Romney. Coming from MA, he had significant brand recognition. He invested both time and money in New Hampshire. With the deck stacked for him, his loss in New Hampshire raises real questions about his electability.

They're both Republicans. It matters not.

It makes no sense, given the voters' in NH supposed importance on such issues as taxes and immigration.

Romney is in trouble (this coming from a backer.......).

Well, it puts a whole lot more pressure on Romney to perform in the February 5th elections.

I can go to sleep happy,Hillary's back.Hope it is a big lead and a big win in the morning.

McCain .. .. thinking ... at least he won't allow terrorists to run us over. But I think he and Huckabee (my first choice so far) would make good team. But at this early stage I'm open to anything .. not crazy about Hillary at all.



If you see my widgets it means you got a "10" :O)

Hillary took the very worst and survived. This was a terrible week; huge defeat in iowa, polls telling of certain defeat, uncertainty in her own organization. But she has won. Hillary is now stronger than ever. Her campaign is more energized than ever. She is the frontrunner and she is invincible once again. The media love fest over Obama will end, and he will take a lot of hits on his record and inexperience. His great speeches won't offer him much of a defence. This is going to be a great campaign!

Great comment, ty phoon. I wouldn't count Obama out, yet. Her win was good for all concerned. I think she will make a terrific president.

I'll just say what I've said before. Change is getting a lot of lip service, but there are very good indications that nothing will change all that much, if Obama or Clinton get the nod. Both have accepted large donations from Corporate America, Hillary more than Obama, but still huge amounts of cash, and both subsequently endorsed the new NAFTA agreement, even though the bulk of Democratic voters, and many independents have voiced extreme opposition to these trade deals. Obama and Clinton continually talk about making change happen, but also talk about uniting America. John Edwards, on the other hand, takes no special interest money at all, has opposed the new NAFTAs, and tells the truth when he tells people that the interests that have a death grip on this country, that back, and are largely responsible for, the misdeeds of the Bush administration, are not going to just give up that power, without a fight. I find the gullibility of the electorate, accepting the oxymoron of uniting, and yet fighting for change, to be disheartening, and naive. My political will is being drained by the BS factor's success, and our electorate once again falling for this eternal shell game. We don't need the token incremental change of a few programs, a few laws, that we will get from Obama or Clinton, we need fundamental changes in how government works, starting with the abolishment of lobbyists. The constitution says everyone has a right to redress, but it doesn't say they can buy it, and then be insulated from all responsibility when their lobbyists break the law, and bribe at will. I didn't see the Indian Tribal councils, or any of the other Abramoff clients up on charges, even though they knew exactly what they were paying him to do. Corporate interests are once again proving that we are sheep to be led to fiscal slaughter, and that they are the ones that have a right......to the best government they can buy. Only John Edwards is committed to fighting these corporate Capones for us, yet he runs a distant third. It's just getting too depressing for words.

This primary may have a net result, no one is talking about yet. Beginning today, all candidates may be forced to start providing actual details to their policies in order to stand a chance come eletion time.
On that front, for the time being, John McCain has the upper hand. Whether you are for or against him, you cannot argue that, to this point, he is the only candidiate that has mentioned the details of his policies ( on a broad scope ) on a regular basis. John Edwards has done some of this on the Democratic side, but not in as broad a scope as McCain.
If this election truly is about change, then it is up to the voters to demand details from the candidates, not just feel-good promises.

great update!

It is great news becasue it means more time for the entire country to make choices. I think Mitt is toast and Obama is seriously damaged. He needs to prove more than the others and speeches in front of thousands of college students that aren't even registered to vote won't do it for him. It will be interesting.

I'm so vaklempt! Yay Hillary! Barack gets major points for an excellent speech. I don't think he's damaged. There is so much more that can and will happen. Voting for either will be an honor and a privilege.

>>Only John Edwards is committed to fighting these corporate Capones for us, yet he runs a distant third. It's just getting too depressing for words. <<

Ron W.,

I agree. he has been my personal first choice in the Democratic primaries since the beginning for a number of reasons. I think it is important for anyone elected to serve our country, especially the President, to have first hand experience in a number of "real people" situations. John Edwards did not come from "money". He knows what it means to not be rich, to have to work to get ahead and not have life served to you on a silver platter. His wifes' health problems and the loss of his teenage son have given him, unfortunate but necessary, experience with pain and suffering ,the need for healthcare for all and the compassion that comes with these real life, heart-breaking situations. He knows all about big business and the rich running over the average citizen from his law career. He has fought them before in courts and won.
He, in my opinion, would do well in the general election against any Republican candidate- VERY IMPORTANT!!
There are many other things I like about Edwards, but unfortunately, he does not seem to be able to pull the votes in the primaries... :(
Too bad. I think it will be this country's and peoples loss.

Great article! I would no more count Romney out on the basis of the two states than I would have counted Hillary out based on Iowa!

All the large states are yet to come and this process so far has been more titillation than decision. I agree that there is no front runner in either party at this time. Perhaps, for the first time since I was a child, there will be a nominating convention rather than a coronating convention!

Huckabee won Iowa, Romney won Wyoming, McCain won New Hampshire, and Giuliani's strategy looks to Florida. The idea that any of them "must win" any particular state or states, is a big mistake. The purpose now is to get convention delegates. Unless a candidate gets a majority of delegates before the convention, any candidate with a good number of delegates can be a factor.

On the Democratic side, Edwards could give Obama or Clinton the votes at the convention needed for the nomination; and he could extract promises before going for one or the other — policy promises, even the Vice-Presidency or a Supreme Court nomination. And the same sort of thing could happen at the Republican convention, but with even more complexity, if there are four candidates with considerable numbers of delegates. In both cases, by keeping several candidates in play at the convention, it means that a wider range of voters are represented in the final decisions.

I hope Obama, Clinton, and Edwards, McCain, Huckabee, Romney, and Giuliani all stay in the race at least until it becomes clear that one is not going to get enough delegates to make a difference at the convention.

I am a woman and I never thought that I would ever vote for a woman for President of the United States. I never thought that there was a woman in this country strong enough to warrant my vote, but I am happy to say that Hillary Clinton is the one woman in this country that I feel will do a better job as president of the United States than any man. She has the wisdom, the fortitude, the experience and the strength to lead this country back to being respected throughout the world.
Unlike her opponent, she does not merely talk of change, she has ideas and plans. I think that she will make a president who will have the respect of the world leaders as well as the respect of the citizens of this country. She has proven what she is made of, and I sincerely hope that she becomes the Democratic nominee for president.

We in India are glad that Harry won the primary in New Hampshire . Obama seemed to be at her back esp after Iowa. Prez Clinton has a very good image in India and his wife's image is well taken while she visted as the first lady. We would love to see her as the woman president and make a name for herself like IKE ,Trueman, JFK and LIncoln . May the good Lord show and lead her on to the first Woman Prez of USA. Sure men would not like her in that position !!
achuta

Dubby,

\\\\I'm just saying . . . ./////

Your just trying to say you think that the Clinton's sabotaged all of just the right machines in a small primary where not that many electoral votes were at stake. I heard you loud and clear!

If, in fact, Clinton accomplished that then we need a person with her obvious miraculous skills as president, that's for sure! If she can do that miraculously in that small state in just the correct precincts, then the election is really over as I'm sure all the voting precincts in the country which really count have been already sabotaged!

Since we all love to pillory Hillary with subtle innuendos relating to feeling rather than facts, go for it!

Dubby,

Relax girl! No one is tampering with the ballot boxes yet. And I'm sure you really know that yourself! It's too early to be meaningful. And if it is facts, not feelings, lets hear them! I recognize hatred and know a lot of people hate Hillary. She is not my favorite candidate by any means but she sure beats what the Republicans have to offer this year.

My advice for you is, if you dislike Hillary that much, don't vote for her! Write in your own name if you wish but vote for the person you feel will do the best job for America. That is your right and obligation in our form of government! And that is what is most important.

Dubby,

Brush "facts like these?" under the rug? No, I can't say someone did not tamper. In that you are correct. However, it is not hard to look at the situation and see what would be reasonable and has the "ring of truth." That which is patently unreasonable becomes pretty obvious. But, just what "facts" are you referencing being "swept under the rug?" I didn't see any facts about anyone tampering with voting machines. Do you have some?

Like I said, if Hillary did that she has some near miraculous talents that we desperately need in our leadership! She is not my pick of candidates but I did not know she possessed these extraordinary powers!

One can always find a devil lurking in every dark corner and a monster under every bed, but there are always poll watchers and their has to be a big payoff if anyone is going to risk that much on the first tiny primary in the nation.

I have no doubt that if Hillary wins the primaries and the general election, two thirds of the Republican backers in the country will be saying that there were stuffed ballot boxes, lost ballots, or other fraudulent tactics involved. If a Republican wins, you'll hear the same song from the radical Democratic backers. This tune is as old as are the elections themselves!

Don't like Hillary? Don't vote for her! Like to espouse conspiracies? Look up the people who think Bush arranged the 911 events and used explosives on the trade center. They do have some real facts to work with in spite of the far out concept they espouse.

Dubby,

I agree with you that we need tight election procedures and solid paper trails. No argument on that at all! And I don't question your brother's sorrow at seeing the deaths of the persons he knew. That would be both saddening and traumatic.

What Bush had to do with that is purely guess work at best! What conspiracy. What explosives? How did Bush get Osama's people to fly planes into buildings he had already sabotaged and more importantly why? While I know there are holes in the official story, all the alternatives offered are so far off the wall they make the official story sound more reasonable than it is! Whether those holes or any of the conspiracy theories will ever be any more proven than they are today is doubtful. Why hasn't someone with the conspiracy come forward? Probably because they don't exist! How many people in the conspiracy? If it exists there would have to be many and affiliated with multiple governments, multiple agencies and multiple skill capabilities. There are no solid answers to all things.

I would like to be enlightened as to how a three star general can be a non-com as a general's rank is a commissioned rank. Even if it was a battlefield promotion. Not denigrating your brother or questioning his rank, but I think he is commissioned and would like to know the error in my thought process if not.

One thing about it, they are going to do a recount on NH results so if there is a problem they have a chance to fix it.

And I know of no one who is saying the tragedy or 911 didn't happen. In fact, you're the first person to even hint at it. So don't try to lay it at my feet as it would be wrong.

Dubby,

Thanks for the explanation! I agree that we need backup for any system of voting so we have a record to recount if necessary. And there is nothing difficult about providing that! It should be done!