I don't subscribe to the Edwards media blackout theory, but we seem to be missing a key number.

Thanks Eric!

I am not a clinton fan, but if she gets pummeled in new hampshire, she has to make some major concessions, fire her campaign manager and top personel, write of south carolina and retool to concentrate on february 5. This is her only shot, her strategy and "message" has obviously not been working. Again, playing the typical washington blame game, I would blame the senior campaign people and make it sound like the campaign that has been run is really not who she is.

Also, she might consider one of two tactics for mr. bill. One, send him to bora bora until after february 5. On the stump he is not helping her at all. In fact, he probably does more harm than good. Two, make him the campaign manager, but no speaking or appearance roles. Have his name out there righting the ship, because a core base of dems like him, but don't have him in the forefront.

Make it a whole new campaign. It might be too late to do anything anyway, but she has to do something radical or just forget it. If she's going to keep the same team and strategy, she should quit now and let obama take it with a landslide, which is happening anyway. Staying in with the same strategy causes more harm than good for the dem party.

DTM,

My bet is that Edwards will stay in at least until Nevada if he gets the big union out there (hospitality and restaurant workers or something...). He'd got a puncher's chance. Of course, they're waiting till Wednesday to announce, with the express intent being to see results from N.H. I can only assume they're doing that so they can give the endorsement to someone with a viable chance, and that ain't Edwards.

That said, if you believe what he said yesterday, he might stay in and take a career threatening drubbing all the way to the convention for some unknown reason.

Obama needs to keep winning cause Hillary has the money to stay in for a while.

Obama will win NH and SC... and then he has to keep the momentum going.

in 2004 a bunch of candidates stayed in until super tuesday and Kerry won almost every state so that was it after that. this time around the same thing will happen but Hillary does have the resources to stay in if she wins a few states.

A couple of days ago I got slammed for pointing out that if 1 in 10 Clinton voters moved to Obama, he'd take the lead. That seemed a reasonable amount. However, it now looks like he got at least one in 6 HLC voters, which I certainly did not expect.
My new expectation is that Obama will win by about 35% to Clinton's 30%. So that the media will have a new round of why Obama didn't win by a much as expected, and does that mean Hillary is still in it?
My answers respectively: Because weak Obama supporters, expecting a landslide just didn't show up and yes, since she & Bill can cover twice the ground for Super Tuesday that Obama can.

Geez, HRC is getting killed in the Intrade market. Wasn't she trading at 65% before Iowa?

I listen to npr all the time. I wish roberts would just reveal that she's a clinton staffer. Her commentary is really pathetic and very pro-clinton.

I totally agree with markg8, she has nothing, she said she wouldn't go negative but that is all she has to do, and she has nothing to go negative about, so she tries to make mountains out of flat land...kind of like she did with her resume fluffing now that I think of it..

The media is definitely giving Hillary all kinds of airtime though, I've heard about 90% Hillary attacking and 10% Obama pointing out that her attacks are completely disingenuous.

At some point Hillary is going to have to decide what she wants her reputation and political career to look like, because spending all of your energy and resources ruthlessly trying to smear the incredibly popular and likely next president is probably not a good move for her. Obama is the natural leader of the new Democratic party, and she is just hurting the party by being so negative and nasty with her whole campaign.

I'm sure it is too much to ask for her to keep it clean going into super tuesday, because nothing is more important to her than her own power...what she feels she has some inherent right to, and that Obama is somehow "stealing" what was "rightfully" hers. This isn't an alternating monarchy Hillary, this is a Democracy, and the people are speaking.

She's trying to win an election, and she owes it to the people who have written her $4,600 checks to do everything she can. It won't work, but I'm not going to hold it against her that she's trying to win. That's the point of this whole thing.

Let's stay positive and keep our eye on the prize. We're looking good in N.H. Let's make sure we get the same big turnout that we did last week and keep the momentum rolling all the way through to Denver.

Hillary is America's Gordon Brown. She feels entitled to "her turn" as President, and her people are in a huge snit because it ain't going to happen. Too bad, so sad.

DRinOH, not denver, NOVEMBER. Just think if dems and indies and republicans for obama, turn out like this in NOVEMBER. The possiblities are astounding and unbelievable. The mere fact that people, particularly young people, are voting for a say in their government is awesome. The republicans can try to impose all types of restrictions and games to prevent people from voting, but if its a tidal wave, they won't be able to stop it. The republicans see a tidal wave and are petrified.

No more complaining about how the media isn't allowing Hillary to get her message out. And wasn't it just Saturday her campaign decided she wouldn't go negative? She has so little oppo she can attack Obama with this just looks transparent and desperate.

And that's the heart of the matter:

There's an enormous gulf between "getting your message out" and actually having your message resonate.

HRC supporters can hurl all the invectives they wish at Obama and his supporters as naive babes in the woods thhat just don't get it --

But it's really not too complicated. Obama is resonating. HRC is not, by any stretch of the imagination.

To JohnG re: an Obama/Clinton ticket:

I don't think that's really likely here. It seems that the two genuinely dislike each other, and that has only grown over the past few days. Edwards and Obama, on the other hand, have been having a bit of a lovefest as of late, and I'm guessing Edwards is going to bow out after New Hampshire, possibly as part of a brokered alliance with Obama. The number two spot might be a stretch, but an understanding that a lesser prize is in the offing (i.e. a cabinet position) is quite possible.

His charisma will take him only so far, he needs to come up with some coherent policy positions.

Enough of this canard. He HAS coherent policy positions. He's stated them in his stump speeches. His Web site is full of even more. Have you even bothered to go read Obama's positions on health care? His ideas on reforming NCLB, or on extending Head Start and child care for working moms? It's all there to read.

Stump speeches aren't for articulating two hours of policy positions. They're for getting people excited about the possibilities of tomorrow. You want more details? They're all there - read them for yourself.

Electing personalities based on marketing slogans to sell you something you dont need is a consumer stunt and when partisans buy candidates for these reasons they are endangering our country. Reaching out to HUG a Republican is not what I had in mind that requires changing, nor do I believe it is what ails this country. Corruption in office and a failure to govern competently for the People is what we need changed not across the isle HUGGING, this is a big job and requires real talent for a change. I would have thought it impossible for the Dems to blow this election but obviously if these polls represent the party trend I am wrong. Democratic leaning voters are not loyal to party first but to our county you partisans may well need to keep this is mind for a real Change. Hopefully, the rest of We the People get a chance to way in this time before we have another no talent nominee placed before America.

Bush did everything the opposite of what President Clinton did
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I've heard a lot of garbage about "the Clinton-Bush years" as if we are talking about the Bush-CHENEY years.

We should at the very least stick to the facts, and the facts are that Bush did everything the opposite of what President Clinton did. After Clinton protected our national forests, Bush let the loggers, drillers and miners ravage our national forests. While Clinton protected our rights, Bush took them away. Whereas Clinton sought peace through diplomacy, Bush sought power through war-making ... etc. ... etc. ... etc.

Secondly, during the Clinton years, we had UNPRECEDENTED prosperity.

With Bush as president, all but the rich have seen that prosperity disappear. Local property taxes have soared during the Bush years as a direct result of his tax-cuts- for-the-rich and cuts in federal aid to the states -- forcing state, county and local governments to have to make up the difference by raising their taxes or cutting vital services.

If you don't believe me, or if you do but want proof of what I say, go to this link: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/
and you will see in chart form how employment went steadily UP during the Clinton years and down during the Bush years (with one minor bump up).

You will also see how UN-employment went steadily DOWN during the Clinton years, and went up again during the Bush years.

And there is more to consider:

When Bill Clinton was president, street crime was reduced, the numbers of Americans living in poverty fell, the numbers of new jobs rose dramatically, we had a balanced budget and even a surplus, diplomacy was favored over unilateral aggression, we enjoyed peace and prosperity and were respected around the world.

During the Bush years, street crime went up again.

Poverty is up again.

The federal budget is NOT balanced, and has not been balanced all through the Bush years.

Every year, Bush's policies create a budget deficit and add to our federal debt woes.

Bush favors aggression over diplomacy.

And we do NOT have peace and prosperity.

Yes, I will take the Clinton years every time -- and those years would be even better if we could do away with the media whores who told us how charming Bush was/is, and believed Bush when he said he "would change the tone in Washington."

If we had had REAL reporters and journalists during the Clinton years -- instead of the howling pack of nincompoops we had (and still have) -- Clinton would have been their hero instead of their punching bag.

I think it is about time for us all to do our own research and our own thinking and stop letting the media maggots tell us who is winning, who is losing, who is good and who is bad.

It is beyond me why smart people in New Hampshire have their minds changed by some voters (excuse me, caucus-goers who don't always get to vote FOR their FIRST choice) in Iowa.

I think for myself and everyone else should too.

There is NO such category as the Clinton-Bush years -- those were two OPPOSITE administrations in EVERY way.

If President Clinton could run again, you can bet I would vote for him. Those were good years for the vast majority of Americans, even for the rich who did very well too, even though they paid higher taxes then than they do now.

Every category of Americans prospered during the Clinton years, and Hillary Clinton played an important advisory role in making all of that possible -- she was President Clinton's most valued and trusted adviser and was an integral part of all his presidential decision-making.

brm:

At least one significant difference between you and me is that I do not dislike or hate ANY of the Democratic candidates and believe they are ALL better than any of the Republicans.

I do not know why the Obama and Edwards supporters are so filled with hatred for another Democrat, and I have to wonder if you are really a rightwinger posing as a Democrat.

I think Obama is smart and could be president some day after he has demonstrated some legislative achievements in the senate. Since he has been in the senate, his voting record on supporting funding the war in Iraq has matched Hillary's. Maybe if Obama had been a U.S. senator at the time of the AUMF vote, he would have managed to be absent (as he was for the Kyl-Lieberman vote) or, horrors, he too might have voted differently.

As for Edwards, he has been practically living in Iowa for the past four years (since he is no longer a senator) and managed to beat Hillary by only a fraction of of one percent -- .28 (that's point two eight) percent.

Neither Man has my vote, this is a time for change, a woman voice for a change. I am tired of the voices attacking a female candidate. Obama is way to smooth, I have met my share of charming men. BEWARE of charm, and Edwards goodness, he is some kind of opportunist.