I have a question - What happens if she finishes third? Seriously...

A 16 point swing! Momentum is a wonderful thing.

No really, someone answer my question. What happens if she finishes 3rd? I don't think she pulls out, but that would be so incredibly demoralizing that her $ contributions would stop on a dime and she'd be completely ineffective on the campaign trail. I'm interested to hear what others think.

Bill goes ballistic on Penn, then storms out. Wolfson starts running around like a beheaded chicken. Chelsea takes over... LOL

She stabs Obama.

The rest of the world continues to laugh at you Americans.

You are morally and financially bankrupt, your military is overextended and you now seem to want elect 'babe in the woods' Obama to 'nice your way' through your continued denial.

To our amazement you elected Bush twice and now with Mr. Popularity Obama as the Iowa Democratic choice - also the choice of Republican machine that will chew him up – America will be on its way to completing 12 or maybe 16 straight years of Republican rule. Your nation will be finished, the Chinese and Russians will eat your lunch to say nothing of the field day that unsavory players will have.

You Americans are in denial and can’t face the truth that you have ahead of you at least a decade of very tough policy choices and sacrifices to make. It’s going to be very far from cotton candy and that box of chocolates Hollywood ending.

And don’t embarrass yourselves further with those Obama comparisons to the Kennedy’s. Jack had gone to war and was well tested and Bobby had been hardened by years of fighting the mob and other establishment forces – neither one was wet behind the ears and they confronted the realities of the day head on. Do you really think your country can survive another 4 years of on the job training?

You can hope and dream all you want but your Country’s mortgage is held by the Chinese, you don’t have sufficient natural resources or educated human resources within the US to sustain your current pace of self indulgent consumption and your economy is on the brink of recession.

The truth is that you Americans are soft, naive and simply don’t have the guts or brains to make the right choice to elect someone to deal with the realities confronting you. You’re caught up in a media frenzy and fooled into thinking that this is a popularity contest rather than a matter of survival of your country as a viable world power.

You continue to embarrass yourselves - when are you going to send us a leader who actually knows what she or he is doing rather than the same old fluff ball lightweight (but popular) type you’ve had up front for the past 8 years? Take a good look in the mirror.

And don’t tell me to buzz off because it’s ‘your’ election – every world citizen has a stake in this. You’re consuming 25% of the world’s oil with 4.6% of the planet’s population and polluting the hell out of my environment. The rest of the world is going to be in your face like never before so get used to it since it will just get worse for you the more inexperienced is your next President.

Seriously, I think it would end her candidacy. She can't lose two contests in a row AND finish third to a candidate that lacks both MONEY and organizational support. The wall-to-wall coverage of a candidacy in crisis, along with the gloating at Fox News, would be too much even for the "Strength" candidate (whatever the hell that means).

I'd be ecstatic, to be honest, if Edwards edged her again.

I don't think there's any chance Edwards would catch up to Obama afterwards, but it would make a number of contributions to how everyone sees the race.

First and foremost, I think it would add content to Obama's "change" -- it would make it clear that what the Dem electorate means what it calls for change is serious progressive change, not mealy-mouthed Broderite pablum.

It would also be a huge blow to the MSM insistence from the outset that this was a 2 horse race and they could pick the ponies.

And, while Hillary would still have more money than God, how long could she last in the face of dismal results? So far (and yes, it's just one day's worth of polling), just one bad result in IA seems to be knocking the wind out of her campaign.

So I guess G.Rhodes is for Hillary?

I've been watching CNN's coverage this afternoon waiting for the NFC WC game to start, and I gotta say, what strikes me most is that it seems like EVERYONE, EVERYONE on the GOP side are the ones that seem hellbent on coopting Obamania.

They're all trying to sound hopeful. Change. Hope. Hope. Change.

I think G.Rhodes is velly velly pissed that his stink-tank best p.r. advice failed to hypnotize Americans into believing the 'experience' meme of a certain candidate. Hey, G.Rhodes, you got the criticals right about these times for America, but your conclusions are a tad self-serving. Sorry.

I'm all fired up and so is James Whitmore:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=LuOHAvJAeqM

Hillary could definitely keep going until Feb. 5. You can very plausibly claim that Iowa, NH and SC are neither important, nor representative states, and that the Big Blue states should be the ones with the decisive voice.

But if she comes to Feb. 5 having already lost those three, I have a hard time imagining that her current wide margins in NY and California are going to hold up. And remember, an important part of her edge there has always been with the African-American vote. If Obama sweeps the board, does anyone really think those votes are going to stay in Hillary's camp?

Sounds like we're pretty much screwed, G. Rhodes! But you haven't told us how we should vote.

-

A blowout would hurt, but part of HRC's narrative is takin' a lickin' and keepin' on tickin', so I agree she hangs on for Super Tuesday, goes hard in CA where Bill has lots of goodwill, and hopes Obama makes unforced errors and the media digs up dirt.

The difference is that Obama really has done the ground-level organizing work -- people are treating this like another Hart or Tsongas, a media-driven popularity bubble that pops easily, but we're actually seeing the results of year of methodical sophisticated organizing. I'm very happy now that the little bit of money I contributed last Spring helped to fund kids knocking on doors and not just a lot of TV ads. I feel another contribution coming on. Is anyone with me?

Rhodes gives a somewhat accurate account of what is going on, under GWB's watch.

Thanks to him, and his narrow mindedness, he's taken us backwards from where the Clintons left us.

We haven't forgotten. The US is down but like Hillary not out. We'll recover with a Democrat in the White House.

The disrespect for our country is palpable, but the US is still a great nation and one where people brave the desert and hide in boats to make its shores.

America is the greatest country on earth, wonder what hole GRhodes calls home, despite the temporary litany of setbacks he thinks will bring us down. Say it, since you're bold enough to try to cut us down from your 3rd world level.

Excellent, GRhodes makes a comment and the best response anyone can come up with is "douchenozzle". I love this new all-inclusive message Obama and his supporters are introducing, even though somehow that all-inclusive be-nice attitude doesn't seem to include Clinton supporters or foreigners. Presumably Republicans and Independents (read: Joe Lieberman) will be welcome though. A little bit ironic that Obamites would be so eager to coronate their candidate as "Mr. Inevitable". Perhaps the champagne will wear off soon, perhaps not.

wazza WATB?

Are you high, Desider? If a "foreigner", as you say, came up to you on the street and started saying "You are morally bankrupt! People are laughing at you!" and so forth your reaction would be "gosh, I must respect the opinions of this person of a foreign land, perhaps I should buy him a cookie of gratitude"?

The guy insulted every citizen of the United States (thus identifying himself as a generalizing moron, btw) and thus should not be surprised if some citizens of the United States insult him in return, no?

But good luck with that "Obama supporters hate foreigners" meme. Really.

g. rhodes, who i would assume supports clinton or mccain, seems to imply that electing obama is tantamount to electing george w. bush ("when are you going to send us a leader who actually knows what she or he is doing rather than the same old fluff ball lightweight (but popular) type you’ve had up front for the past 8 years?" rhodes says).

the big difference is that obama is a. a genius (laurence tribe called obama "the best student i ever had") and b. has a background that makes sensitive to the plight of oppressed and marginalized groups, both foreign and domestic.

and hillary? she'll take the bait whenever someone challenges her toughness (kinda like W, if you want to make that comparison)

Prediction: Hillary loses NH. Promptly (and publicly) fires Penn and all of his minions, and brings in Carville/Begala for a last ditch effort.

Man, that was an awfully big bump the Clinton bus just ran over. Oh--it's Mark Penn.

Desider is G. Rhodes. Duh!

G.Rhodes:
1) Why, despite America's current problems, is it still ahead of yours?

2) Who caused your conutry to be behind America in the first place?

3) Why did the countries that were totaly devasted by the wars that Europe started make a comeback?

4) Why would you think that a country that can fix yours not eventually fix it self? Unless you want to help us as we have been you.

Didn't ARG screw the pooch in Iowa? The Register was the one got it right.

Watching the US from outside for the last 6 years in Argentina it is refreshing to see Obama emerge. Finally someone who doesn't invoke terrorism every other sentence. I voted absentee for Kerry in the last election and I think had he not chosen Edwards over Gephart he would have carried at least one or two critical toss-up states. Edwards brought almost nothing to Kerry as a running mate.

Also refreshing is the post by G Rhodes and even more, the followup by R. W. Behan suggesting failure to have initiated impeachment is pretty much an affirmation of the angry frustrated Rhodes's criticism.

It is interesting criticism as well - and all the responses asking where Rhodes is from. It is obvious Rhodes is a native English speaker and by the issues mentioned he/she likely reads the NY Times. (consumption) This person is intimately aware of US Culture, (hollywood) doesn't write like a Brit, so it could only be a Canadian if it's not an out of work hollywood writer practicing his/her irony.

"Keith wrote on January 5, 2008 4:09 PM:

A 16 point swing! Momentum is a wonderful thing."

I woudn't buy into the "momentum" thing too much. I don't think it means anything serious.

What I do see happening is that Hillary's support was always soft, in that it was predicated on the perception she was inevitable and electable and that the Clintons were sure winners. That they were always charming, wonky, etc.

What we've actually seen for weeks now prooves none of that s true. And then when people actually think about Clinton polices of the 90s, like NAFTA, like energy deregulation, the partisanship, and everything else, and on top of it when they're not even winners anymore... what's left?

Not much. Hence the freefall.

G.Rhodes: You're a moron. And a Republican. And an American. And not fooling anyone. And a moron.

I wonder if the Obama camp was playing rope-a-dope with Clinton: While the Clinton campaign was building an aura of inevitability the Obama camp was building the logistical facts on the ground. They have paid staffers in >Idaho

More important, by pushing an Obama or Edwards candidacy and at the same time, failing, like the MSM, to do due diligence on each of their backgrounds, votes, positions, inconsistences, vulnerabilities,etc you put us all in a dangerous and vulnerable position. You mock the Constitution that envisioned a vigorous press...yes, that Constitution you now seem to venerate in light of the Bush unitary executive. But maybe your part in this drama should be explored...your part in Bush's election as a result of your failure to sufficiently vet Bush and your unfair coverage of Gore. (And now that other helper of Bush, Bradley, the insurgent who pounded Gore...the real progressive --ha ha--supports the new insurgent--irony of ironies)

The media was complicit in our war in Iraq. Will the media be complicit if our next President is another disaster? Can we afford another Jimmy Carter? Can we afford a McCain or Romney? Can we really afford to take sides without thoroughly exploring who a candidate really is beyond mere rhetoric? Isn't that the job of a journalist? Isn't that the job of a vibrant press? Obama has 100 million. He is already an underdog.

By the way, what elite journalism school did you attend? Maybe you should review your notes from school and refresh your understanding of journalistic standards. Because these aren't it. You are no better than the high Broderites at the Washington Post. Hacks to a corporate conglomorate. Perhaps you aspire to such a lofty perch. Or...perhaps your own vanity is at stake, but a sell out nevertheless. Your coverage of the debate was mendacious. Period.
The next question is why?

Even G Rhodes sees from afar the impending disaster. Isn't it worth some investigative journalism? Isn't it worth re examining your biases? Women will get it...will get the sexism rampant with liberal men especially...although they exude a so much more holier than thou pose...in this particular struggle.

But those men as opposed to boys who do support Hillary...will resent it most...will resent this elite mentality that bashed Gore because he wasn't likeable...that loved Bradley....Morons they were...They ushered in George Bush. And these media elites worked with Bush and brought us Iraq. When will you wake up and act like a mensch?

Even if Hillary loses New Hampshire, she will not give up. On to Feb 5. And more and more contrast ads ...because the media chooses to abdicate responsibility.

After all, when all is said and done, all you have is your credibility.

That's so rich you should get a tax credit.