BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?

Subject: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Alice
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 08:53 PM

Next question on the list, Who will win New Hampshire?
I wish it would be John Edwards, but I'm guessing it will be Obama again.
Maybe Romney on the right wing, but could be John McCain.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 09:10 PM

Yes, things line up a lot differently in New Hampshire. I'm interested to see what will happen to Huckabee, if this will be the end of the road for him.

                  I would like to see John Edwards do well too, but Hillary is pretty well entrenched there, though I like her as well.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 09:48 PM

At this point I'm just a passenger, living in the adjacent state of Maine.

Huckabee is the most competative Republican candidate, in my opinion, because he comes across as low key and resonable, has a sense of humor and plays bass guitar. That's not to say that I haven't read more of his background but that's the way he comes across.

Romney will implode. McCain will be competitive in New Hampshire and he has to be. The fella from NYC will get 1% of the vote. Ron Paul or whatever his name is will get the libertarians, 5% of the vote.

I'm a Democrat and haven't a clue how that race will shake down but Hillary will have to come in first or do more damage control which she can ill afford. Obama would benefit by a win but doesn't necessarily have to come in first. John Edwards needs to come in at least 2nd to make a splash but will probably come in third. Richardson is toast.

Cheerily,
Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 10:26 PM

It depends heavily on the Democratic side as to where the supporters of the candidates who drop out go. I would think that since most of them line up with Obama as to the necessity of change, he will be the beneficiary. As I said earlier, I hope that Edwards--sooner rather than later--volunteers to be Obama's VP. They share some of the same sentiments--especially on change--though Edwards is more stridently anti-globalization. And as Obama's VP, Edwards would be the heir apparent, at least in 8 years---when he'd still be younger than McCain, for instance. As a team, Obama and Edwards would be unbeatable--by Hillary-- or any of the Republicans--except John McCain. McCain, as entirely too reasonable on the number one hot issue for Republicans--illegal immigration----willing to even see illegal immigrants as people-- will be knocked out by firebreathing disciples of Mr. Tancredo and Mr. Dobbs. If McCain doesn't win in New Hampshire, this will happen there--otherwise it will happen a little later.

New Hampshire is Hillary's last hurrah. If she doesn't win there--and especially if Obama does--all her brave talk about Super Duper Tuesday, or whatever she calls it, will be just that--brave talk. With another win in New Hampshire by Obama, the professional pols, of which she still has large numbers, will desert her in droves--to place their bets on a winner--Obama. And his bandwagon--especially with the sense of making history which suffuses his campaign--will take him straight to the nomination--and unless the Republican nominee is McCain, directly to the presidency. Even if McCain gets the nomination, it's not clear he can win against Obama, with the Republicans fracturing along so many lines. Of the other Republicans, none deserve any respect--and this is made clearer daily. And I'm a registered Republican.

Giuliani may even win his gamble--and if McCain takes New Hampshire, the situation will be in enough flux so that his (Giuliani's) planning for Super-Duper Tuesday will pay off. Despite his success in Iowa, no way will Huckaby win New Hampshire--and the air will start going out of his balloon--especially since he lacks the deep pockets of Romney and Giuliani.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 10:51 PM

Huckabee, a former Southern Baptist minister and a former president of the Arkansas Baptist Convention, knows how to sweet talk the midwest bible bangers and anti-evolutionists, but I can't see NH falling for his line.

I can't get excited about NH, too small and won't have any influence on the large population states like California, New York, Florida, etc. I sort of expect a three-way Demo race to the end.

On the Republican side, Huckabee could get much of the South, but I expect Romney and the others will eventually shove him aside and fight it out at the Convention. Huckabee could make Bush look like a liberal.

I hope that Edwards eventually is deep-sixed, a good talker for a young feller, but he has no substance.

Them's my thoughts at present, completely worthless, and sure to change as the campaign gets rolling.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 11:04 PM

Q--

If Obama takes New Hampshire, especially if it is not close, how many professional pols do you think will stay with Hillary? Obviously, if Hillary wins New Hampshire it could be a bitter----if short--struggle, because it will set her up for Doomsday Tuesday. Of course if Super-Duper Tuesday is also a split decision, it won't even be short--just bitter. There is a lot of real excitement behind Obama---and a lot of disgust with Hillary.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Sorcha
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 11:05 PM

Q, haven't you heard 'As goes New Hampshire, so goes the nation'? Yes, it's generally used for the General Election, but it's quite often true.



Hillary just scares the CRAP out of me.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 12:10 AM

OK, I'll admit it- I am a closet Hillary supporter- just to tweak Sorcha.

The "so goes" is somewhat out of sync with these caucuses which are trying to take over the system, so I dunno.

Oh, for the good old days with the bosses duking it out in the back rooms and the decision given to the delegates on the floor of the conventions. State politicos would select delegates (the head of the delegation carried their vote at the national convention, and he had a pocketful of demands for bargaining). No women, no minorities. Now that was real American democracy! None of this public voting nonsense!
I have a fancy silk and brass badge with Teddy Roosevelt's portrait and lots of gold braid that my grandfather got when he was a delegate to the national (I forget R or D, my knowledge of political history is lost)- back in nineteen and ought something or other.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Barry Finn
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 01:41 AM

Leave US alone, go home, we don't want to be part of your Union anymore. You can ski here but then please leave & leave behind your wallets & purses before you go.

We're tired of your shit, we refuse to send any more taxes south of the NH/Mass line. Now known as the Cow Line. Edwards is out, not a chance, this is still a "white race state", there's a reason for that & it ain't pretty, so Obama will most likely get a speeding ticket on his way out even though he's probaly the best of the 3 front rummers (no "N" in naming this group of 3), personnally I'd love to see Dennis K become our govenor if he can't place in the fight for the "Pen House" (a place of pigs), so that leaves Hillary in the "Top Doggie" position with the repubs (short for repulse or repush) trying to doing their doggie style best to get behind her & push her off the cliff. But the republlcans aren't going to fare well a all. NH has thrown them out. "Mitt the Nitt" couldn't get anything right in Mass so they all moved north & this is OUR chance to send him packing, so you'll hear no more from that corporate rapist. MaCain is the only one out of that bunch of low life's that has a decent bone in his body & since he's become a Bush underbelly he shot his only hopes of being taken seriously. So we might let you all know when the counting's done, as to whose the WON butt, then we might wait until Florida counts up their tally 1st. No sense letting our status get shit on by that lot down there. Fool me once,,,,,,,,,fool me twice,,,,,,,right we're not going there a 3rd time George. We're not just a bunch of dirt shit idiot farmers up here, we know what the rest of the country thinks & we're not having another 8 years worth of idiots ruin our Northern Wonderland, we can do that just fine on our own & practically have, Thank You, thank goodness for this past election. So come Tuesday night you can all go out & "F&%K OFF, because we're starting a boycock, we're gonna push the envelope, we're gonna take it to the limit, we're gonna make such a mess out of this election fisco suff that Bush is gonna declear "Martiageable Law" & everything martial will become the new art form. Hillary will declear foul play & want to establish a matriarchy, "Jewels" will want to establish a new Jewish State which will really piss of "Rummy" who'll then bring in the fear of moron/mormon terrorist sushi bombers by sea along our vast coastline, which will by then have a fence around it, & he'll make us over marry those of own sex, US cow farmers will have none of that. YOU CAN ALL JUST GO HOME, DAMN YANKEES, BLUE BLOODS, we like it just fine here with our Downeast neighbors to the west & our Kingdom Come brothers & sisters to our east, lets not forget our saviours to the north either but south of US, you can kiss my ass!

So if you're looking to NEW HAMPSHIRE to guide, direct, consult, console, lead, or patriotize you, "FORGET IT", we'er pulling out we ain't coming/going there. What ever 'baby' comes out of this, you ain't blamming US, the belly of this beast can go & cannabislize itself. When the fucking job of president becomes worth taking maybe then we'll find & elect someone worth taking it!

OK, thanks, I'm done, I'll probably have to move back to Boston now.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 01:44 AM

Well, I look at it this way...if Hillary's hopes fade and she has to give up the dream that means she'll have more time on her hands...and we'll probably be able to arrange that dinner date I've been trying to set up for the last decade or so. ;-)

Every cloud has a silver lining.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 01:56 AM

Now that should shut people up till tomorrow morning, I figure... (grin)

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Barry Finn
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 02:02 AM

For any Huckbeen supports. Do you know how many churches we have in NH? Well, ya there's plenty but we build them all for the tourists, none of the natavies can stand going inside & we don't want any of your religious swill mixing in with our politics either. This is a godless country & we fear no gods here. I guess that'll not do Rummy any good either.

I'll probably be back if'n I ain't tarred & feathered or if'n I ain't decleared an enemy combootant & shipped off to Gitmoe 1st.

Hope come Tuesday I don't have to eat my words, thems alot of words here.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: skarpi
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 03:11 AM

Me

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Jeri
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 10:04 AM

New Hampshire will have more of a say in determining Democratic party candidates this year than Michigan and Florida, whose votes won't count.

I'm guessing Obama will win on the Democrat side and McCain on the Republican, but these are both W.A.G.s. This will be great for Obama but show how scattered the Repubs are. What's good is that, while I favor Edwards, I like Obama as well and would vote for him if he were nominated. If Clinton is nominated, I'll probably still vote for Edwards, last defiant gesture though it may be.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Amos
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 10:48 AM

I like John Edwards, and I like Dennis Kucinich; I even like Ron Paul. But if I were a caucus-caster in New Hampshire I would put my energy behind Obama. He has, at this moment, a clear point of leverage to really shift things, and the attitude to do it.

A.-eternal-optimist...

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Jeri
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 11:25 AM

I think Obama's going to pick up steam because of the, "He doesn't have a snowball's chance in... whoops" factor. You know - all those people who won't vote for someone if they think other people aren't gonna vote for him no matter how much they like him. Now they've seen from Iowa he can win, and it may make people more willing to vote for him.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 11:32 AM

I'll make a 'small' wager on Obama, though I'd sure love to see Edwards do well.....and.......
......for the life of me, I can't see why there is so much vitriol aimed at Clinton.
   I read, I watch debates, I watch interviews, I watch speeches on C-Span where I get to hear more detail....and I flatly don't SEE the cold, calculating, cynical, power-mad, war-supporting harridan that some folks are so dead-set against.
   Now, I'm not saying she is my 1st choice, as I am becoming more impressed with Edwards, and Obama is 'sounding' like he is getting a better grasp on the issues.....but Clinton has always seemed to me like someone who is aware of the issues and who has a fairly comprehensive plan for dealing with most of them. (and yes, I know that her husband is part of the deal, but he has a better command of issues and details than anyone I have seen in many years!)

   Yes, I know she has stumbled on expressing some of her attitudes and has not clarified her vote for the war in terms that would satisfy me.... I just don't see that she deserves such negative press. I really doubt that the same opinions and speeches, offered by a man, would get the same reaction. She is called "ambitious", as if that is NOT a label that could fit any of the candidates! National polls still show some pretty broad support for her....so someone agrees with me.

Well, as I say, I am seeing more I like about Obama & Edwards, but so far I see nothing that would make me 'afraid' if Clinton won.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Big Mick
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 11:43 AM

I'm about the same, Bill. Any of the three will be fine with me, but I am firmly in the Edwards camp. He, among all the Dems that have a chance, makes no bones about where he sees the problem and how he would get to where we need to be. Obama excites me, and it is good to feel excited again, but I have reservations about foreign policy. Clinton is a very bright, sharp and well experienced person. My concerns with her, as with her husband before her, is the pandering to monied interests. She, of the three, really does represent an older style.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 12:07 PM

Very apt and sensible comments, Bill and Big Mick. Consider this: Your political process might actually work far better if it were not focused so much on elevating a single individual to an executive office....the cult of personality, in other words....but on presenting a united coalition of voices who would work together as an elected party to govern and make policy.

Government by committee, in other words, rather than by an executive office. In such a system you would not have a pre-set competition between Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Kucinich, etc.....you would have them working as a team of equals, discussing and formulating policy by working on it together cooperatively, each of them having equal weight of persuasion in that process, each of them having an equal voice...and presenting and talking about said policies to the public as they went along.

The system of primaries, instead of being an attempt by all these people to knock each other off the top spot....and thus often doing each other real lasting political damage in the process...would become a series of public plebiscites on policy! They would strengthen the party, not weaken it by tearing down its most gifted individual spokesmen in mutual combat against each other!

The overall policy of the party would thus be matured and greatly assisted by the cooperation of all its key figures and by the input and assistance of the general public. That's real democracy! And it would likely result in a far more coherent and constructive process than the one we see in the existing cult of personality presidential system which forces people like Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Kucinich, etc to battle against each other to each other's mutual detriment rather than combining their considerable talents toward forming the next government!!!!!!.

By God, THAT would be a system of primaries I could really believe in. That would be a government I could believe in.

You follow me?

I know it's most likely never going to happen that way in the USA, but I'm talking political theory here of the way it could be, because you can never change anything fundamentally in a society until you first are willing to imagine such fundamental changes.

That's what your founding fathers did in the mid-1770's, don't forget. And they made a fundamental change that has affected the entire world. They were no doubt thought to be completely insane (and criminal) by those who still believed that a hereditary monarchy was the ONLY proper and possible way to run a society. Well, having a king or a queen is quite a bit like having a president...only it lasts longer. In both cases, it's the cult of a single personality, elevated to a supreme position of command over a nation. I don't think that's such a good idea. I'd rather see a large number of intelligent heads involved in deciding a vital matter of policy than one...because one head can sometimes be very, very misguided, even mentally quite unstable. And what do you do when that happens? You're in a very bad spot as a nation when that happens.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Barry Finn
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 12:48 PM

I'm with you Little Hawk,,,,,let's go find a very large, uncharted mass of land & set ourselves up & Lord over it.

The rest of you go home & leave US in New Hampshire alone.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 12:53 PM

A large uncharted mass of land, Barry?

On which planet would that be? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Amos
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 12:56 PM

There are thousands available right here on Earth, LH. The only problem is bringing them above the ocean's surface.


A

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 01:00 PM

Ah, well...I guess. ;-)

Look, are you guys saying it is impossible to change the way things are? I sure hope not. If so, you might be guilty of the degree of cynicism that Ron and Kat are accusing me of on some other political thread here...just because I so strenuously criticize the way things are at present.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 01:16 PM

"I'm guessing Obama will win on the Democrat side and McCain on the Republican, but these are both W.A.G.s." - Wives and Girlfriends??? Can't be.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 01:19 PM

I see your point(s), Little Hawk, but the tripartite system of govt. was supposed to address the problem of having a single 'leader'....and for most of our 250+ years, it has done pretty well. It has its problems...as when the courts get packed with extremists...(of either end of the spectrum)...or when congress & the presidency are at loggerheads; now if we could find a better way of electing the president that did not favor the monied interests, we might have something...(and, of course, find a way to reduce the influence of lobbyists on Congress.)

I KNOW that there are men & women out there with intelligence and good attitudes who COULD be competent as president....but they are too smart and otherwise unwilling or unable to run under the current $y$tem.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Amos
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 01:25 PM

McGrath:

WAG is an American slang term in management for a "wild-assed guess", or rough estimate of a situation. Sometimes also called a SWAG, for a shitty,or stupid, wild-assed guess.

As an aside the used of the suffix '-assed' as an intensifier or characterization, particularly "wild-assed", "dumb-assed", "stupid-assed", and the like, is peculiar to the US, I believe. The only legitimate precedent I can think of is zoological nomenclature such as "blue-assed baboon", "red-tailed hawk" and "red-breasted blackbird" and the like.

A

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 01:32 PM

Amos...I think SWAG was originally "Sophisticated Wild-Assed Guess" to indicate yours was better than 'them'.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Amos
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 01:34 PM

Well, obviously you got your larnin' in a more genteel environment than I, senor.


A

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 01:42 PM

Well, it's a possibility, right, Bill? The American tripartite system has been a noble experiment, and it was a very progressive idea at the time of its inception, no doubt about that. I think there are further improvements and changes that could be made now. I'd like to see societies organized less around individual "leaders" and more around coherent social ideals that are well understood by all the people in the society.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 01:45 PM

One other problem with Hillary--and contrast with Obama--is her general attitude. Bush claimed to be "a uniter, not a divider". He never was. Nor is Hillary--her whole style is adversarial politics--just as we've had for 7 years--and longer. Enemies lists and all. It's time to end that.

Obama talks about ending the red state-blue state divide. He really does believe it--and it's already having an effect. I'm hearing more and more about Republicans who say they will support him--for just that reason. Just heard on C-Span from a 67-year old Republican woman in Springfield, Illinois, who says her entire family will vote for Obama. Obama already stands to get a huge portion of independents, not even mentioning Republicans--across the country--to a large extent due to his inclusive attitude.


It's possible for him since, as I've mentioned before, he has neither the divisive legacy of the Vietnam War to contend with, nor the divisive legacy of the 1990's. Hillary has both--and will never lose either.

One of the biggest ironies of this irony-filled political season is that one of Obama's main themes is hope--and building on hope to work for change.

But who was the "man from Hope" in 1992? An excellent theme then--and now. But is it a Clinton theme now? Not likely.

The person now most like Bill Clinton then is obvious--and it ain't Hillary.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Amos
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 01:52 PM

It's a good point you make, Ron -- in ways, Barack is more like the bright light of Clinton when he first opposed Bush Sr. ("It's the economy, stupid!").

A

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 01:54 PM

I couldn't agree more with that last post of yours, Ron. This thing about ending the red state/blue state divide is a breath of fresh air! It's exactly what is needed in America. People have been set against each other by artificial divisions and arbitrary labels for far too long.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 01:59 PM

And it was Lincoln who said: "A house divided against itself cannot stand."

What is an election map divided into red and blue states but the visual representation of a house divided against itself? People need to free themselves from these divisive concepts and kneejerk loyalties that they have become so programmed to take for granted.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 02:21 PM

Yet another contrast between Obama and Hillary--and reason for his success and her lack of it--is linked to the hope element: optimism.

Americans tend to think of themselves as optimists--and reward politicians perceived as optimists. Look at Clinton himself in 1992. Look at Reagan--he parleyed optimism into 8 years--even without ever knowing much about any issue. Look even at Bush--in 2000 he was perceived as a good-natured, sunny guy you could have a drink with at your local bar. Again it didn't matter that he hardly knew anything about any issue--he was still seen as more likeable than the ueber-wonk Gore.

Now, with Obama, we finally have the best of both worlds--both optimism and brains--as Amos notes, probably hasn't happened since JFK.

With Hillary, optimism is not an adjective that springs to mind, to say the least.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: jacqui.c
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 02:27 PM

Obama has interested me since he was first mentioned as a possible candidate. He seems to have a new energy and a vision that is starting to ignite people who maybe would not be out there voting. I think that there is a strong chance that he could do well in NH right now.

I really don't like Hilary - she's too damn sure of herself and I think that it would be just business as usual if she got the Presidency.

If either Obama or Clinton win the nomination I think that they will need Edwards as a running mate. That way there is still a white male as VP, and one with a southern accent at that. Something for almost everybody then.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 02:28 PM

Optimism AND brains is indeed a rare and winning combination in politics! Devastating, in fact.

And you're right, Hillary does not radiate optimism. She radiates a sort of steely determination and confidence in her own personal powers and experience, but that's not optimism.

Guiliani...now there's someone who sure as hell does not radiate optimism.

I'm curious about Edwards, Ron, because I don't know nearly as much about him as I'd like to. Could you sort of give me a thumbnail impression of your impression of him?

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 02:44 PM

LH--

Edwards--real good guy, self-made millionaire attorney, who now sincerely believes in his "2 Americas" theme--that only the wealthy and connected now get a fair shake--and that has to change.

My only problem with him is that he seems to lean pretty strongly toward protectionism, and is stridently anti-globalist, As Poppa-Gator has pointed out, at this point, being against globalism is basically being against tides, or weather--it's a done deal--what we have to do is try to figure out how to cushion the blow for those who lose their jobs.

Last year, I strongly advocated an Edwards/ Obama ticket. But it became clear very soon it should be the other way around. Hope Edwards has the sense to see this soon--and volunteers to be Obama's VP. A guaranteed winning ticket--against anybody but McCain--and maybe even against him.

Thanks for asking. I'd be curious to know what people up there with you know about and think about Edwards.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Alice
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 02:51 PM

LH, I posted a video about Edwards on a thread that didn't get much response.
It includes his parents talking about Edwards' life and how he was raised.
It is a good introduction to John Edwards.

http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=107196

Alice

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Jeri
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 03:09 PM

Somebody pointed out this out on TV, and I've put my own spin on it. People are ready for change. Hillary claims to have experience, but if you believe that (and I don't - at least not the way they want me to believe), then you come to the conclusion that she's PART of the 'old'. I voted for Bill, but that was then, and we need a different president. I remember Hillary's health care plan and how badly it tanked. It was a good idea, but she didn't work well with foes and they didn't even try to work with her.

We need hope and dreams and we need to challenge the old and get rid of things that don't fit the dreams. We need some idealism to go with the realism and fight. Edwards has it and so does Obama to a more conservative extent. (I think I just made and oxymoron.) Hillary doesn't.

Let's see how long I can stand to watch the debate tonight...

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 03:18 PM

Thanks, folks.

Sounds to me like an Obama/Edwards ticket would be the dream combination for the Democrats. Or an Edwards/Obama ticket. I hope these people do not damage each other's credibility too much on the way there...because they will just be helping their common enemies if they do.

Hillary Clinton, like it or not, represents the old established power structures too much, whatever her own personal gifts may be.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Alice
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 03:18 PM

Jeri, I agree with you.

Bill Clinton has a lot of political talent, and the ability to bring people together on issues. Hillary is the opposite - she polarizes people. Hillary is not Bill, and yet she brings out all the old baggage about Bill Clinton that stirs up the right wing Clinton haters.

I've been supporting John Edwards for a long time, but if Obama can take the lead, I will support him.

Alice

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 04:15 PM

Democrats- Obama over Clinton but very close.
Julie boy far behind

Republicans- Romney and McCain too close to call
Edwards and Huckabee will be disappointed

My bet- one 2006 penny

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Alice
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 05:49 PM

Romney won the Wyoming caucus today, but that is expected. It is a very Mormon state.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Jeri
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 05:55 PM

Q, Giuliano is a Republican and Edwards is a Democrat.

Seriously:
D: 1. Obama 2. Clinton 3. Edwards
R: 1. McCain 2. Romney 3. Huckabee

Clinton got bood today when she took a jab at Obama. I don't know if it means anything or not. Obama is riding a wave, and I'm guessing it's only going to get bigger. We'll see. Debate starts in a bit over an hour.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: freightdawg
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 08:20 PM

For all you Edwards lovers out there I have some questions. First, wasn't Edwards on the ticket with Kerry? And what happened? The day after Kerry chose him he actually lost points in the polling data. Edwards was a no show on the ticket. I have no idea where he campaigned, because he was virtually invisible. Maybe that was Kerry's doing, but as I remember (and this is shady at best) Edwards couldn't even deliver his home state in the general election.

Second, Edwards is building his whole campaign (as he did in the last election cycle) on a *divided* America, not a united America. His rich/poor us/them haves/have nots is diametrically opposed to Obama's message. To combine the two would be fatal. Obama, should he win the nomination, needs a fresh face to go along with his - he needs an optimist and not a social divider, which is exactly what Edwards is.

"A self made millionaire who cares for the little guy." Are you kidding me? Since when is a self made millionaire lawyer concerned about anyone but the one who is paying his retainer? That will be the biggest downfall if Obama makes the mistake to choose Edwards.

Finally, Edwards has the albatross of the last election hanging around his neck. Why choose a proven loser to help propel you to the White House? As I mentioned, Obama (should he continue to win the nomination) needs a voice that will resonate with his, not contrast with his. He needs an optimist, and someone who is not seen as a part of the divided social scene in America. Personally, I cannot think of a worse choice for VP for Obama than Edwards, unless it would be Clinton.

I'm open to have my mind changed here, but as someone who is certainly less than enthralled with the Republican choices I would certainly consider voting for Obama in November. Unless he makes the stupid mistake of choosing Edwards. That would prove to me that his talk is just empty sloganism and he has no more substance than your average convention balloon.

Freightdawg

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 09:00 PM

Giulinio? Maybe there's one who IS a Democrat....☺☻☺

(them Eyetalians switch vowels constantly...I can't keep up. Ferraro, Ferrara, Ferrari...) I married the middle one, instead of the rich one.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Jeri
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 09:16 PM

Pocky, pocky, pocky. Ot was a typi! Sorry I iffended your sensibolities, Bill! :-)

Finally, the Democrats are debating. Flippin' Pakistan...

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 09:33 PM

Interesting viewpoint, freightdawg. You may be right.

Regarding Edwards' credibility as someone who cares about "the little guy", however....that has nothing necessarily to do with whether he's a self-made millionaire or what class he was born into or anything like that. Key leaders of populist causes and populist revolutions in the past have often come from the more privileged classes, even from the nobility and the royalty, partly because the sons and daughters of the wealthy often have a lot more time and inclination to investigate radical social theories when they're growing up than the sons and daughters of the poor do...who are busy just surviving.

A rich person can become a progressive social radical...he just has to decide to at a certain point.

Still, as I say, you raise some interesting questions about Edwards' viability as a candidate.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: TRUBRIT
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 11:12 PM

Been out for a large, alcoholic fancy dinner with my husband so not sure how much rationality there is in this post. He thinks Maine, NH , VT. CT and RI should seceed from the US of A -- we might consider CA for membership if they can overcome their distance.....we would possibly align with Canada but more likely stay indepndent.........that's it !!!!!!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: TRUBRIT
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 11:50 PM

This reverts back to another thread I read but am too tired to look for.......it is all over for the rest of the   counry == except CA!!!!!!