Off to New Hampshire!

Four years ago, I was with John Kerry as he turned his victory in the Iowa caucuses into a clear road to the Democratic nomination. The question in this coming week is whether Barack Obama will be able to do the same.

John Edwards may have come in second, but he desperately needed to come in first. His entire candidacy has been staked on a win in Iowa. For all intents and purposes, the Democratic nomination battle is now down to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton -- and the fight in New Hampshire could well be decisive.

If Barack Obama can follow up his big Iowa victory with a win in New Hampshire, it will be hard -- if not impossible -- to stop him. But if, like 3rd place finisher George H.W. Bush in 1988, Hillary Clinton can turn around her campaign in the snows of New Hampshire, she will make herself the "Comeback Candidate."

On the Republican side, Mike Huckabee's victory blows this race wide-open. He is -- among the real candidates - the one contender who, in this race, has offered the clearest alternative to the attitudes of the Bush administration. And no Republican candidate has offered clearer alternative domestic policies to George Bush over the past eight years than John McCain. Now these two men are on the march.

I'll be in New Hampshire over the next days covering both parties' races exclusively for the Huffington Post. I will be covering the coverage and taking you into the rooms where the candidates are making their final pitches. It will be the first time in 15 years that I'll be in New Hampshire for the primary and not working for a candidate. This time I'll be working for you.

Comments

[splashy]

I am PO'd that everyone thinks that IOWA should decide who we get to vote for in the general elections. That state is NOT representative of the rest of us, why on EARTH should they get first say or a stronger say?

This is idiotic!

[WireDolly]

Looks like we still have a system where the few attempting to speak for the many:

200,000+ Iowan Dems

100,000+ Iowan Thugs
=
300,000+ Total

Current US Population: Around 300,000,000, more than double what it was in 1960. So we have slightly over .001 percent of the population deciding which direction we go for President? And a lily-white, conservative bunch at that?

Heave-ho: Time to hold the first primary in the nation's biggest economy and most populous state: California.

[Sussanonymous]

Let me get this straight: Edwards is out of the race -- here declared a battle between Hillary and Obama -- because he beat Hillary? Because he didn't beat Obama, who outspent him 3 to 1? Because he only got a third of the vote in a three way race in which Obama did not break 40%? Someone get this "pundit" a new storyline: Edwards is still in it, has been all along. Polls show he beats every Republican, in most cases decisively. He has -- despite woeful MSM neglect -- steadily risen in ratings; no peak followed by a slide.

[barbie]

Has anyone considered what has been said all along, that Edwards is THE ONLY candidate that has been shown to BEAT all the REPUBLICANS in a head-to-contest? I do not want to take the chance of 4 to 8 more years of HELL under a Republican presidency. Our country's future is at stake here. (And yes, polls can change but until I see something different I am standing by my opinion.)

[whatfreshhellisthis]

"John Edwards may have come in second, but he desperately needed to come in first. His entire candidacy has been staked on a win in Iowa."

This kind of talk is making me sick! Who decided that Edwards is out of the race because he came in *only second* in Iowa? If Democrats are interested in "electability"---and I, for one, am very interested in it---then they should stick with Edwards. American voters are not about to elect a woman or an African-American as president. What they say out loud in a caucus in Iowa (Iowa? Who cares?) and what they do nationwide in private in a voting booth are two different things. It is idealistic and praiseworthy to be the party that dares to field a female or minority candidate, but this isn't the election for social experiments. This is the vitally important election that we need to win!

[thedudeabides]

hil's out
it's between edwards and obama
i love it

[kushykush]

My reading is that the Democratic contest is over. Obama has dealt a near fatal blow to both Clinton and Edwards. So much so that both Edwards and Clinton's campaigns are now redundant. Which is why both Edwards and Clinton are now unabashedly embracing the CHANGE, which is Obama's campaign slogan.

Edwards is a well meaning good guy. But he is in the "Old Guard" category as far as independents and younger voters go. Therefore, Edwards is a long shot in New Hampshire.

Hillary Clinton, will surely be able to muster support from a sizable portion of New Hampshire democrats. But, as in Iowa, this support from the gray haired ones is not going to propel her to victory.

Ladies and Gentleman, I present to you the next President of the United States, Barack Obama!

[Nutcase]

You lightly dismiss Edwards. He beat Clinton and was competitive with Obama while each of them outspent him 6 to 1.

This is just more of the MSM/DLC attitude.

The others were spouting Edwards line of change while taking the money and staff from those against change. I guess I never realized how easy it is to fool so many people.

I see a pale, Democratic version of compassionate conservatism on the horizon. It is unlikely to be as bad but it will be a major disappointment to those who didn't bother to check where the money is coming from or refused to.

We all remember the line in All the President's Men, "follow the money."

[Nonamnesiac]

Hillary and Obama must be worried about Lieberman campaigning in NH for McCain. Lieberman has considerable support among pro-war NH voters who might vote for Hillary or Obama -- in all 3 camps (Dems., Reps., and Independents). Those who might otherwise support Hillary or Obama -- two Democratic warmongerer candidates who refuse to commit to getting our troops out of Iraq by 2013 -- may be influenced by Lieberman to vote instead for McCain.

Lieberman may cause the Dems to nominate a true anti-war candidate by influencing the bi-partisan plus independent NH warmongerer vote away from Hillary and Obama to their equally barbaric Republican counterpart -- John McCain.

Let's hope so.

[Locmar]

Let us not forget that in 2000 Bush said he would change Wahsington. He did not lie. He changed the country for the worse. In Bush we got inexperienced change, are going to do the same with Obama. Democrats, don't be fooled by republicans again. Don't roll the dice with Obama. He is change ,but INEXPERIENCED change just like president Bush.

[hrayovac]

I think the Cherny analysis falls short on McCain in that many Americans do not support (and did not from its outset) the war in Iraq. That is where McCain is as gung-ho as Bush and it is only on the subject of torture that McCain breaks with Bush..as far as the public perception goes, in my opinion.

[batguano]

The true progressive in this contest is John Edwards and all the partisan spin and pronunciamentos to undo his candidacy or message! Nor will the disapointing support thrown to Obama by some supposedly "progressive" "second tier" Dem candidates. He STILL finished STRONG with limited resources and DID NOT take corp money! Did NOT sell his soul!
The power brokers, pundits and partisan blogers as well as the lobbyists, corporations and greedy rich will stop at NOTHING to end Edwards' REAL fight for "change" in our nation!
Hopefully we all will now flood John's campaign with donations and volunteers to lift him and Elizabeth to Victory in the upcoming states.
While Billary and Obama CONTINUE to rake in the special interest money as usual from those who will CONTINUE to control the future, John depends on US to provide the resources to give both him AND US a voice for REAL CHANGE, not just lip service and business as usual by a new face still representing the old boss!

[radlib1]

Hey, guess what, Andrei, John Edwards finished ahead of Hillary ("vagina dentata") Clinton. He didn't have her money or her erstwhile, colorful husband, but Edwards did have a helluva good message ("Save the American Poor and Middle Class People").

Meanwhile, Mr. "Milquetoast" Obama, the "agent of change" who is the pockets of Wall Street, did make a good showing in Iowa. Kudos to him and his team.

Do you really think that this "Good Ship Lollypop" is not going to implode somehere between South Carolina and California?

The only thing Obama has going for him is his color and charisma. He's got no real principles that I can see. You might as well bring out the "wizard" behind the curtains in Oz and call him "Mr. President."

[BionicWoman]

This is all very silly. Each candidate got roughly a third of the votes. The spend a lot of personal time running around Iowa. They can't do this anywhere else. Iowa is only 45 delagates. New Hampshire is 22 delagates. Who cares! Now, Michigan is 128 delagates. Florida is 185 delagates. California is 370 delagates. Get the picture?

[wrabbitt]

This win/loss might send a message to the unelectable royalty that we voters are not happy with the status quo. Health care needs to be addressed as an issue. not Hillary telling us that her other employer want us to carry health insurance if you can afford it or not, Hers is free ain't it?