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!!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Janie
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 01:10 AM

Edwards is protectionist because he has seen first hand the effects of globalization on his home state as one textile mill and furniture mill after another has moved overseas, and as the tech jobs with IBM, Nortel, Lucent, etc, have been outsourced overseas.   

I like his talk, but not his walk.   As best I can tell, outside of the courtroom, he is ineffective, and has not demonstrated any leadership capabilities that suggest he could effectively lead congress or influence public opinion to put his ideas into action in the face of anything but clear consensus. And clear consensus is not likely. I was very disappointed in his performance as US Senator, believed he betrayed those of us who elected him by his voting record in Congress on significant issues, and the limited dealings I had with his congressional staff were significant for the ineptitude of his operations.   As a social worker I did not see any effect at all that he had as head of the Center on Poverty, Opportunity and Work (or whatever it was called) at the law school at UNC-Chapel Hill after the last election. Assuming the next president is a Democrat and the next congress is also a Democrat majority (and that may be assuming a lot,) the President is going to still need to be a skillful Wheeler-Dealer who can keep his eye on the prize of his agenda and not just his personal power-base. I don't think he gets the difference.   The North Carolina primary is not until May, but at this point, I doubt Edwards will win the primary here in his home State.    If he ends up the Democratic nominee, I'll vote for him, but I think he would be the least effective President of the three main Democratic candidates.

I'm leaning more and more toward Obama because I think he has the best chance of developing, as an elected official a power-base that incorporates to at least some small extent, the American electorate, as opposed to simply corporate and monied interests.   Both as a candidate and as a President, he may have the capacity to lead the common people of our country to experience themselves as having power, and to act like they are enfranchised, thus asserting some power that is independent of the big money interests.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 10:31 AM

Obama/Edwards as a "dream team", LH???

Yeah, the ultimate nightmare of a dream team, IMO... These two guys don't mix... Edwards is too angry... Okay, I like that because I'm purdy oissed off myself but the Obama ***brand*** is not one of anger and that is why he is doing so well...

Plus, excatly what state do you think Edwards can put in the win column??? None... That is reality... He couldn't even get his own state of North Carolina in '04...

No, my choices of the dream teams are as follows:

1. Obama/Warner... (Former Va. Governor Mark Warner is very popular, a fiscal conservative, bi-partisan and can keep a smile on his face... and deliver Virginia's elctorial college votes to Obama...)

2. Obama/Richardson... (Richardson brings into the mix tons of foreign policy experience and can not only deliver New Mexico but also perhaps Arizona and Hispanic votes everywhere...)

3. Obama/Webb... (Jim Webb, Virginia's junior Senator brings a real time war hero into the mix, strong anti-Iraq-War credentials and being the former under Secretary of the Navy doesn't hurt either...)

Now as for New Hampshire:

I think Clinton will pull ouy the win but with such as small margin of victory over Obama that it won't be viewed as a victory... But it does come down to participation... A large turnout can put Obama in the winner's circle...

ON the Repub side, I think McCain will do well but not quite well enough to knock off Romney...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Jeri
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 10:43 AM

I saw one poll that had Obama ahead by a couple of percentage points, others say they're in a dead heat. I think Obama's riding a post-Iowa wave, and it hasn't peaked yet.


Edwards and Obama did good during the debate, but I had a feeling they were going out for dinner and drinks later. Clinton did very well, but she spent time attacking the other two when she could have been talking about specifics about her own campaign. Richardson was tolerated and did better than I would have. He was funny a couple of times, and other times, seemed to completely lose the plot. I think I'm going to be waffling (not as much as Romney) between Edwards and Obama right up to when I mark my ballot.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 11:02 AM

Did anyone watch the Republican debate. I couldn't believe my eyes. Ron Paul would say something that made pretty good sense to me, and all the other candidates would laugh at him. Paul was the only one there I'd even think about supporting.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 01:01 PM

Of course they laughed at Ron Paul, Rigs...

The current crop of Repubs is wired so fundamentally different than Ron Paul that they think he is joking...

But then again, though Ron Paul has grace, I'm sure that he thinks the rest of the cast is a big joke...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 01:45 PM

Well, Bobert, you've about got me convinced... ;-) (about who Obama should team up with if he runs)

As for Ron Paul, he's the only Republican who's talking about anything that makes any sense. The rest of them are in some kind of dreamworld of their own creation.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 02:30 PM

Janie...thanks for some interesting 'local' perspective on Edwards. That's the kind of information we should be getting on all the candidates.
I do think becoming president automatically gives one some built-in organization and staff that can help overcome certain weaknesses...and Senate conformation can weed out some other bad choices....though it would be awkward.
I hope Edwards improves, no matter what he's doing next year.....it sure would be nice to have your worries prove groundless, huh?

I 'can' see Edwards in some sort of advisory or cabinet post if he is not on the ticket. "Secretary of Righteous Indignation" perhaps...or has Kucinich got that one tied up?

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Amos
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 02:33 PM

Wonder if Ron Paul would serve as Veep?


A

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 03:11 PM

sure would be interesting. Don't put a lot of money on an offer...from either side.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 03:40 PM

My daughter and I watched the debate together. From a Canadian perspective, this is what we observed.

Clinton came off better than expected. We actually like her more than we did before.

Obama seemed tired and not quite up to it.

Edwards looked good over all.

Richardson had his feet on the ground.

The Republicans were old hat except Ron Paul who stole the show.

What about an Edwards/Richardson ticket?

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 06:40 PM

A,

Exactly who would tap Ron Paul fir VP???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 06:41 PM

I like that, and Edwards/Richardson ticket. I thought Richardson did surpisingly well too.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 06:53 PM

So did I.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Amos
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 06:57 PM

Bobez:

Obama. He says he wants to work across the parties, etc. It would definitely demonstrate walking the walk!

Dunno if it would fly, though.



A

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Peter Kasin
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 06:57 AM

Bobert, my thoughts exactly on Obama/Richardson. I think you've pegged that one as the best choice for Obama, if he gets the nomination.

As for a unity ticket with Ron Paul, that, I think, would be like oil and water.Those attracted to Paul's antiwar stance should realize that his libertarian views include laizzes faire economics, which the majority of Americans (thankfully) don't support, and his libertarian non-interventionist foreign policy echos back to the days of the America First committees and the old guard senate isolationists like Wheeler and Borah. Paul doesn't even support humanitarian intervention Darfur! There are better foreign policy alternatives to recklessness than nonintervention.

Chanteyranger

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 07:41 AM

Well, Amos, one thing that the press hasn't yet reported on is Obama's record in the Illinios legislature were he had a record of getting folks accross the isle to vote for bills he put forward... One such bill that passed unanimously was one that required that not only confessions but all intergations be videotaped... Yeah, every Repub in the chanber voted for it...

I just don't think his record has become public yet but if he does get the nomination, it will and he will look even better...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: AllisonA(Animaterra)
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 09:46 AM

In the NH Mock Election for the public school, Obama and Romney took it. Results here.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Jeri
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 11:50 AM

I want to go out, but from looking at the schedules and the news, you can't move without running into a candidate or the ensuing wake. Hillary just left Portsmouth (looked like Breaking New Grounds) and is headed for Dover (my dentist is probably in hog heaven because he's for her and the event is practically across the street from him), and Edwards will be in Dover later this afternoon. The only one of the top three Dems I'm probably safe from, traffic-jam-wise is Barack Obama. I don't even know where the Repubs are. Maybe I should just stay inside and watch TV.

...except then I have to deal with incessant pollsters/recorded phone ads. At least yesterday I was visited by a couple of young Obama supporters. Thought the Witesses were back, but nope. They DID report that my community was nicer than the last, where they had doors slammed in their faces.

Oh well. Think I'll venture forth later and take my chances.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Jeri
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 12:04 PM

She was at Cafe Espresso, not Breaking New Grounds. Probably not really important.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Alice
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 12:10 PM

Mock election in the schools.... LOL
That reminds me of when my son was in the first grade
and they had a mock presidential election in his school.
He voted for Ross Perot. I asked him why, and he
said, because he was the mystery guy with the
big black mustache. (Hercule Poirot) The only first
grader in his class watching Masterpiece Theater?

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 12:19 PM

Jeri, put a sign on your front door: "I have gone to the rally." Unplug the phone. And relax. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: AllisonA(Animaterra)
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 12:21 PM

Yes, Jeri, and my phone is ringing off the hook. It's amusing to see the Caller ID: Kucinich, Obama, and Edwards have called (not they themselves but their devotees) but when someone calls for Hilary it's Blocked! Hmmmmm...

I love being Undecided at this time of year! Last time I got a free dinner for a small select group of guests at a fine restaurant with Elizabeth Edwards and her, er, close personal friend Glenn Close! No dinner invites this year, though. Darn.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 12:28 PM

So what's the deal with the phone? Have you blocked the calls from Hillary, or is the phone company covertly involving themselves in the election?

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Jeri
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 01:19 PM

The caller ID is blocked, not the call. You only find out who it's from when you answer the phone.

Allison, isn't it wonderful to feel wanted? Edwards was in Keene yesterday.

Decided to save the sallying forth for tomorrow.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 01:36 PM

" isn't it wonderful to feel wanted?"

Well...........mabye...but there was once a female who spent about 4 years pursuing me relentlessly hither and yon. I definitely felt "wanted", and it wasn't wonderful! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Amos
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 01:46 PM

That's just cuz you lacked diplomatic savoir faire, LH...if it had been Obama he would have made a voter out of her.



A

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Jeri
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 01:49 PM

I was being sarcastic.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Amos
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 01:59 PM

Dang, Jeri -- you had to go and say it out loud and spoil the whole flavor of the thing! ;>)


A

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 02:12 PM

Heh!

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 04:45 PM

I know how you feel, Jeri. Well, I knew how you feel. Last week I was Cock o' the Walk but nobody cares any more. Isn't that just the way of it?

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Jeri
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 06:22 PM

The state is one thing, but Dixville Notch citizens start voting at midnight, and probably finish 15 minutes later.

Hillary just stepped in it, claiming that LBJ was responsible for civil rights, not Martin Luther King. Obama was talking about how his 'I have a dream' speech showed the same sort of 'false hope' that Clinton accused him of. She said the movement had taken a president to be successful. I know she didn't mean it the way it came across - a dismissal of MLK's role - but I think she might possibly have pooched it.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 06:44 PM

VP Candidate to run with Obama? If I were him I'd want someone who might make the idea of shooting me seem less attractive.

Hillary Clinton comes to mind...

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: curmudgeon
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 08:46 PM

I think that Jeri, a relative newcomer, has called this election correctly, thus far.

But speaking as a native with 65 + years of experience and participation, I would offer some cautions.

New Hampshire is currently being dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st Century. Once a bastion of staunch Republican conservatism, the stae is experiencing a Renaissance of humanity and civilisation. It is therefore, not that predictable.

The short time lapse since Iowa means that polls will not be that reflective of the true intent of the voters until tomorrow morning.

Many Granite Staters take a perverse delight in lying to pollsters.

30% of the electorate is still favoring "Undecided."

Dixville Notch and Hart's Location will be voting at midnight, but I don't recall more than two Democratic votes in the past fifty years.

And at this moment, Linn and I are planning to vote for John Edwards. Time will tell - Tom

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: curmudgeon
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 08:31 AM

Dixville Notch - 17 voters
1 Democrat, 3 Republicans, 13 Independants

McCain - 4
Romney - 2
Giuliani - 1

Obama - 7
Edwards - 2
Richardson - 1

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 08:51 AM

Tom-

Democratic candidates would appear to have a decisive edge in picking up the "Independent" vote.

Interesting!

We will have our caucuses here in Maine in 4 weeks or so but probably by that time no one will care!

Charley Noble, about to shovel more snow off the porch roof

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: curmudgeon
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 09:00 AM

Hart's Location - 29 voters.

Democratic - 8
Republican - 8
Independant - 13

Obama - 9
Clinton - 3
Edwars - 1

McCain - 6
Huckabee - 5
Paul - 4
Romney -1

In this case, the independents seemed to go Republican - Tom

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 11:28 AM

Tom-

Maybe they flipped a coin?

Geez, Romney's not doing so good in either place, nor Giuliani for that matter but he's saving his efforts for the BIG STATES.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: katlaughing
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 02:56 PM

This may be worth watching...at the very least a change from the usual gang of media idjits:

Cenk Uygur from the Young Turks radio show will be back checking in with bloggers and progressive leaders throughout the night starting at 7pm ET, and I'm liveblogging all day long.

http://bravenewfilms.org/election?utm_source=rgemail

Why is our coverage unique? Everyone gets to participate in real time. Send me tips, articles, rumors and questions on the liveblog, and together we can create the most exciting and timely coverage around.. without any corporate media crap.

WHEN: TONIGHT AT 7PM ET
HOSTS: Cenk Uygur and Wes Clark, Jr.
WHERE: http://bravenewfilms.org/election?utm_source=rgemail

SCHEDULE:
7:10: Robert Greenwald, Brave New Films
7:40: Matthew Yglesias, The Atlantic
7:50: Robin Abcarian, L.A. Times
8:00: Billy Wimsatt, League of Young Voters
8:10: Rachel Sklar, The Huffington Post
8:20: Jane Hamsher, Firedoglake
8:30: Jim Dean, Democracy For America
8:40: Steve Clemons, The Note
9:00: Lane Hudson, News for the Left
9:10: Isaiah Poole, TomPaine.com
9:40: James Rucker, Color of Change
10:00: Liza Sabater, Culture Kitchen
10:10: Eric Boehlert, Media Matters

...and more still being added...

Please forward this email to all your friends, and I'll see you online!

Jim Gilliam, Leighton Woodhouse, and everyone at Brave New Films and the Young Turks.

---
Brave New Films is located at 10510 Culver Blvd., Culver City, CA 90232. You can get our latest videos on email, iTunes, RSS, and YouTube here: http://bravenewfilms.org/dosomething. To stop receiving the latest videos from us, click here: http:

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

Voting seems to be rather intense. When we voted at 10:30, 500 had been there before us; and this in a town of 4000+ total population.

There is a fear in some towns and cities of a ballot shortfall. Independents, aka Undeclareds can ask for either a Repub or Dem ballot. There's no way to determine how the divide will go. Right now, it looks like 60% Dem and 40% Repub.

Stay tuned for updates - Tom

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Amos
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 07:35 PM

"...a turnout that could help give an edge to Obama, who is counting on the state's independent voters, who account for 40 percent of the state's electorate.

Multimedia

Your Candidate? Find Your Presidential Match!
Voting started at most polling places at 6 am ET, and will close at 8 p.m. ET, with about three-fourths of the vote in by 7 p.m. The results will be eagerly awaited by all the campaigns -- but the stakes are highest on the Democratic side for Clinton.

New Hampshire Deputy Secretary of State Dave Scanlan told ABC News that turnout is "absolutely huge, and towns are starting to get concerned that they don't have enough ballots."

Turnout was particularly high in Portsmouth and Keene -- both of which are overwhelingly Democratic.

In a northern hamlet of the state, voters of Dixville Notch and Hart's Location cast the first 46 ballots of the primary season, giving wins to Obama on the Democratic side and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., for the Republicans -- both considered candidates popular with the state's independent voters. ..."

The turnout seems to be unexpectedly high across the state.

I look forward to hearing some results. I expect a 20% margin in favor of Mr Obama.


A

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

Think I'll jus' click on my "Memphis Blues" 4 CD compilation, bomb around the innernet and check out the results a little later...

Sounds like mah main man Obama is going to kick some Hillary butt, tho...

Obama/Richardson '08

B~

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 08:14 PM

I still think Obama/Clinton makes sense.

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

Currently, with 12% of precincts in:
Clinton: 38%
Obama: 36%
Edwards: 17%

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Peace
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 08:38 PM

OUCH

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 08:58 PM

No, ouch, Brucie... The early returns always come from the "sticks" where Clinton will "out-sticks" Obama because she is, ahhhh, old business... That's what the "sticks" are all about... Ol' business...

Hang it there, buddy... Things are gonna "change" dramatically as the night goes on...

Now listenin' to "Feel So Worried" (which I ain't) by Sammy Lewis and Willie Johnson... Man, these cats had it all...

Oh yeah, the N.H. primary...

Looks like a yawner to me... My man, Obama, gonna kick some serious butt... Lke what is new???

Danged!!!

I hate this... I'm gonna have to go out and work for a Dem this year... Man, something wrong here...

Oh well???

B~

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

Not from the sticks. Manchester big (for NH) city. Concord is predicted to go for Obama, as is the seacoast. Other than that, NH has a LOT of sticks.

The exit polls showed Obama ahead, but we'll have to see if that has any relationship to reality.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 09:11 PM

Well, Jeri, Obama gonna take N.H. so big that Bill is thinkin' of going back to Monika...

..lol...

B~

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

Hey I called it at noon, ;^ ] whats all the fuss. Obama wins.

They say that Bill Clinton came in second in New Hampshire and thats when he earned the nick name come back kid.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Jeri
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 09:19 PM

I hope you're right.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Jeri
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 09:19 PM

She's still ahead

100

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Peace
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 09:30 PM

Early results often indicate trends. It does NOT look good for the guy I hope wins.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Rapparee
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 09:39 PM

Among registered Democrats, Peace. The Indies are big for Obama. And only 26% of the precincts are in.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: number 6
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 09:43 PM

Didn't McCain win N.H.in 1999 ... in some ways this primary is all so meaningless.No need to get yer shorts all in a knot over.

Anways, after November's election you have the mid term elections to look forward too.

Seems to me the U.S. is in a constant state of campaigning ... no wonder nothing ever gets done.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Jeri
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 09:49 PM

51% in.

Clinton: 39%
Obama: 37%

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: number 6
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 09:51 PM

The true winners in this primary are the proprietors of the local diners, motels and Dunkin Donuts in N.H.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 09:51 PM

Not to worry... The urban areas always bring in the more liberal results...

Fingers crossed...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Jeri
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 09:54 PM

What urban areas haven't been counted yet, Bobert?

Manchester's in, and that's our biggest city.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: number 6
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 09:56 PM

Who won the Democrat nomination in N.H. in the last election.

What happened to him in the final Big Summer Convention?

biLL (failing to see what the fuss is all about)

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: freightdawg
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 10:05 PM

Weird to look at the county results. The Obama counties clearly outnumber the Clinton counties. Clinton must have focused on the population centers. Smaller counties almost all have gone to Obama, with a few for Clinton. Edwards showed up in second twice, by my look-see.

Freightdawg

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: freightdawg
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 10:12 PM

Boy, what a difference a refresh makes...must of been a bushel of Clinton counties come in at once.

Freightdawg

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: katlaughing
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 10:12 PM

I am listening to a really interesting live show covering this put on by Brave New Films and The Young Turks. Interesting commentary and discussion plus live texting by listeners.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: number 6
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 10:17 PM

Regardless ... there are many, many children in the U.S. tonite who have gone to bed hungry.

but

Let the campaigns go on! I hope your team wins.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Amos
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 10:23 PM

Clinton, a senator from New York, held a 39 percent to 37 percent edge over Obama, an Illinois senator, with 53 percent of New Hampshire's 301 precincts reporting, according to an Associated Press tally. Former North Carolina Senator John Edwards had 17 percent, and CNN projected that Edwards would end up in third place, based on exit polls.

(Bloomberg)

Creeping toward sunrise....

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Amos
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 10:25 PM

Clinton        65,129         39%
Obama        60,766         36   
Edwards        28,088         17   
Richardson        7,952         5   
Kucinich        2,423         1   
Gravel        232         0   
63% reporting

This was about 10:15 EST.


A

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

Freightdog, where are you seeing the counties?

They're saying on the news the college towns aren't in, and they might make a difference. I doubt enough, but it's not over 'til it's over.

As Edwards is now saying, 99% of America hasn't yet voted.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Janie
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 10:29 PM

My last post disappeared into cyberspace, apparently. so I'll ask again.

Freightdawg (or anyone else,) are you looking at a site where the demographics would be apparent to some one not familiar with New Hampshire? If so, would you provide a link?

Janie

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: freightdawg
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 10:46 PM

Jeri, I was just following the results on the MSN web page. They have an option to look at statewide results, or county by county. I just clicked on the county results. Sorry I can't be of much more use.

MSN is reporting Clinton has won with 39% to 36% for Obama. Be prepared for the media to be harping on the comeback kid part II ad nauseum.

Freightdawg

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 10:47 PM

IT'S A GREAT COUNTRY!

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: number 6
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 11:33 PM

It's a football game.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Amos
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 11:36 PM

Hillary has been declared the primary winner in the State of New Hampshire, by a close margin.


A

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: number 6
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 11:37 PM

I already knew Amos .... for about 40 minutes. I guess you missed her 'moving' victory speech.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 11:37 PM

It's a great country--if you enjoy self-destructive Democrats--perhaps you do, Rig? As I said earlier, her big plus is supposedly "experience". McCain will eat her for breakfast on "experience".

Obama's strength is "change"--and legions of young people willing to help bring that about. McCain will have nothing to counter that--if Obama is the nominee. If Hillary is the nominee, the Democrats--and all liberals--have big problems.

How can these Democrats not see this?

At least it was close. Hope Obama's young supporters don't get discouraged--he can tell them this is a lesson that you have to pick yourself up and keep going. He could still win South Carolina.


But as I also noted, why the hell didn't Obama and Edwards join forces?--they still can--if Edwards volunteers to be Obama's VP. But he shows no signs of that.

Here we go again with another long bloody, expensive Democratic primary season--unless Hillary sweeps on Super-Duper Tuesday. Which will solve no problem--except McCain's--giving him the opponent the Republicans have always wanted.

Well, Rig says it's a great country, so it must be true--for him, anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 11:41 PM

And remember, according to LH's survey, "Canadian respondents favored" Hillary. So at least they should also be happy. Hope they're as happy with the fall election.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: number 6
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 11:57 PM

LH probably read that in the Packet and Times ... notably a very unreliable news rag.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: katlaughing
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 12:29 AM

If McCain goes after her in a negative way, women will come out for her in droves. Whether we like her or agree with her or not, it IS historic that she is running and women will come to the forefront if they feel sexism is getting in the way and harming one of their own. As a feminist, I am just plain excited that she is running and doing so well. She is NOT my first choice, but I'd certainly vote for her over any of the GOP candidates, any day.

I agree with hoping Edwards and Obama joining up. They would make a great team, but Edwards keeps saying he is in it for the long haul, so who knows.

They are still going on Brave Net.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: mg
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 12:35 AM

I won't vote for her regardless of how sexist it gets. She scares the daylights out of me. mg

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: autolycus
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 03:18 AM

I trust everyone who posted rereads this thread forseld-examination purposes.

Popped this in to see how early the earliest correct caler was.

   Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 07:48 AM

mg - What is it about Hillary that concerns you?

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Jeri
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 08:48 AM

I like both Edwards and Obama, but as a ticket? They're too similar in more ways, and if Obama wins the nomination, he's going to need someone who'll bring something he doesn't have. I DON'T think Richardson is a good choice, but I just don't think Richardson is in that league. Could be wrong, and I certainly don't have any other ideas.

I honestly don't know if I'd vote for Hillary if she were nominated. Listening to her over the last week or so, I don't think she's quite the force for evil that I'd believed. Still, with her, 'I' this and 'me' that, and a campaign blatantly tailored to fit the polls, I may wind up writing in a vote for the first time.

NH has been called a 'Clinton' state, and Hillary's support had been pretty solid. She didn't gain it so much as win it back. Obama started pretty much from scratch. Other states aren't so conservative, and most of them have yet to vote.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 08:50 AM

Be it Hillary or Obama as long as they appoint Robert Reich and a few other good money people, we may be able to comfortably survive the biggest theft of the US treasury in history.
Its gonna hurt no matter what. After the censorship bandage is ripped off I expect the sight of the wound to the US econmomy may make some people faint of heart.

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

I'll second that. I wonder what can possibly be done to repair the damage.

                I would happily vote for Hillary, by the way.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Rapparee
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 09:14 AM

Bear in mind that Clinton and Obama each carried 8 delegates away from New Hampshire and it's THAT, not the number of votes each received, that counts.

I wouldn't call a split decision a victory....

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 09:21 AM

Well, there may not be much that mg and I agree on but we agree that we ain't votin' for Hillary!!!

As for my N.H. predictions??? Not too good... I predicted that Hillary would win based on her organization and I predicted that Romney would do the same for the same reason... I was half right and half wrong...

But Obama did as I predicted in coming in close behind Hillary and so he's didn't have as bad a day in N.H. and Hillary did in Iowa...

Obama/Richardson in '08...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 09:27 AM

The New Hampshire results were surprising to me but that's OK. It makes the bigger primaries more important and that is not inappropriate.

I still don't anticipate the Democratic Primary getting as nasty as the Republican battle. So I'm very comfortable with both Clinton and Obama being the focus of increased scruntiny.

They also need to be prepared to deal with the vicious attacks that will be generated from the Republican National Committee surrogates. One wonders what their favorite script will be.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Rapparee
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 09:37 AM

I hate to say this, but I think Clinton's time has passed.

We have to face it: the Sixties Generation has done a really lousy job of supplying national leaders. WClinton was okay, which isn't saying much. And GW...well...were I in his platoon in combat I wouldn't get too upset if he were fragged. Look at some of the others: Karl Rove, Newt Gingerich....

I think it's time to just quietly put the whole thing away and skip the generation I grew up with. See what Obama can do.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 09:49 AM

I agree, Mister Rapaire. MEbbe you're not suich a Republican after all.


A

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 09:54 AM

...were I in his platoon in combat... Dubya in a combat platoon? Now that is over the top fantasy.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Peace
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 10:08 AM

Jaysus. Just give the enemy your tactical plan and save them the trouble of getting any of themselves wounded or killed. That guy (Dubya) could not organize a one car parade.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: katlaughing
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 11:03 AM

For some of us Obama is of our generation, although on the tail end. He is only eight years younger than I.

Anyone who would vote Republican just to vote against Hillary, deserves all that another four years of GOP domination would bring about. Folks who help the GOP by voting third party are doing nothing for our country but throwing away any opportunity to heal our country, imo.

OBama/Richardson would be a great duo, imo, also.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 01:37 PM

Ron, the Canadian national survey apparently showed that more Canadians would favor Hillary Clinton overall, among the Democratic candidates. I don't feel that way. I favour Kucinich the most. After him, I favour Obama and Edwards about equally. Then Richardson. And after them I favour Hillary Clinton and Ron Paul! And that about covers it as to who I would vote for if I could in your election.

The main point of the Canadian survey, however, was that 4 out of 5 Canadians would favour ANY of the democratic candidates over electing any Republican candidate, and that shows the difference between Canada and the USA in a nutshell. Even a solid majority of the Canadians who call themselves "conservatives" would vote for a Democratic candidate in this American election.

It shows how far skewed to the Right American politics has become, that being something that is pretty obvious to people in the rest of the world.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Peace
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 01:48 PM

"The main point of the Canadian survey, however, was that 4 out of 5 Canadians would favour ANY of the democratic candidates over electing any Republican candidate, and that shows the difference between Canada and the USA in a nutshell. Even a solid majority of the Canadians who call themselves "conservatives" would vote for a Democratic candidate in this American election."

LH, that indicates to me that the Democrats are so friggin' conservative athat even Canuck Concervatives would vote for them, concommitantly indicating that most of us perceive the Republicans to be much too right-wing for Canuck sensibilities. (IMO.)

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Bee
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 01:55 PM

As LH says - our most conservative Conservatives think most of your lefties are too far to the Right. Pretty much any Republican candidate so far makes us slew our eyes South like a nervous caribou sensing a wolf pack. We know some of you are runnin' outta water. Even ol' Obama is rumoured to have made noises about revisiting trade arrangements with Canada, likely to our detriment.

Much as we like Americans as individuals, I'd bet there's not a Canadian alive who hasn't had the occasional nightmare about what happens when the financially strapped neighbours really start hurting for natural resources.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 02:02 PM

Damn right. Look, there IS no genuinely liberal party to vote for in the USA. There's a rabidly conservative, downright fascist party in alliance with the Religious Right: the Republicans. And then there's a conservative willing-to-be-fascist-if-it-gets-them-elected party: the Democrats.

So what the hell would a Canadian do in that case? He would vote the lesser of two very considerable evils.

The Democrats may be capable of becoming a genuinely liberal party again someday...with the right leadership...so one hopes for the best.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Peace
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 02:04 PM

I hope that Obama gets in. We might be able to restore friendly relations with our neighbours to the south and north-west. I don't see that becoming a reality with any other 'winner'.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 02:06 PM

How refreshing to see the voters in New Hampshire refusing to be told how to vote by the main stream media.
How utterly embarrassing to watch CNN refusing to concede until Obama was at the microphone.
The Republicans would eat him for breakfast and the media knows it.
Hence, the free pass.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Rapparee
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 02:10 PM

If not in combat, how about "I wouldn't back him in a bar fight." He knows something about drinking.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 02:13 PM

Ayeh. Yon W knows entirely too much about that.


A

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: number 6
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 02:20 PM

"more Canadians would favor Hilary Clinton overall"

What this inidcates to me is that most Canadians don't even know the other Democrat candidates. Hilary Clinton is the only one they know and by name only ... in regards to favouring Democrats over Republicans, well they associate Republican with Bush (like everyone esle in the world) and they are not going to take that direction.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 02:22 PM

No Canadian politician in living memory has been elected on the basis of his military record or his combat experience. It is not what people in this country assume would make someone a good civilian political leader. What makes someone a good civilian political leader is his or her intelligence, good character, honesty, past civilian experience on the job, education, and that sort of thing.

Countries which constantly engage in aggressive imperial warfare abroad and/or civil oppression at home are usually the ones who want some guy with a bunch of medals on his chest at the helm...and it's NOT generally such a good sign when you see it. (there may be the odd exception to that, depending on circumstances)

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Peace
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 02:27 PM

However, I think that Lewis MacKenzie or Roméo Dallaire (now in the Senate--appointed position) would make good leaders despite their past military lives. They are both incredible leaders who engender trust.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: number 6
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 02:32 PM

In the U.S. (trying to stick this the subject of this thread) Obama if he succeeds will have a very short honeymoon, he will eventually get run over by the machine ... remembering what happened in the mid-term elections last year .... the U.S. is in such a serious mess the only one of the canditates who 'gets it' and has the stature, backbone to make any kind of difference is Ron Paul.

My 2 cents worth.

BTW I agree with Peace especially with Romeo Dallaire.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 02:38 PM

Yes, I agree with Peace on that also.

Your thoughts about Ron Paul are interesting. You might be right.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 02:41 PM

Yeah, I think Ron Paul "gets it." But when they had the Republican debates, everytime he said anything, all the other candidates laughed at him. All of which tells you that he gets it and they don't. The problem going forward is, there are probably only a handfull of people in Congress and in various departments that also get it, so he'd have to go through a massive education process.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 02:48 PM

That is one reason Paul might make a good VEEP. He doesn't have a whore's chance in Paradise of making the Primaries, but he could provide back-to-back defense against the slimers and swiftboaters who will come out of the woodwork with their sneering innuendos.


A

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: number 6
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 02:50 PM

I agree Riginslinger ... but Ron Paul has the stamina and independance to pull it off.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: number 6
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 02:52 PM

Good point Amos ... one can only hope.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 04:16 PM

Amos - That is a good point. If a bunch of Swift Boaters went after Ron Paul, he turn around and hand them there collecive heads.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 04:44 PM

Do all those other Republican candidates who laugh at Ron Paul every time he states a simple, uncomfortable truth really not "get it"? Or are they being deliberately disingenuous? Ridicule is a common technique of shutting down the unpleasant truth when it is spoken in a public forum. I think they are consciously, deliberately trying to shut him down in that fashion, and I think that the Democrats are consciously, deliberately trying to shut down Dennis Kucinich for the same reason...by keeping him out of the televised debates.

They don't want people to hear the real alternatives to the standard propaganda line.

In Kucinich's case, they simply shut him out of the debates. In Ron Paul's case, they all cover over whatever he says with a bunch of nervous laughter.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 05:01 PM

Yeah, I suppose that's right. If they were all as dumb as Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, you could just assume that they just didn't "get it." But McCain and Huckabee seem a little smarter than that, and I didn't get the impression that Thompson was actually leading the laughter.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 06:03 PM

Here's another possibility for last night's count in New Hampshire:

voting fraud.

Did anyone see the riding by riding results coming in steadily through the night for the Democrats, as with the Republicans? The people on CNN seemed very surprised that Hillary Clinton was ahead of Obama, and quite reluctant to confirm her win, although it had been announced early on another media outlet (United Press?).

I think there is a genuine possibility that the voting results were tampered with on the Democratic side of the ticket, that the result was "cooked".

Why? Because the main machine that runs the Democratic Party decided as much as a year ago that Hillary Clinton is going to be their candidate, and they figured it couldn't go wrong if enough money was funneled into her campaign. Now it appears it might go wrong, so they might be pulling a few strings to get the train back on track, as it were...

Just a possibility. I'm not saying I know. I'm saying that I am suspicious. When all the polls a day or so before show that Obama is ahead, and WELL ahead, then he gets less votes on the actual day...I tend to suspect that something is not right in Denmark.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 06:09 PM

Personally I envisioned a simpler explanation:

"Ma'a'm, you are one of several thousand women who switched their decision and voted for Hillary at the last moment, is that correct?"

"Yes, I am."

"May I ask, ma'am, why you changed your mind?"

"I just did, all right!!!!?????"

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 06:21 PM

Yes, that is possible too. A number of things are possible.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: curmudgeon
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 08:42 PM

Posted on 7 January:

The short time lapse since Iowa means that polls will not be that reflective of the true intent of the voters until tomorrow morning.

Many Granite Staters take a perverse delight in lying to pollsters.

30% of the electorate is still favoring "Undecided."

I told you so - Tom

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 09:47 PM

"The Republicans would eat him (Obama) for breakfast..."

Little problem with facts and logic there: i.e. absolutely none.

Obviously, it's not a question of Obama's problems with Republicans (specifically McCain--anybody else would be a comparative pushover)--in a vacuum. It's either Obama or somebody else against McCain. The other likely possibility is clearly Hillary. So the comparison is particularly apt.

1) As I said earlier, Obama has neither the 1960's legacy nor the 1990's legacy to weigh him down. Hillary has both--and will never be able to shed either.

1960's: Hillary's funding request for funding for a Woodstock concert museum. McCain's classic--and pitch-perfect--response. "I wasn't there. I'm sure it was a cultural and pharmaceutical event. I was tied up at the time".

How could Hillary have been so stupid?

Brings up the old generation and political '60's gap--try yawning divide--with all its bitter heritage, which played a huge role in sinking Kerry.

1990's: a grab-bag of scandals, some well-known, some not so. Some already seared into the American consciousness.


2) Obama's strong suit is "change". For people who believe strongly in this, Republican attacks would have very little impact--might even make them stronger Obama supporters.

Hillary has no strong suit, especially against McCain.

3) Obama has an army of young enthusiasts--willing to stuff envelopes, ring bells, etc. forever. Hillary--not so much.

4) It's clearly Hillary, not Obama, who has the big problem. Her top quality is supposedly experience. Pathetic compared to McCain's.

5) Obama's appeal is across the board--including independents and some Republicans. Hillary's support is very narrow--look even at her Mudcat support--not impressive, to put it mildly.

6) Hillary has such huge negatives that she will unify a fractious Republican party--against her. Obama--not likely--he will even get Republican votes.

If anybody cares to debate any of this--with facts and logic, not innuendo, please feel free.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 09:51 PM

I urge you to look up Obama--Coming in Second in New Hampshire on YouTube -- his speech acknowledging Hillary in New Hampshire.

It is one awesome piece of political rhetoric and leadership.



A

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Peace
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 09:55 PM

Ron and Amos, I am with you 100%. PERIOD.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 09:55 PM

Re: Ron Paul:

Do any of you so enthralled by Ron Paul ever look at what he actually stands for?

1) withdrawal from NATO, UN
2) ending of federal income tax
3) abolishing of many (most?) government agencies--in practice that will mean non-defense agencies: i.e. lots of social programs. What do you think will substitute for them?
4) against gun control
5) overturning Roe v Wade--he is "pro-life"

He's a Republican Congressman who advocates withdrawal from Iraq--fine. But, sorry to say, he's a package deal. Including all the above--and probably more. Why do I think you may possibly not be quite so enthusiastic about some of his non-Iraq positions?

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Peace
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 10:00 PM

I think something we could easily be missing is that for the first time in decades younger voters will have a person who represents many of their ideals and hopes. That is Obama. In some ways he reminds me of McCarthy back in the day. He offers hope. IMO, Hillary is more of the old monied same-same. Elect me because I want to be in the White House because that's where I want to be.

Obama is a class act, and as far as I am concerned he's gonna be the next President of the United States of America. I hope some BIG states see it that way, too. I think the USA is in for one helluva shock come election day. It's about time, because since I can remember, it has been SSDD. GO, OBAMA!

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: number 6
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 10:03 PM

"Obama's strong suit is "change""

I feel his heart is in it but it's just rhetoric ... ignites the emotions, nice package design but there is nothing of substance to indcate what he's going to change or more importantly how he is going to make the change .... how is he going to stand up to the 'machine' and the machine doesn't pertain just to the Republicans. In fact I feel some of those Republican candidates would be run over by the 'machine' ( Huckabee and McCain).

biLL

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

Rig: "I would happily vote for Hillary."

So you would happily vote for somebody who still, over 4 years later, refuses to admit she was wrong in voting to authorize Bush for an unnecessary war of choice he duped the US public into supporting. A war which has caused tens of thousands of deaths, and for which we are all still paying, in innumerable ways.

Interesting.

But suppose she were willing to consider illegal immigrants to be actual people, not the cause of all US economic problems? And didn't believe in stupid rumors like the terrible danger of Hispanic groups giving back parts of the US to Mexico?

And don't forget, she has a strong faith. You would be voting to put in office somebody who-- (gasp)-- is in favor of religion, the source of all evil in the world. How could you ever sleep at night knowing what you'd done?

And if you don't believe me, just wait a little while--not very long. You'll hear a lot about from her about how important religion is in American life, and in her own life.

You mean to tell us you don't put your vote where your mouth is---that all your ranting against religion is just so much hot air? --(which it must be if you're willing to "happily" vote for somebody who has confessed to the crime of being strongly religious.)

Why am I not surprised?

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 10:17 PM

No details on "change"?

1) Wait a bit, there will be some details. Campaign has just started.

2) Do you feel the same about JFK?--after all, some of the details he gave were in fact false. Yet he is considered the inspiration to much of a generation.

3) The main change, as I understand it, is to change the adversarial culture which has existed for quite a while--and which Hillary embodies.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 10:18 PM

Ron...

I am pleased about what Ron Paul is saying...NOT because I want to see him or his party elected, not because I am unaware of certain policies of his that I don't agree with, but because he is bringing forth some vitally important stuff that embarrasses the other Republican candidates and sheds a bright light on the hypocrisy of the foreign policy they are supporting. It's stuff that Republicans need to hear.

Is that okay with you?

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 10:21 PM

Just be aware he is a package--not a slogan. Especially if anybody is thinking of pushing him for VP, etc.

"... hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest...

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 10:32 PM

I value him as a spoiler, Ron, not as a candidate to realistically be elected. He is speaking some truths about Iraq and the so-called "War on Terror" that have been almost unspeakable in the USA political mainstream since 911. Good for him.

And so is Kucinich, who will also serve as a spoiler, because there is no way the ruling system will give him any chance of being elected.

I am pleased that Ron Paul is pulling some votes away from the other Republican and still hanging in there to say what he's saying.

Now you want bizarre policies to get upset about? Try out Huckabee's idea of replacing all income and payroll taxes with a flat 23% sales tax to everyone on everything they buy, no matter how rich or poor they are. That would be a disaster for the poorest people in society. It's a scheme that would accelerate the movement of money from the poorest people toward the richest. It's about the most unprogressive notion I've heard of yet....though it sounds superficially egalitarian if you don't give it much thought.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 10:33 PM

Obama is doing wonderfully well what a President should be doing -- creating the vision, direction and values of the nation. He is uniting people with honesty and enthusiasm.

He also has some strong policies in mind.

A

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: TRUBRIT
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 10:49 PM

Amos -- in a serious thread I loved you .......I JUST DID -- ALRIGHT?????

Heard myself saying something similar in the past......

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 11:27 PM

Ron - None of these candidates are perfect. I would rather the front running Democrats recognize the environmental impact of continued immigration. But they're in corporate pockets too. Actually, Obama seems to have more of that problem than Hillary does.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: number 6
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 11:43 PM

Ron ... "Wait a bit, there will be some details. Campaign has just started." ... fer Gawd's sake he's been campaigning for a year !

LH .. I certainly agree with you regarding Ron Paul and Kucinich. But I have to disagree with you regarding Huckleberry's Tax plan ... I think it makes sense ... certainly is radical. More fair to be taxed on what you spend than what you earn ... of course questions on what should be taxed on spending will be required.

Amos ... I agree. Obama has integrity and certainly provides much needed inspiration, but as soon as he steps into the ring he'll be flattened. The 'unity' will soon disinigrate. His opponets are mean and bad, and the country needs someone who can not only outmanouver, and has a solid game plan but also take a hard punch with out going down. This is what is required to keep the country unified.

again, my 2 cents worth. At this rate I'll be broke by Friday.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 12:14 AM

"He also has some strong policies in mind." - Amos

What are those policies?

All I've seen so far is a smooth talking, charmer.

Thats probably what it will take to get elected.

Did anyone believe Hillary's tears? I just about gagged. Thats what I don't like about her. She's willing to play the game any which way to become the first woman president. Her every move is carefully calculated.   

This is going to be very close.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 06:33 AM

Then there's this from last night's PBS News Hour:


AMY WALTER, The National Journal: Well, we've heard so much about the woman factor. And the fact was that it was a considerable number of women who turned out to vote, even a little bit higher than in 2004.

Fifty-four percent of voters in the Democratic primary last time around, 2004, women, this time, 57 percent, and she won almost half of them. She won across the board, too, working women, you know, married women. She really did much better, certainly than she did in Iowa, but much better than I think anybody had expected.

The real story, though, I think is -- the divide here is on the socioeconomic issues between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. And, quite frankly, even though John Edwards running as a populist, he was never really part of the debate for many of these voters, who really thought, if you made less than $50,000, you supported Hillary Clinton.

If you did not have a college degree, you supported Hillary Clinton. If you thought the economy was worsening, you supported Hillary Clinton. If you thought things were going well, you had a postgraduate degree, you were making more than $100,000 a year, you voted for Barack Obama.

And it really almost went exactly down the line as that.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: GUEST,Here ya go.
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 10:18 AM

Obama's positions.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 10:27 AM

From the Dem's viewpoint, it's a pity that Paul isn't running as an independent, where he could counterbalance Nader's votes.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 11:42 AM

I don't think it would take a whole lot to get Ron Paul to do that, given the way he's been treated by his own party.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 01:05 PM

An interesting column in the NY Times today (2008-01-10) by the head of the PEW Research Center, Andrew Kohut, one of the polls that predicted Obama over Clinton.
The polls get minimal response from poor, white citizens. Polls traditionally overestimate the support a black candidate will get from the white community because most of the respondants are better-educated, more affluent. Blacks are mistrusted by poorer whites. When voting takes place, the vote of these poorer whites, largely absent in poll-taking, becomes apparent.
Mr. Kohut points to a similar polling miscue in the Dinkins-Giuliani race in NY in 1989.
This column appeared in the OpEd section of the NY Times online today. Not sure if this link will work but if not, putting NY Times in google should start to get you there.
Getting It Wrong

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 02:12 PM

Number 6, here's why I am not impressed by Huckabee's 23% sales tax idea....read the Jan 9/08 article by Gwynne Dyer:

************

Gwynne Dyer:

After Iowa


Gwynne Dyer
Tuesday, January 08, 2008

The best news from Iowa is that Ron Paul, the libertarian congressman from Texas, is still in the race. He will never win the Republican presidential nomination, because his policies would throw about half of the federal government's bureaucrats and three-quarters of the US armed forces out of work, but he is a national treasure.

"They don't hate us because we're free; they hate us because we're over there," Paul says, and advocates the immediate withdrawal of all US troops from overseas. Who else in American politics has the courage to say that? And ten percent of Iowa Republicans supported him.

The second-best news is that Hillary Clinton came third in the Democratic race, far behind Barack Obama and just behind John Edwards. She is the "Washington consensus" candidate, the candidate with the biggest, richest machine, and even if she is still likely to win the nomination eventually -- the biggest machine usually wins in the end -- it is heartening that Iowans backed candidates less addicted to triangulation.

The truly puzzling news is that Mike Huckabee led the Republican pack, by a margin even wider than Obama's lead over his Democratic rivals.
Not only that, but Huckabee achieved this result even though the alleged front-runner in the Republican race, Mitt Romney, outspent him in Iowa by twenty-to-one. Even allowing for the fact that Iowans are relatively conservative and include large numbers of evangelical Christians, this is a strange result.

Huckabee believes that the world was created 6,000 years ago and rejects the theory of evolution, which would make him unelectable in most other countries, but it is no great handicap on the right of American politics. He promises energy independence for the United States in ten years -- "We don't need (Saudi Arabia's oil) any more than we need their sand" -- which is pretty implausible, but clearly has appeal to an American audience. But his tax proposals are astonishingly radical.

Huckabee would simply eliminate all income and payroll taxes -- "and I do mean all," he says on his website, "personal federal, corporate federal, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, self-employment." He would replace all this with a flat 23 percent national sales tax. Millionaires would pay 23 percent tax on everything they bought, and so would widowed mothers of three.

A few post-Communist regimes in Eastern Europe went to this sort of "flat tax" in a desperate attempt to jump-start their moribund economies, but at least they still had social services of a kind that scarcely exist in the United States, so there was some protection for the poor. No developed country has such a tax, because it is so brutally unfair to those living on lower incomes.

Like George W. Bush, Mike Huckabee is a congenial man with a folksy manner, and like Bush his major domestic project is to transfer wealth from the poor to the rich. There are rational justifications for this in the more extreme forms of free-market ideology, but Bush's handlers would never have advocated such a brazen assault on the poor. Subtler is always better.
So how could the leading candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008 promote such a plan?

Huckabee may not remain the leading candidate past the New Hampshire primary on 8 January, but his rapid rise demonstrates the degree to which the Republican coalition that was first forged in Ronald Reagan's time, and kept the Republicans in power for 20 of the past 28 years, is now disintegrating.

An important part of the Republican "base" consists of people who are poor enough (though not actually poor) to be badly hurt by Huckabee's flat tax. They vote Republican because they share the party's views on other issues, and they can ignore the fact that it does not serve their economic interests because they still believe the American myth of "equality of opportunity." (Almost all Americans still believe it, although in fact the United States now has the lowest social mobility of any developed country.) But Mike Huckabee's policies are so extreme that middle- and lower-income Republican voters are almost bound to realise that they would suffer. In a more pragmatic time, the party elders would never have let such a divisive character gain such prominence, but now they can't or won't control it.

It was always hard to keep the richest 20 percent of the population, the "family values" crowd, the evangelicals (not necessarily the same thing), and the "angry white men" all harnessed to the same wagon, but the Republican Party managed it for almost thirty years. Now the coalition is unravelling.

Mitt Romney is the photo-fit candidate who best embodies the old coalition in this race -- he even changed a number of his opinions to conform to the profile -- but the formula doesn't seem to be working this time. And none of the other leading candidates can appeal to all the different elements of that coalition. Not Huckabee, not John McCain, and certainly not Rudy Giuliani

What this may mean is that after two terms of George Bush, the Republican Party's elders don't really have much hope of winning this election. Let the lunatic fringe have its day, and we'll do better next time.

*******************


You see, there is no justification for making the poor people in any society pay a 23% tax (which they simply cannot afford) on all their essential items such as food, clothing, and the various other staples that a person needs to survive day to day. If it were a 23% tax on luxury consumer items that are not essentials...okay. But not if it's a tax on everything.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 02:29 PM

I think it would be wiser to scrap the tax code and provide a flat tax with no exemptions (including churches and foundations) for any entity grossing more than, say, $45,000 (current dollars) per annum.

Kill the loopholes, make a tax threshold that spares the seriosuly disadvantaged, but thereafter, make the ratio uniform all the way up. Plenty of incentive to improve one's condition, although the incentive lags briefly between 45K and around 50K.


A

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 02:35 PM

I agree 100%, Amos. Once I am making above $45,000 annually (as I was 2 years ago) I am perfectly happy to pay an equal share of the taxes. I do not mind sharing the load.

This past year was not that good, however, due entirely to the collapse in the international value of the US dollar. Nothing else has changed...but the US dollar has sunk like a stone.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 03:48 PM

"Huckabee believes that the world was created 6,000 years ago and rejects the theory of evolution,..."


                   He got that information directly from John McCain, who was there to witness the whole thing in person.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 04:31 PM

LOL!!!

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 05:24 PM

No sane person believes in flat rate tax. The rich have more spare money. They should pay a greater proportion of it in tax. They can afford it. The poor can't.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: mg
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 05:41 PM

Flat tax at way below 45K....no heavy sales tax...perhaps some on luxury or avoidable items...mg

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: number 6
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 05:52 PM

No one should pay tax on what they earn whether they make $10k a year or $500k and no one should lose their home and belonging for failure to pay income tax ... when you eliminate the income tax and apply a higher rate on sales tax everyone pays. The hard reality in eliminating income tax is just the thought of not having it ... there was a time and not that long ago there wasn't an income tax .... income tax was brought in the pay for the wars ... Big Government created the monster that it is today ... Hell you could probably feed social/medicare in collecting taxes on gambling, booze if you managed it right.

My 2 cents worth ... I got paid today and I have just a few more pennies left after income tax.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 06:09 PM

"...a higher rate on sales tax everyone pays." Only if you spend your money locally (eg in the USA, in this case) and legally.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 06:20 PM

Yeah, that's another problem. A whole lot of commerce is done under the radar screen and avoids getting taxed, so all the straight players end up paying for those guys.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: number 6
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 06:37 PM

A whole lot of commerce is done under the radar screen ... you are correct Rigin. It has and always will .... in income tax it's the straight players who get whacked (bigtime) also ... the rich get the most benefits out of the loopholes ... so let's eliminate it across the board ... the rich will be the ones spending the money and believe most of their big purchases will be above the radar screen the and they will be paying their share of the taxes. Having a higher sales tax will also mean that the illegal drug dealers, con artists who have not been paying their share of income taxes will with a higher sales tax.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 06:54 PM

Richard:

In case you haven't noticed, it takes a lot more money to pay ten percent of a million bucks than it does to pay ten percent of 50,000 bucks.



A

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 06:55 PM

Well, biLL, there is one big ol' major problem with yer national sales tax... What happens to folks living on fixed incomes???

The next major problem is that what it would do is create a massive untaxable black market and alot of borderline tax evasive bartering...

Now when we look at Huckabee's idea of writing checks back to those folks who have lesser incomes to help them pay the new flat tax you're going to create a system that is unamageable...

Yeah, where these tax schemes that the rich regularially float as being "revoltionary" are looked at from all angles, these ideas just don't work in the real world...

Yeah, I can see at least some possibilities in what Amos has offered up but I'd really have top see how mush revenue it would actually provide and who would be paying what share... Plus, even Amos's plan is going to create the black markets and the bartering which will take money out of the US Treasury...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 07:14 PM

Democrats- 22 delegates available through primary vote in New Hampshire, of a total of 30-
Clinton won 9
Obama won 9
Edwards won 4

There are 8 superdelegates who are not bound by the primary vote.
Rumor has it that 2 favor Clinton, 3 favor Obama, 3 unknown.
Come the convention, the 22 are bound for the 1st ballot only, I believe. The 8 superdelegates vote at the will of state party chiefs.

Who won New Hampshire? Only the shadow knows for sure.

Republicans- 12 statewide delegates (no superdelegates)
McCain won 7
Romney won 4
Huckabee won 1

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 07:22 PM

Thanks for the numbers, Q; What is amazing that no-one in the mass media was ready to quantize the claim of Hillary's Big Win. The absurdity of commercial reporting made manifest.


A

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 07:28 PM

News reporting is usually crafted to convey a specific impression...rather than to provide "the facts". The people in charge are in charge of what impression gets created, and that is determined by how they choose to cover the story.

Very Orwellian.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 07:32 PM

Caucus in Iowa-
The vote in 1784 precincts elected delegates to the county conventions. The county conventions (99 of them) select delegates for the district conventions. For the Democrats, most of the delegates for the National Convention are selected at the district level, the rest at the state convention.
The short hours allowed for the Iowa caucuses means people who work those hours cannot vote. Absentee voting not allowed, so soldiers, etc. cannot vote.

A most peculiar system.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 11 Jan 08 - 11:13 PM

Rig--

It's just that when you said you would "happily" vote for Hillary, the hypocrisy meter went off, considering your not-well-concealed views on religion.

And knowing your views on illegal immigrants, you also may be interested to know that Hillary is now engaged in a big push to win Hispanic votes. Now I wonder what that might entail. Something tells me that might not completely meet with your approval.

Hope you're still "happy" to vote for her.


LH--

Ron Paul:

1) You may not be seeing him as a candidate, but some posters are putting him forward as a potential VP. Caveat emptor.

2) As a Canadian, you may not be aware of the way interest groups interact in the US. But if Paul is pulling votes, he may well do it from anti-war Democrats in states that's allowed in primaries. Also, his anti-war stance is not pulling many at all from McCain. If people expect that "victory" is possible in Iraq, they will not be swayed by Paul. So he is splitting whatever anti-war or libertarian vote there might be in Republican circles. McCain is not even close to a Libertarian. Therefore Paul is helping the strongest pro-war voice, McCain. Since he is also the strongest opponent for any Democrat, this is not helpful.

3) I'm fully aware of Huckabee. Several days ago I pointed out that his populist appeal would evaporate when the details of his proposed tax plan came out.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 11 Jan 08 - 11:18 PM

LH--

Reference is of course to Paul's being a potential VP for a Democrat--no Republican presidential candidate will touch him.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 12:03 AM

As to why Obama lost New Hampshire, it seems clear the reason is that he was the victim of overheated expectations--as Hillary was in Iowa.

The latest polls were so over the top--in fact his team was trying to dampen expectations--to no avail. ( And there was no time to register the surge in women's votes due to Hillary finally "humanizing" herself.)

This also had the effect of causing overconfidence in his supporters. Some seem to have felt it was a foregone conclusion he would win. I've read that the "youth vote" percentage was actually no greater than in in 2004.   A much higher vote in general--but no "youthquake" --no huge surge of new young voters, out of proportion to the rest. Again, probably due to overconfidence.

Hopefully (take that, grammar police), his young supporters will learn from this.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 12:29 AM

Any candidate who does not try for Hispanic votes is in for trouble in California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and New York. There are 44 million Hispanics in the U. S.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 12:39 AM

Hmmm. You think some Democractic candidate would take Ron Paul as a running mate? I'd be very surprised if they did. Matter of fact, I'd be downright astonished.

Now, Ron, I really don't think you should be harassing Rinslinger for supporting this or that candidate despite the fact that they have professed religious beliefs....LOL! I mean, come on...don't be so completely petty-minded in your zeal to argue with certain people here, such as Rinslinger, that you try to hold them to every single personal value they have ever exposed about themselves on this forum when it comes to backing various political candidates. To do so is to become like some sort of internet stalker or something.

You know as well as I do that NO American candidate will EVER profess unbelief in God in his or her public role and say "I'm an atheist", because to do so would be political suicide in the USA!

There is NEVER going to be an officially running American candidate with ANY chane of being elected who claims not to believe in God....never. So Rinslinger has no choice about the matter...he has to back someone who expresses belief in God or else back no one at all............and you know it. Or at least you should.

I get the impression that if you also knew his favorite clothing styles, favorite animals, and favorite sexual positions, you'd somehow drag those in to attack him...claiming it shows that he's a hypocrite for backing "X" or "Y". (I'm joking there, okay?) Give it up.

Or did I misinterpret what you said?

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 04:04 AM

"Never" - LH? So much for religious freedom then. A big turnaround from the founding fathers. Or would they too have claimed the right to their own religion but denied others the right to no religion?

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 09:08 AM

The founding fathers didn't have to court votes from red-necks in Alabama in order to get elected. The Tele-evangilist hadn't been invented yet, and right-wing-religious wakkos had not begun to pollute the airways with voices like worm-gear-drive Skilsaws raised in a common concert for the stated purpose of maliciously destroying public education.

                The dumber they can make the public, of course, the better chance they have of getting their candidates elected. They discovered that Sunday School was a really good place to start.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 12:20 PM

What, Richard????????????   I am not saying, Richard, that people running for office in the USA would deny someone's right NOT to believe in God! Perish the thought. Goodness sakes, no! That might lose them some atheist votes. I think you have seriously misconstrued what I said somehow.

My point was that all American politicians always go through the motions of at least pretending to be devout Christians...whether they really are or not...because if they didn't it would kill their chances of ever being elected.

And that's a fact. It's sheer pragmatism. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the Constitution, with separation of church and state, with your freedom to be an atheist, or with anyone's freedom to be anything. It has to do with snagging votes.

It's a cynical and totally predictable pandering to pervasive cultural stereotypes in the search to secure the maximum number of votes from the American voters. (The cases, by the way, where it isn't cynical of politicians to demonstrate their public "piety" would be those where they really ARE pious...as I'm sure some of them are. But when they're not...well, then, they're just doing what they think they must do to get those votes.)

It is not, therefore, any kind of attack on atheists, that's not its real objective at all...so fear not! You can go to bed safely tonight without fear of torch-bearing mobs in a religious frenzy coming to burn you out of your little religion-free condo...you miserable, Godless, heathen, hell-bound....!   Bwah-hah-hah!   ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 12:26 PM

Er, I'm not in a condo.

But if someone is unelectable because they are black - that's prejudice.

If someone is unelectable because they are female - that's prejudice.

If someone is unelectable becuase they do not believe in God (or some God or other in particular) that's prejudice too.

We are just starting to talk here about repealing laws that prevent Catholics from holding certain offices (shame about Tony B Liar). Looks like the USA is heading in the other direction. Scary.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 12:35 PM

Yes, Richard, all the examples you gave there most certainly are prejudice. No doubt about it.

I've been dealing with various forms of unpleasant prejudice ever since I emerged from the womb, and I think everyone else probably has too. We'd all like to see less of it.

You have laws in the UK that prevent Catholics from holding certain offices???? That's bizarre.

Such as?

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 05:13 PM

I'd also state that, IMO, anyone who votes for a candidate because she's a woman is as dumb as anyone who'd vote against her for the same reason. Same goes for (and against) blacks.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 05:33 PM

Absolutely.