None of the "DEMs" are worth any futher consideration in my book. Not even Hillary (which my demographic say I should be fully behind) I'm not voting for a woman, ablack man or a Hispanic man-just because it's well past the time to have had one of this representative in the WH. I'm voting for the person who understands that our nation must RE-CONSTITUTE ITSELF. That group of idiots on stage last have not only rolled they ahve paved the way for this Dictatorship. The only two up there not blowing smoke up my ass was Kucinich and Gravel. Unfortunately although they are both close to the mark of truth- neither have the political presence to truely lead this gov't off the path they have entrenched themselves (and US) in.
My political motto is "NEXT contestant on the price is right. I will give up luxuries if it means our future generations don't need to. Ask me to sacrific any thing but my Rights and Freedoms given to me by the founding father. I will not yeild to tyranny and disception. You have asked too much and have shown your true agenda. And it is not for US, nor any other. Your are working against humanity and the ideas we hold dear. the 'big wigs' on stage last night were Repugs in blue. All these candidates require a fine tooth comb, the white glove test, looking in their cupboards, a pulling off of the masks.
Cave Adsum
Is It Last Call Tonight For Obama And Edwards?
Last December, I sat in MSNBC's studio in New Jersey talking about the 2008 Democratic presidential race.
"It's too early!" I, and everyone else, cried.
But tonight, I will be in Hanover, New Hampshire for the debate and guess what?
"It's game time."
The previous debates, all 356,897 of them, were the pre-season of politics. The warm-ups when the candidates got ready for when the leaves change, the weather turns cold, the races, hot.
Here's where I think we stand. It's pushing October, people are paying attention and the core window to make waves in the next 45 days. Here in New England, we take our Thanksgiving pretty seriously and then there's the holiday season, so you better start moving now.
BARACK OBAMA AND JOHN EDWARDS
What they share is plenty of money, tons of money in Barack's case, and the rallying cry of look-at-me-not-Hillary.
At this point, they also both share a glaring, and in Barack's case, monumental failure to make the case that they are alternatives to Senator Clinton. The failure is total and will be complete in another 30 days.
Regarding John Edwards, to his great credit, he learned the lessons from the Kerry Titanic Campaign of 2004. However, he misapplied them. Yes, you need something true to yourself to focus on, but the poverty issue is not the most pressing issue of the day, Iraq is.
Right concept, wrong basket of eggs.
But, yes, Edwards is solid on Iraq. In fact, Edwards is solid on just about every issue. And his campaign has executed them well. So why no mojo? No Johnmentum?
I think it has to do with the fact that he has been running for four plus years. He has been in the spotlight too long. The public appears slightly tired with him, the media certainly is and the problem for John Edwards in New Hampshire tonight is quite simple.
He has been here for four years. He is going to win the bronze at the current rate in January. And I just don't see the path for him. A known quantity with clear positions and a well-run group (well, well-run with the exception of a monumentally mediocre first NH TV spot.)
Regarding Barack Obama, too bad he didn't learn any lessons from 2004. Too bad he has many of the same advisors and strategy that drove Edwards down the tubes in 2004.
Too bad he talks the talk of "hope and change" but walks the walk with the most inner circle D.C. traditional campaign folks of any campaign (including Hillary)
Too bad he didn't surround himself with more friends and less consultants.
Too bad he hasn't realized that my compatriot Jerome Armstrong was absolutely right -- if he had actually been a progressive candidate instead of talking about being a progressive candidate, he would have been the nominee.
Too bad he is going to bring in thousands of new people to the party and leave them disillusioned by the business as usual campaign.
Too bad.
My free advice to Barack Obama is the same advice I gave to John Kerry in October / November 2003. Right now, it should be clear to you that the path you're on ends with you giving a concession speech sometime in early 2008. Guaranteed.
So immediately gather your best and your oldest friends. Jettison the consultants and the beltway advisors. Become true to yourself and give yourself a chance. Worst case? You're giving a concession speech sometime in early 2008. But it's not guaranteed.
SENATOR CLINTON
When she announced earlier this year, Dave Johnson and I wrote about how her first mission was to shatter the prism of the right. What we meant was Hillary is one of those people who you think you know, but you really don't.
Think of it this way.
Imagine if the only thing someone knew about you was what your worst enemies thought of you. Actually, the worst of what your worst enemies thought of you.
That was everyone's perception of Hillary.
But to her great credit, she has done what she did in New York State where she know has a resounding 81 percent favorable rating.
She went 'door to door' person to person and re-introduced her self, sans prism.
Here is the result:
Clinton, the national frontrunner, has the support of 43 percent of Granite State Democrats, according to the CNN/WMUR poll, compared to 20 percent for Barack Obama. In a similar poll in July, Clinton led Obama by a narrower margin, 36 percent to 27 percent.In the poll, 54 percent of those surveyed also said that Clinton has the best chance among the Democratic contenders to beat the Republican nominee, up from 37 percent in July.
Also encouraging for Clinton, 36 percent said she was likeliest to bring needed change, compared to 24 percent who said Obama, who has made change a key theme of his campaign.
That's remarkable.
She is leading in national polls.
She is kicking ass in New Hampshire.
She is inevitable right now, not because she was given the crown, but because she earned it.
If John Edwards and Barack Obama have failed to be alternatives to her candidacy, how does rest of field look?
BILL RICHARDSON
I like Chris Dodd, Biden, and everyone running, I respect what they are doing and the effort.
However, if there is one issue, it's Iraq.
If there is one candidate who has the experience to actually do something about it, it's Richardson. Will it be enough to propel him to be a challenger to Hillary come early 2008? Not sure.
However, at least in Iowa for example, where he has spent the most time, people like him and he is doing well. So he has some positive momentum, he alone of the candidates not named Hillary is at least moving in the right direction.
Richardson has one more advantage.
Earlier this year, the D.C. crowd started the mantra that Iowa and New Hampshire matter more because of the condensed primary season.
Ah, no.
Not even close.
The power of a good showing in Iowa and then Iowa has been the media focus and time for the narrative to sit and become conventional wisdom. We were introduced to Bill Clinton after his good showing in New Hampshire.
But there is no time now.
No time for the narrative to set.
It's really pretty basic when you look at the facts of the matter. Super Tuesday was six weeks after Iowa in 2004. It's less than two weeks this time and there are three other states. Plus, either Obama or Edwards will be flooding the airwaves with the message, 'my second place finish doesn't matter' So what might?
Florida - Texas - California.
High, high Latino populations where Governor Richardson will do well.
More later, and I'll do a follow up tomorrow.
Watch for Obama and Edwards to fire hard at Clinton.
Watch for her to be the professional she is.
Watch for Richardson to talk about the war and his new ad -- with bloggers no less.
Al Gore, you ask?
He wins the Nobel Prize on October 14th. If he doesn't immediately announce the next day, no chance.
Comments for this post are now closed
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
All this is just very unfortunate for Edwards- given his role as a past vice presidential candidate. Running in last place, but who knows what can change in another few days.
Obama, promising but I realized irrepective of the amount of money generated by contributors, it would be an uphill battle for him. No one wins the Democratic/GOP nomination without the backing of the "machine". Unless there is an invasion from space where it is confirmed Hillary is a falling angel from some other planet-- and that is not likely. I can see her with the nomination. But John being in last place as a tier one candidate, continues to have me wonder-- what went wrong?
www.vernasmith.blogspot.com
Richardson is the turkey of the season. He has no chance of breaking through. His first exposure his been a disastrous performance at the HRC Logo debate and saying God wants Iowa to go first.
He's shown he's just not a viable candidate, however meritorious some of his ideas.
I suspect Hillary will go for Wesley Clark for VP to shore up any doubts about having a woman as commander in chief.
Hillary's not my first choice by any means. But there is no denying she's run a great campaign thus far.
Barrack Obama was brought into this "race" to stop Edwards. He will split the progressive vote, He WAS a progressive Democrat, when I helped elect him to the U.S. Senate, now he is following Hillary to the right. If Obama was not running, Edwards would be the leading the pack. John Edwards IS a progressive Democrat. The Clinton plan is to force Hillary on the Democratic Party. If the choice is between two right-wingers again,in the general election, Hillary and Queen Rudy, there is no one for a lefty like me, to vote for. I will have to vote for Ralph Nader again. Until we rid ourselves of the Electoral College, we must choose between so-called Democrats and Republicans, While most people would agree that Republicans are more disgusting than Democrats, it is getting to be a very fine line. It is my opinion that the candidate who receives the most Corporate money is the most compromised. With each election we pick the candidate, who receives the most Corporate money. Is it any surprise that they, get worse and worse.
"Barrack Obama was brought into this "race" to stop Edwards."
-ThomasDoubting
This comment is typical of the Edwards crowd, who are salty that their candidate doesn't have the mojo, or the mantle of hope that he had four years ago. Tell me why this is Obama's fault?
And I find this comment equally puzzling: "He WAS a progressive Democrat, when I helped elect him to the U.S. Senate, now he is following Hillary to the right." Huh? Obama isn't moving "to the right" as much as he is seeking out common ground (and burnishing his diplomatic image) that will help him in the general election.
No Democrat can win the presidency without garnering a few RED STATES. Period. Democrats are poised to win Virginia, Ohio, and even New Mexico, three statistically "PURPLE" states that went for Bush in '04. But Democrats will need more for sure. And what better person to win PURPLE states that Obama, who came into the Senate promoting his PURPLE credentials.
So why is Obama's cooperation with Republicans, and his campaigning in Republican strongholds seen as a betrayal by netsroots members? He's always been this way.
I am a liberal, independent voter who suports DEMS at the ballot box. I am a cardholding member of the netroots community. But I understand that "Liberal Dems" can't get elected president. Seemeingly moderate and centrist ones (and identifiably diplomatic and bi-partisan ones) have the best shot in this hyper political environment in which we find ourselves.
This is why Obama stands a great chance.
There are two Dem parties...and that's the problem.
The first is the people.
The second are in the beltway "ins".
Ok as a Black Man who likes Obama if he can't win i have know need to vote.White's have had rule over Black folks in America like the Whites in south africa had or still do over the Blacks their.As a Black Man who keep being told by the Media that Obama can't win and that hillary before any American has voted is the Dem front runner!!!! i'm not voting for ANYONE, fuck hillary if their is no V.P OBAMA ON THE TICKET.I hope the rest of us BLACK FOLKS don't vote if their isn't a ticket with Obama/ Clinton.Our Best Chance At Knowing our young Black Men will have a Chance in a Nation that takes their life for [not]!!!!!!! should be with OBAMA not another WHITE PERSON MAKING PROMISES THAT CAN'T KEEP JUST TO GET OUR VOTES.
I support Obama. I agree he will help even the racial inequity in this country. I don't agree with your post that indicates that black people should vote for Obama because he's black.
Frankly, if you're really listening to Mr. Obama, you might find his platform is much broader than that and includes ALL Americans. The difference between him and most of the other candidates is that he is able to see the long-term effects of his policies.
I don't know, maybe you should draft someone else. I'm not sure Sen. Obama is your man.
Mr. James Boyce, you have some explaining to do. But I'll ask you to explain one thing:
Explain this one about Obama: "Too bad he hasn't realized that my compatriot Jerome Armstrong was absolutely right -- if he had actually been a progressive candidate instead of talking about being a progressive candidate, he would have been the nominee."
Are you talking about the same MYDD Jerome Armstrong, who took unwarranted shots at Obama in this blogpost from June 14th (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jerome-armstrong/hillarys-race-to-lose_b_52205.html)? Oh, that Jerome Armstrong! The one who wrote that Obama has a "fake self-proclaimed 'movement'"; and that Obama was "personally compelling, and not much more".
Are you talking about the Jerome Armstrong who mislabeled former presidential candidate Mark Warner as a "a progressive and partisan Democrat"? Oh, that Jerome Armstrong. Actually, Mark Warner isn't, and never was, a partisan Democrat. How can any Democrat get elected and govern in VIRGINIA (a RED STATE), and get the conservative majority in the state legislature to raise taxes, which Mark Warner did successfully doing his time as govenor? Your "compatriot Jerome Armstrong" was an adviser to Mark Warner, and urged him to get into the presidential race. Warner went nowhere.
Oh, Mr. Boyce, last time I checked Obama had never called himself a "netroots progressive". Obama has been smart to not align himself wholly with any particular partisan element in politics. You and your "compatriot Jerome Armstrong" don't understand that aligning yourself with "the netsroots movement" is a killer when (as the DEM Nominee) you are trying to get RED STATE votes in general election, because no Democrat can win the White House without a few RED STATES. This country is literally 50/50, so partisan politics won't cut it.
You and your "compatriot Jerome Armstrong were never for Obama. Just admit it, and I'll have at least some respect you guys.
Go BARACK!
The "surprising" failure of John Edwards' campaign to catch fire is about as surprising as a nosebleed after the frat boys accidentally elbow you in the face.
Traditional media selects our candidates, and it (no, not they) does it with sociopathic viciousness best characterized by the huge contribution self-styled liberal Maureen Dowd made to both Bush campaigns by lying about and belittling the Democratic candidate. Bush got a free ride twice from the media because attacking his opponent was "more fun." How contemptible.
Between the ability of the media to control and shape access to the public eye, and the sheer self-important stupidity of pundits like Dowd, so enchanted by the sound and venom of their own voices, no candidate has a chance for a fair hearing. "Speak into the filter, buttface."
Get the Dowds and their ilk to shut up, stop sneering cleverly, and report the news responsibly. Then we might have another fair election one day. Meantime, I will continue to despise "our Ann Coulter" as much as I do theirs. What a loss, when we lost Molly Ivins, and how grotesque, the brats trying to march around in her shoes.
..the overlooked point in the discussion here is that the Repubs would vastly prefer to run against flawed and polarizing Hillary than Edwards, although her overall agenda boiled down is in fact republican-lite vis a vis the truly and refreshingly liberal edwards candidacy...the corporate media has thusfar ignored edwards,having concluded his new deal -rooted ethos of populism and egalitarianism is just too dangerous to their plutocratic agenda...by ignoring the substance of edwards actual policies and relentlessly negatively caracaturing him with the haircut/big house/rich trial lawyer denigrations, they are effectively keeping him down. an edwards as Dem nominee would oblige them to allow him to objectively represent his winning - and progressive- agenda on the national stage. it is a pity how the corporate impetus, through the skewed media, is literally and intentionally hamstringing this able man's candidacy and chances to inject a real liberal agenda into this nation's political dialogue.
The traditional media narrative was written as soon as Obama entered the race. Every article, video clip and interview was structured on an assumption of inexperience to make Clinton appear more experienced. Now we learn that Bill has been behind the scenes blocking endorsement and killing unfavorable reports. Of course she has a huge lead in national polls; what former First Lady wouldn't? I'm not saying she doesn't deserve the nomination, but could we all just stop and think critically about what the traditional media is feeding us.
Being a good little stenographer, are we?
Is there any journalist in this country that ISN'T getting on board the "Hillary Is Inevitable" bandwagon?
I can't speak for anyone else, but I am mighty pissed that my vote stopped counting, even with the accelerated schedule, six months before the first primary.
Why are we wasting money on primaries in the first place, if party hacks and their shills in the journalism community are going to pick the nominee anyway?
This much is certain: "I'm Just Like George Bush Only Not Batsh*t Crazy" is not the candidate I plan to vote for. And I don't like this business of quiet side-by-side meetings to make sure Hillary is on board with perpetual war in Iraq.
She is NOT getting my vote. Period.
As Liebermann is a "Democrat" senator, so will Hillary turn out to be a "Democrat" presidentress.
ATTN CALIFORNIANS:
Get Dianne Feinstein out of office NOW.
She has sided with Bush on EVERY vote.
She has had a free ride on our dime for 15 years.
It's OVER!
support Barbara Boxer
Does anyone really believe that if the citizens got to choose who should run for President, they would choose Hillary Clinton? Not a chance.
Hillary has purchased the nomination. Pure and simple. It has nothing to do with who she is, what she has done (which is pretty much nothing at all good), her experience, or her ideas.
Note how, on top of all her other flaws, she is consistently dishonest suggesting that she was running the nation during her husband's presidency ("I have learned during my years of service in the White House; We decided in the early 1990s that we would do this or that.") What an enormous illusion. She was the wife of the president. She unfortunately did just about nothing. At least Jackie re-decorated, and Betty Ford spoke her mind clearly on issues even when it was against her party. What did Hillary do? Change her hairdo and get contact lenses.
In the 2004 election Kerry had no grassroots, no support, nothing, and he "borrowed" millions from his wife, bought the TV stations in Iowa (practically), blanketed the airwaves, smiled and looked good, and unfortunately bought the nomination. Hillary Clinton has purchased the nomination just like Kerry did. She does not have enthusiastic support except among a small group of women who will support her just because she's female.
Worse still, if she becomes president she will do for the working people exactly what she has done as a Senator: suck up to corporate America, have her husband travel around as her bag man collecting millions for her next run, and publicly support stupid moralistic ideas designed to appeal to the right-wing such as laws against flag-burning. She will continue the war in Iraq, and will support and continue a war against Iran. She will continue to allow corporations to take jobs out of the U.S., and import millions of immigrants to lower wages.
Her election may be slightly less a disaster than that of any Republican, but don't expect anything good to come of it.
There are some good reasons here NOT to choose
Hillary Clinton. So, we know who you will not
vote for. Who WILL you vote for?
Realistically, you can't just NOT vote for someone.
You've got to want someone else. I'd suggest to
those of you who truely detest HRC: say who you
support instead. You'd get more traction with your
arguments for sure. Let's get some persuasion going.
Excellent analysis.
Sometimes, you have to take a step back to get two steps ahead.
Very articulate and helpful analysis, but missing one key point: as more and more middle American folks get to know who Hillary really is, they will inevitably begin to sense her inauthenticity, opportunistic nature, and sense of entitlement. It's not over until November 2008, and even if Hillary wins the Dem nomination, there are many serious and thoughtful Democrats who will abstain from voting for her in the general election. I remain hopeful that some of the other, more genuine Dem candidates can make headway and prevent us from experiencing the disappointment of Hillary leading us into the great lost opportunity of 2008.....
I am one of those serious and thoughtful Democrats who will abstain from voting for "her". I too hope that more genuine Dem candidates will make headway and win the nomination.
I'm with you on this: I will vote third party before I vote for Clinton: she is simply a DINO like most of the congress these days who calls themselves democratic.
I'm another one. As I posted on another site yesterday, does anyone, including Hillary supporters, believe that she would give up one ounce of the brand-new, shiny "executive privileges" amassed by Cheney/Bush?
Plus, it's no wonder Mr. Boyce is so dismissive of Obama. The above analysis is complete Beltway thinking and doesn't even mention the astonshing grassroots network Obama is building all over the nation. It's just outside Mr. Boyce's experience, so he doesn't notice it.
Hillary is ahead because the M$M is shilling for her. Actual voters may have something to say about that, however, especially in Iowa.
Only Obama can beat Hillary, however, because he's the only one with the money and the grassroots support to compete with her nationwide on Feb. 5th. Because no matter what happens, she won't quit.
Even when she comes in third in Iowa, which is what's gonna happen.
I have a difficult time believing that hillary is pulling the numbers the polls report that she is.I'm a little wary about handing her the nomination before anybody has voted yet.
To all you Hillary bashers...na na na na na
to you, na na na na na in January, 2009
you can't say that till 2009
Neither can you, na na na na na.
no, it the election is not tampered with again, I can say it the day after election day in November 2008
Make comparisons to Dean, Kerry, anyone else you like but the fact is The Clinton is like no other candidate. It is a calculated, political perfection machine and underestimating it is foolish. Clinton would never have been my choice, and I certainly always believed that if it became the nominee it would be destroyed in the general. I don't think that anymore, and I believe the republicans still do. They will likely underestimate The Clinton as we have repeatedly underestimated The Rove.
It would be wonderful if Edwards could pull it off. He's probably the only actual person running. But nothing trumps politics like politics so I'd say we're all going to have to suck it up, hope for the best, and vote for the nominee who ever she is.
Edwards looks and sounds like some one running for class president. Was part of a losing team that should have won.
Obama's candidacy makes Hillary seem more centrist. The Black political elite has been too quiet. The elephant in the room is his name. If he's for real and if he's good then it's a timing thing and he's too early.
Hillary is a winner. The Clintons are a winning tradition. Thats what we need right now. We also need the experience to hit the ground running (working) after the election. It's not the time for inexperience nor is it the time for experimentation.
As for the Iraq War, expect a higher profile from the UN in the not too distant future.
the Clintons "a winning tradition". what the heck is their "winning tradition"? You could say the same about the Bushes. I like the thought that "Change is Good". This country does not need a two family monarchy.
Boyce, what are thinking? You state that John Edwards has been running for 4 plus years, that the people are tired of him, and certainly the media is. Well, Hillary
Clinton has been running for president for almost 16 years, the "people" are tired and bored of both her and her husband, and want a new face who is not a friend of the lobbyists and insurance industries. The media never gave Edwards a chance because they have no "goods" on him to report and up their ratings. They salivate over the thought of having another Clinton term in order to play the ratings game by exposing the Clinton marraige to ridicule and having Bill to repeat his sexual follies in the White House. Just like the media cheerled the war in Iraq, they are cheerleading for the Clintons.
Fortunately, it's neither the MSM nor the blogosphere voting in Iowa.
We can only hope the people actually casting their vote in January have a sober recollection of the Clinton years.
First of all, the Hillary/Richardson marriage is one made in DLC heaven. You just couldn"t have a better match up for the likes of Carvel and Begala to cash in on¦¦.unfortunetley for the voters, especially the Democratic voters the choice reverts to, Business"that is with a capital "B""as usual from the Democratic Party.
Are you serious when you say, "He(Edwards) has been in the spotlight too long."? Whose spotlight. The MSM only tolerates him with bearly a mention of his name, while they gloat, glorify, cream, and gush over Clinton and Obama.
Just as your say, "But, yes, Edwards is solid on Iraq. In fact, Edwards is solid on just about every issue. And his campaign has executed them well." The question should be, why are the MSM ignoring John Edwards" leadership in driving the ISSUES, and instead enacting a policy of benign neglect toward his campaign?
The media/press can't just get enough of the Clintons, and that is the reason for the early coronation.
If the media/press is going to hand it to Hillary just like the Evangelical Supreme Court handed it to "you know who", we all might as well stay home on election day.
I think edwards is doing amazingly well considering the almo
Posted September 26, 2007 | 08:02 AM (EST)