To Live And Die In New Hampshire

From Jonathon Chait:

2. (Related) Hillary Clinton is toast. Before Iowa, Clinton's drawbacks were that some voters didn't like or trust her. Obama's drawbacks, in addition to a lack of experience, were that some voters didn't take him seriously, didn't think he was for real, didn't know much about him, didn't think he could attract white voters. Clinton's drawbacks cannot be assuaged. Obama's could if he wins a state, especially a disproportionately white state.

Well, Obama has won a state. Now he goes to New Hampshire, which is an open primary far better suited than Iowa to a movement-based campaign with strong independent appeal. Then he goes to South Carolina which has a large black vote that, I'm confident, will now see him as a bona fide contender. So, my prediction is that Obama wins New Hampshire by double-digits, then crushes Clinton in South Carolina, at which point the race will be over.

Can Hillary lose New Hampshire but bounce back in South Carolina?  Or, can she lose both New Hampshire and South Carolina to Obama and still carry on to victory elsewhere?  I accept that she can't be forced out due to lack of funds, only credibility.

At the Slate compendium of political futures markets Obama and Hillary are each at roughly 48% (Intrade); Hillary leads in the Iowa Market by 53 to 46.  Far from over.

On the Republican side McCain is surging, Giuliani is more or less flat, and Romney was the big loser as the Huckabee balloon inflated.

Can McCain win New Hampshire and then double up in South Carolina?  Why not?  Can Romney survive if McCain manages that?  How?

Comments

[Other Tom]

I really do believe that Hillary is finished, and for the reasons stated by Chait. The era of big Clintonism is over.

[clarice]

Early this a.m. I linked to a WSJ piece highlighting the problem Hill is beginning to have with Black voters and how her Black supporters (largely paid for) are at risk of losing their base if they continue to support her after Obama has shown he can beat her.SOuth Carolina will prove very difficult for her, I think.

BTW what are the trade figures on Mark Penn surviving after NH?

[Jane]

I should have read on before my huge (not so now) proclamation in the previous post.

[Other Tom]

From Powerline:

"Has Ms. Hillary's humiliating performance in the Iowa caucuses broken the spell the Clintons seem to cast on the faithful? 'When the spell is broken,' Richard Thompson sings in the song of the same name, 'all the joy is gone from her face.' Thompson adds:

"When the spell is broken
All your magic and your ways and schemes
All your lies come and tear at your dreams."

A song doesn't often become more apt than this. And the cover story of the upcoming Weekly Standard is "The Fall of the House of Clinton."

Obviously it would be preferable to see her get beaten in a general election--but to have that happen is to risk her taking the White House. And if she loses in her own party, the stake will have been permanently driven into the hearts of both of them. That would be an unambiguous good, a circumstance to be sedulously fostered throughout the land.

[PaulL]

Obama will be much harder to beat in the general election than the Clintons. That's the downside.

[hrtshpdbox]

"Can McCain win New Hampshire and then double up in South Carolina? Why not? Can Romney survive if McCain manages that? How?"

Not to be a nudge, but I think a more pressing question is "How much mileage will Huckabee get from the two NH debates, and will a strong finish there catapult him to an easy South Carolina win"?

[clarice]

Latest polls, CLinton and McCain sinking in NH.

[kim]

Bein's as how ya'll are spekelatin', I reckon it's time ta skretch skalp over whether granite staters are as rock headed as the puppet show audiences in the drama starved corn fed state. 'Show Me' says PoFarmer about Obama, and the same can be said of the Huck's shuck and jive.
======================

[clarice]

BTW, anyonw notice that FARC and Chavez' hostage rescue in Colombia has gone astray as the rebels failed to deliver the hostages (one of whom seems to have turned up in a foundling home in any event). That leaves Oliver Stone also high and dry on his proposed excellent adventure. Pity he didn't have Joe Kennedy and the Code Piners in the helicopter, too.

[Porchlight]

It is way too early to count the Clintons out, much as I'd love to. This all seems a little too easy to me. I suspect artificial depression in the media coverage in order to set up a Comeback Kid scenario. Yes, I'm paranoid, but it's the Clintons, after all.

Also, I have a theory that the female vote in Iowa (breaking slightly for Obama) was unrepresentative because a lot of moms stayed home with the kids (it was a school night). That demographic will have a much easier time getting to the polls in NH and I think we'll see an uptick in the female vote for Hillary.

[Other Tom]

I agree, PaulL. In fact, I think if Obama gets the nomination he's an almost certain winner in November. At this point, if for any reason he loses to Hillary, I think she will lose a great deal of black support unless he is her running mate.

[kim]

PL, turn out was high; women, too, don't like the Beast.
=================================

[Jane]

Is Mc Cain sinking because of Huckabee? That would shock me.

[Sue]

I am internet friends with two staunch conservatives, but not registered R's, from New Hampshire. They voted for Bush both times. Anecdotal evidence, for sure, but both are Ron Paulians. Don't be surprised if Ron Paul does well in NH. With the conservative Indys, anyway. I don't think McCain will pick up many votes from those of that persuasion. They typically look at constitutional issues and McCain is lacking. Big time.

[MayBee]

If Obama wins, I doubt I'll agree with many policy positions he brings into office, but at least I could stand to have my tv on once in a while. What I don't want for my country- more than I do want some things-- is to continue on the merry-go-round of accusations and scandal-mongering.
The Clintons would bring the Circus to town like no other candidate could. My blood pressure rises just thinking about it.

[clarice]

Jane, I'd have to double check, but I seem to recall Mitt was picking up. Don't miss Noemie Emery on the Clintons:
The Natural and His Wife

[hrtshpdbox]

"Is Mc Cain sinking because of Huckabee? That would shock me."
Apparently not; yesterday's Rasmussen NH poll has Huckabee at 11%, just one point ahead of where he was on Oct 23. Still those debates to come, though...

[clarice]

Steyn:"as for Sen. Clinton, her Thursday night third-place was the nearest Bill and Hill have come to a Ceausescu balcony moment. In a world where even John Edwards can beat Hillary, who needs Rudy?"

http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/huckabee-huck-guy-1953999-put-afford

[anduril]

left unspoken lately is the very real possibility that if the clintons try to destroy obama and win the nomination that way, there is a potentially huge downside for them in the general election.

[anduril]

"a Ceausescu balcony moment"

very elegantly put.

[SlimGuy]

Jane

I have seen the suggestion that McCain is sinking because of Obama.

His last time through NH he had strong support among the independents. They lean 2/3 Dem up there and there is also the Dems own any body but Hillary thing going on.

Also due to his libertarian positions it is likely that Paul will run stronger than some expect, further splitting the independent vote, all to McCain's detriment.

[clarice]

I didn't leave it unspoken, anduril. And as the WSJ also notes there is already a big split developing between the old line Black pols whose support Hill bought and their erstwhile followers.
It is a mistake for Sheheen and Penn and Bill to suggest Hill has dirt on Obama and will use it, because now any smear on him will be pegged to her campaign with bad consequences.

[Dudley]

Mc Cain and Huckabee are both liberal. If that is the way the Republican party goes it will be very bad for this country.

Someone needs to light a fire under Thompson. He is the real deal, but I can't get enthused. Guliani I would vote for over the Democrat's candidates, but I wouldn't be all that happy. Looks like a very sad year and I had hopes that we could get a good conservative to keep this country on track.

[clarice]

I'm for Thompson, too, but never expected he'd win Iowa and NH..His strength is in the west and south which are yet to come. We may even end up with a brokered convention and since I'll be blogging it for AT that would be fun for me.

[MayBee]

It is a mistake for Sheheen and Penn and Bill to suggest Hill has dirt on Obama and will use it, because now any smear on him will be pegged to her campaign with bad consequences.

Perhaps that is an indication that they really don't have anything more. They want someone to find it, though, so they dangle the idea that there is something out there for Richardson, Edwards, or McCain to look for.
It's a theory.

[clarice]

With Blumenthal and Begala orking for her, and their leaking of stuff about his kindergarten essay, they have whatever there is to have.

[Elliott]

I haven't been following Michigan (Jan. 15) closely, but Hugh Hewitt had a very intriguing piece recently. Apparently, Edwards and Obama are not on the ballot and Hillary should win quite easily. Will the press treat the Democratic race in Michigan as a joke or a genuine case of Clintonian resurgence? With Nevada four days later, where Clinton's standing in the polls resembled her national advantage as of early December, it seems possible that she could turn things around heading into South Carolina, provided she receives favorable press coverage.

That said, I think it probable Obama will win New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina. Clinton will have a hard time winning outside of New York after that. Maybe inside too.

[MayBee]

clarice- I agree with that. I'm just thinking maybe there isn't all that much to have.
Of course, there may be. Then, as I think you've pointed out, they have to be careful that what they have doesn't make *them* look racist.

[MayBee]

Elliott- I've been wondering about Michigan. It is an open primary. In 2000, the Dems organized a little anti-Bush movement by crossing over and voting for McCain. I'm trying to figure out if the non-Hillaries will vote for Republicans, and if so will they be mischievous or straignt-forward?

The one thing that makes me happy is that the Dems have said they won't seat Michigan's delegates as punishment for moving their primary. That should eliminate their ability to protest in a tight national election that they just need to count the intention of every voter! For democracy!

[Other Tom]

Concerning Rasmussen polls, bear in mind that they are three- or four-day rolling polls (depending on the subject). Thus any poll he completed yesterday still included data from January 2 and 3, and perhaps even January 1. And the earth moved on the night of January 3.

[Other Tom]

I've been over-beating this drum, I guess, but I think that at this point black America is sufficiently aroused and hopeful that if Obama fails to win it's inevitably going to spawn very broad resentment of Hillary. I think they (and many others) see the prize as Obama's now, and she would be seen as the harridan who took it from him.

[clarice]

That's how I see it, too. OT.

[clarice]

Rasmussen:

A major national pollster says that Hillary Clinton has fallen well behind in New Hampshire after her third-place finish in Iowa.

Rasmussen Reports, in a telephone survey of 510 likely Democratic voters on Friday, found 37 percent backing Barack Obama, 27 percent for Clinton, 19 percent for John Edwards and 8 percent for Bill Richardson.

Rasmussen projects that 40 percent of the Democratic ballots will be cast by independents, not registered party members. The poll's admitted margin of error is 4.5 percent.

In Rasmussen's last New Hampshire polling, before Christmas, Clinton led Obama by 3 percent.

[Elliott]

MayBee- Hewitt mentioned the possibility of write-in votes for Edwards and Obama. I don't know how that works or whether those two are even qualified write-in candidates in Michigan.

I suspect that the large number of independents and Democrats voting in the Republican primary will benefit McCain, as in 2000.

clarice- You'll be blogging from the convention? That should be a blast. I got to cover one in college and it was tremendously exciting.

[centralcal]

I'm seeing on the net that the NH GOP is pulling their sponsorship of the Fox forum due to the omission of Ron Paul.

Lordy! Is NH a Ronulan stronghold???

[clarice]

I plan to Elliott. I don't know if it'll be a blast. I really hate conventions and that sort of mass thing..But maybe I can do some color reporting and hide from all that.

[kim]

Careful, C, those rooms are smoke-filled.
=========================

[MayBee]

independents and Democrats voting in the Republican primary will benefit McCain, as in 2000.

Well, we'll see. The reason it benefitted McCain in 2000, though, is that the Dems organized that as a way to hurt Bush. Not because they actually supported McCain.
I just don't know if Republicans have bothered to look at how Dems with nothing to lose might affect the Republican primary.

[centralcal]

Scooter's deadly three (Russert, Andrea M., and David grayhair), agreed today with Chuck Todd that the NH independents would largely support Obama, with some going to Ron Paul.

Sounds convincing to me (Paul is up 7 pts in latest polling). I don't think McCain will be able to repeat Indy/Dem crossover voting.

[Porchlight]

The Girl Who Sank Hillary

Interesting article on the caucus by David Freddoso at NRO. Supposedly the vote of one 20-year-old girl made the difference beteween Hillary's third place finish and what would have been a tie for second.

It's difficult, not to mention scary, to believe that one voter could have so much influence on a national election, but read it and see what you think.

[Rick Ballard]

MayBee,

Vnjagvet made an excellent point about the fact that the Reps have a decent four horse race going - at least through SC. The Dems might be able to hurt Romney by voting for Huck but so what?

Giuliani is still sitting with a full warchest. Thompson (contrary to the lies being spread by Politico) still has the money to run through Feb 5. The candidates short of dough are McCain (nice job on getting the money out of politics) and Huckabee.

AS I noted - the only political ploy that works is voting Huckabee to hurt Romney. McCain gets a small (and evanescent) boost and Huckabee gets his 15 minutes extended by two.

[MayBee]

Ah, perhaps you are right and hijinks can't really hurt the Reps. Perhaps I am just protective of Michigan and don't want it to look idiotic by going for the Huck.

[Jane]

Porchlight,

That is a very cool story.

Does anyone know where the debates are being shown and what time. I assumed the republican one was on Fox but I don't see it.

[Other Tom]

Clinton fatigue from the WaPo:

"There were empty seats, for instance, at a rally Mr. Clinton held with students at the University of New Hampshire on Friday afternoon.

"And her campaign, while trying to fine-tune its strategy, is also engaging in some finger-pointing. Some advisers say that the campaign miscalculated in having Mr. Clinton play such a public role, that Mrs. Clinton could not effectively position herself as a change agent, the profile du jour for Democrats, so long as he stood as a reminder that her presidency would be much like his. Other advisers say that Mr. Obama now owns the 'change' mantra and that Mrs. Clinton needs a Plan B.

“'Hillary says she’ll change things, but then voters see Bill and hear them talk about the 1990s, and it’s clear that the Clintons are not offering change but rather Clinton Part 2,' said one veteran adviser to both Clintons. 'That won’t win.'”

Why am I experiencing a quasi-erotic frisson? Perhaps it's because I'm imagining how Sidney Blumenthal must be feeling right now. Just think: a month ago he was undoubtedly contemplating what he might do with the closest possible access to the leader of the free world, the most powerful woman on earth. And now he's got to be thinking that in a little more than 72 hours it may all go up in smoke--and there's nothing he can do about it.

[clarice]

HEH.OT

Jane, tonight the Rep and Dem debates will be on ABC beginning at 7 p.m. Tomorrow thw Rep round table will be on Fox.

[Rick Ballard]

"in a little more than 72 hours it may all go up in smoke"

Oh, surely not. The final act of Dean's Revenge (a sociopolitical drama for the 21st century) will not come before February 5th and perhaps not then. NH is Act II Scene 2 (Act I was the takeover of the DNC and the '06 elections).

True, the protagonist (Dean) has acquired the heart of English white oak stake, sharpened it and raised his arm but his arm's descent will be slow.

We've got a ton of "it's only a flesh wound" speeches left to be uttered in the infamous Harpy's Screech. Plus the attempted (successful?) Obamicide in Act II Scene ?.

[For verification, please check NH '06 results and contemplate Dean's involvement - including a measurement of the distance from NH to VT]

[Patrick Tyson]

Rick—

In forty years of watching people try to get themselves elected to be President of the United States, I can't remember a candidate with a chance, who didn't already hold the office, acting any less like a "candidate" than Thompson is. I'm under the impression that Bob Taft wasn't much of a campaigner (my impression is that his name and wife were his biggest assets until he had a voting record in the Senate.) I don't get it.

I'm not asking if you do, but I'm interested in whether or not you (and anyone else who reads this) can think of a comparable campaign in recent history?

Thanks.

[Ann]

Debates on ABC

Looks like the Republican candidates are on at 7pm and Democrats at 8:30

[Jane]

I just read at Gateway Pundit that Obama's first act in office will be to withdraw our troops.

[Sara]

I am so darn sick and tired of hearing the constant whining of "I want a good conservative." Wake up! A large swath of the Republican party can't stand conservatives anymore than democrats. Do you really think those guys defending you every day call themselves conservative? Or how 'bout the moneymen who make up the business ruling class? Did Reagan say in his 11th commandment, "thou shalt not speak badly of another conservative?" No, he said REPUBLICAN. Conservatives think they are the party. It is that type of thinking that made Nancy Pelosi Speaker of the House.

I want a solid Republican. Someone who puts national security as the top priority, who is solid on wanting lower taxes, and someone who I can trust to appoint good judges.

Huckabee cannot be trusted on either national security or taxes.
McCain cannot be trusted on taxes and I think he is very iffy on judges.
Guiliani is highly questionable on judges and possibly taxes.
Ron Paul is just questionably wacky.
Thompson is good, but does not seem to care whether he gets elected or not.
Romney is good, not great but good in all categories.

Those are the choices, so stop the whining, pick a candidate and get going or for sure you will be listening to Hail to the Chief played for Hillary or Hussein and I don't think Hillary is out at all.

[Sara]

Romney wins Wyoming caucus.

[clarice]

Sara Are you conflating conservatice with social conservative? I have no idea what you're talking about if you are not.

[Rick Ballard]

Patrick,

No. I don't get it as it relates to recent political history. Dipping back a little farther, I suppose that Coolidge's approach to the '24 election could compare but he was an incumbent and primaries weren't the path to the Presidency.

The only reason that I think he has a chance is because of the quality of the opposition. His 'Q' factor is higher than everyone but Giuliani's (Huckabubble aside) and he has the smallest closets.

I also believe that he would nominate better judges than anyone else and nothing carries more weight with me than getting judges who lack the imagination to search for Iand worse yet, find) emanations basking in penumbras.

[Ann]

While we are picking our next president, has anyone read this:
"The termination of Stephen Coughlin on the Joint Staff is an act of intellectual cowardice."

Andy McCarthy at NRO links to it and it is very scary.

[anduril]

Yes, I read that, Ann, and it's infuriating.  

 I just read Emery's article at WS: The Natural and His Wife.  The conclusion is priceless:

Bill loved campaigning; Gore found it a struggle, and his torment was obvious. Hillary is an unhappy warrior--at best, a grim one--and her description of the anticipated evisceration of Barack Obama as the "fun" part was a chilling moment that surprised no one who has looked into For Love of Politics.

Unlike Bill, Gore and Hillary have no sense of how they appear to others, and seldom fail to make the wrong gesture--Hillary's cackle, the grating "caw" she unleashes in efforts at levity, is on a par with the sighs, eye-rolling, and other strange efforts at intimidation that helped Gore lose the election in the 2000 debates. With their conspicuous lack of political talents, neither Gore nor Hillary would ever have reached the top tier of candidates if they had not been elevated by being chosen by Clinton. But if they had been more graceful, and less pedantic and heavy-handed, they would not have been chosen, as they would not have supplied what Bill lacked.

It was a bargain that worked well for Bill, but ended in heartbreak for Gore, and may do the same thing for Hillary Clinton. This story is not over yet.

 

[Sara]

Sara Are you conflating conservatice with social conservative?

Social conservatives are one subgroup, yes. I am talking about those who conflate the word conservative with Republican as if the two are synonymous. There are social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, security conservatives, libertarian conservatives, evangelical conservatives, and it seems to me the twain shall never meet. The Malkin-wing, for lack of a better word, has a very small tent and Republicans who don't slavishly adhere to whatever line drawn there are considered traitors to the cause. President Bush, for instance, is considered a traitor to their cause.

AJ calls them the purists who nothing will satisfy. Call them what you will, I'm tired of being told that somehow the perfect true conservative is the only Republican worth my vote. That to me is worse than the socialist dogma of the left.

I despise being given ultimatums and when I am faced with threats or implied threats, I run the opposite way. A solid Republican leader reads the landscape and develops a strategy to work toward those perfectionist ideals but realizes that along the way some compromises will have to be made and doing so does not damn souls. It paves the way for the future.

And I'm sick of those who dig up 10, 20, 30 year old quotes and say, "ah ha gotcha, you said this back then," as if times and circumstances never change, that people don't ever learn from new information or more technology or maturity.

[centralcal]

Sara, I frequently do not agree with you, but the post at 5:15 pm is one in which I most certainly DO agree.

I have a question of the many very intelligent posters here, whom I respect very much. Let's assume Hillary is toast. (And, personally, I think she is ...actually, burnt toast). Who on our side is most capable of winning a general election against Obama, based on what we know about him today? I can't think of anyone on our side who can beat him.

[Jane]

What will beat Obama is experience and a looming threat.

[clarice]

Major Garrett describes in detail how Obama rolled over the CLintonites in a room Clinton owned in Milford last night.
"On this night, the speeches mattered less than the moment. And at an event filled with party die-hards supposedly devoted body and soul to Hillary and the Clinton cause, the Obama demonstration generated more body and more soul and rolled over the Clinton operation like a tractor tire over an anthill.

And that is why I believe we are witnessing the birth of a movement that may be on the verge of defeating an operation. That would be rare enough on its own. But this particular contest is of generational importance because the Clinton operation is the most formidable modern American politics has ever seen and it would take quite a movement to knock it down.

And in Milford, on Clinton’s best turf, it did."

Milford or Waterloo?

[Rick Ballard]

Centralcal,

Jim Miller has a very good reason for you not to be too concerned about "stopping Obama".

(Is it even possible to write a decent statement of accomplishments for Clinton, Edwards, and Obama? I could write honest, but weak, statements for Clinton and Obama, though writing one for Clinton would be tricky. I could write deceptive, but somewhat stronger, statements, for those two. But for Edwards? I can't even imagine how to write a statement about his accomplishments as an elected official. But he is still one of the three leading Democratic candidates.

Incidentally, I think the three have protected each other on the issue of accomplishments. Since all three are weak, none of the three wants to call attention to the weakness of the other two. Some of the minor Democratic candidates have discussed this, but our frivolous "mainstream" reporters have not given them much coverage.)

The blog where he made the offer has good readership and a fairly vocal Dem contingency of snide commenters. I believe that his offer was not accepted because writing a combined resume of accomplishments for all three wouldn't fill a matchbook cover - and the Red Witch is laser focused on Hussein's lack of experience.

Actually, if Hussein gets the nod, then Giuliani might have the easiest road to the WH.

[GMax]

OMG where to start.

Lets make it easy. Jimmy Carter, who at least was a Governor of a semi large state was a rock star superNova candidate too. Running against an unelected President who in the minds of many committed an unpardonable sin by granting Nixon one. He won, with 50.1%.

Now if we dont pick a Gerald Ford ( nice guy who played too many football games without a helmet )I would see a great many shortcomings that Obama has to even measure up to the peanut man.

State senator to less than 1 term Senator, with a very liberal voting record and platform. No executive experience. Questions about his ability to be tough on terrorists and defend the country.

And you might want to take a gander at the church that Obama attended regularly. Not only is its Pastor regularly about calling the USA "racist" and railing about "white arrogance".

I have a fairly recent speech and those are directly lifted.

Plus the Church ( Trinity United Church of Christ ) practices Black Liberation Theology. Not familiar with Liberation Theology ( what ever flavor)?

Here is a pretty good short synopsis from Wiki:

Liberation theology is "an interpretation of Christian faith through the poor's suffering, their struggle and hope, and a critique of society and the Catholic faith and Christianity through the eyes of the poor."

Emphasis is placed on those parts of the Bible where Jesus' mission is described not in terms of bringing peace (social order) but bringing a sword (social unrest), e.g. Matthew 10:34, Luke 22:35-38 and Matthew 26:51-52. These passages are interpreted as a call to arms to carry out what proponents see as a Christian mission of justice -- literally by some. Marxist concepts such as the doctrine of perpetual class struggle are also significant.

Armed struggle advocacy, marxist tenets and a little bit of race baiting. Sound pretty unbeatable to you?

[centralcal]

Thanks, Rick. I will check out your link.

In the meantime, from Major Garrett's blog at Foxnews.com comes his closing grafs on the big NH homecoming dinner for the Clintons:

"On this night, the speeches mattered less than the moment. And at an event filled with party die-hards supposedly devoted body and soul to Hillary and the Clinton cause, the Obama demonstration generated more body and more soul and rolled over the Clinton operation like a tractor tire over an anthill.

And that is why I believe we are witnessing the birth of a movement that may be on the verge of defeating an operation. That would be rare enough on its own. But this particular contest is of generational importance because the Clinton operation is the most formidable modern American politics has ever seen and it would take quite a movement to knock it down.

And in Milford, on Clinton’s best turf, it did."

It is the "movement" that Major identifies that I think may be quite an obstacle for our side. Movements don't always rely on the pragmatic realities of successful societies. My fear is a "charismatic" movement.

[centralcal]

My apologies to Clarice - she beat me to the post about the Clintons.

[Sara]

Centracal: I am a totally indoctrinated Reagan Republican. I was 22 the first time I cast a vote, the voting age was still 21, and I voted for Reagan for Governor of California. I was almost 40 the last time I cast a vote for him for his second term as President. That is a huge chunk of my early adulthood.

I am a Romney supporter who would get behind Thompson if I thought he really wanted to be President. I'm not convinced that being President is the best use of someone with Thompson's personality. I do think he would be a super VP for someone like Romney. I cannot see him working with McCain, mostly because I don't think McCain can work well with anyone that questions him. Same with Rudy. I don't question any of their credentials as to whether they are conservative enough, I think they all manage to fit that bill. It is personalities that will control whether they would be good a good president. Rudy is way too me, me, me. McCain is way too my way, my way, my way.

Fred says all the right things and he appeals to me very much, but he reminds me of my Mother. In '88 I was very gung ho politically, more so than any time before or since. We had a fight because I could not understand why she was so wishy washy on politics and didn't share my fire. At age 78, she said, "dear, been there, done that, it is time to pass the torch to you, the younger generation." I get that impression from Fred even though he is younger than some of the other candidates. He knows, he knows we know, what needs to be done, what works, what doesn't, but he no longer has the interest or maybe the energy to go through it all again and again and again and again.

The thing is, I'm beginning to feel the same way. I'm seeing issues refought that I thought were settled 25-30 years ago. I see issues that are totally irrelevant to what a President will really be able to do or should do, take center stage, I see a bunch of media whores looking for the crowds over substance or sound policy. It is very discouraging.

[Patrick Tyson]

Rick—

Thanks. Silent Cal is a personal favorite. I checked and something of my info on Bob Taft comes from the great David Brinkley book, Washington Goes To War: The Extraordinary Story of the Transformation of a City and a Nation. Highly recommended.

[clarice]

Novak reports that the fake story that Thompson was dropping out and throwing his support to McCain came from Romney who hoped to drive a wedge between Thompson and McCain.

[Sara]

Oh and in case you are wondering, I support Romney because I've thought all along that in the end it really is all about the economy, stupid! He doesn't worry me on national security, like a Huckabee presidency would, he doesn't worry me on taxes because I have faith in his economic common sense. And I don't worry about the social issues at all on the presidential level, being far more interested in those on my local and state levels.

[sbw]

Who on our side is most capable of winning a general election against Obama, based on what we know about him today? I can't think of anyone on our side who can beat him.

You are looking at the wrong side of the looking glass. What does Obama stand for? Does even he know? What is being spouted is the need for change. But change to what? Nothing being offered is change. They are the same tried and found wanting approaches that exposed Pelosi and Reid for the unthinking hacks that they are.

I am pleasantly surprised by Fred, if only for his ability to recognize that these emperor wannabes are naked. And then to point it out.

If you cast about only for a candidate that can "beat Obama" you diminish the opportunity at hand, which is to label those ideas that are bankrupt and those that are not, and to prize those that are worthwhile.

[Sara]

Clarice, I read that and I question it. Mainly because over a week before Iowa I was listening to a call in show where 9 out of 10 callers were Paulians and they were saying the same thing about Thompson then.

[centralcal]

Jane, I agree with you about a "looming threat" beating Obama.

I just don't know how looming or threatening it would have to be to do the trick. For example, I think we have and have had for some time, a looming threat -- a couple of them, actually. Far too many folks have their heads buried in the sand and/or don't want to acknowledge that fact.

I am not so sure that "experience" is a deal breaker for an Obama Presidency.

GMax: Hannity has hammered on Obama's pastor/church quite a bit. So far it hasn't registered with folks.

I think it is ominous that some (many?) in the media are afraid about how they report on Obama. This is different than bias, or advocacy journalism. (For reference see Rachael Sklar's remarks at the HuffPo).

[Sara]

I wish someone could explain to me how a person who won't vote for one of the offered Republican candidates because they are not a "true Conservative" can then say in the next breath, I'll stay home or I'll vote for Hillary before I'll vote for a Mormon or for McCain, Rudy, Fred, or Huck and hand the country over not to a "true conservative" but a socialist liberal who stands for everything Republicans and even unpure conservatives are against. This my way or I take my ball and go home is what cost us the House and Senate in 2006. I hope those "true conservatives" go to be happy every night that they taught us our lesson. A pox on all their houses.

[GMax]

I just read a report on Iowa delegates not being legally bound to vote for their candidate. If you have a scant organization, it may be very possible that you end up with delegates who are not very committed to you and show their independence by the time the winds have changed and other sails are filling up at the convention. What a truly bizarre process, and that does not even get to the Democrats with even more bizarre rules of second choices and delegate allocations.

Thank heavens that what happens in Iowa usually just stays in Iowa.

[Other Tom]

My only concern--period--is that the GOP candidate be capable of winning. As far as I can tell right now, the only two possibilities are McCain and Rudy. I have innumberable differences with both of them on issues, but I really couldn't care less about that. Either of the two Dems, for example, would utterly transform the federal judiciary in a very horrible way. (I don't count Edwards as a candidate.)

I really don't think either of the two I named can beat Obama, but I don't see anyone else who could come close. Huckabee might well lose forty states.

By the way, I think McCain is, indeed, too old to be called a baby-boomer. I believe the term applies to those who were born in the years immediately following the end of WWII.

[GMax]

CC

Never forget that most Americans are watching College bowl games or returning ill fitting Christmas gifts and could not give a whit about politics or muc else right now. But they will.

And if Hannity is saying, tell me how the Democrats would hear it? They dont watch Fox, or tune into talk radio, ever.

One last point, Republicans tend to hold their candidates to much higher standards than Democrats. Look at Freezer Cash Jefferson and Alcee Hastings versus the beating put on Larry Craig to resign and stripping him of all committee assignments.

Democrats need help to win though, and independents tend to think Communists and their sympathizers not great candidates for national office.

[centralcal]

sbw - I too am a big Fred supporter, and he is the candidate that best represents who I think should be in the White House. I will ponder your other remarks.

I guess my question about who our candidate would be was a rhetorical one? I am not sure myself.

I have two little girls here who have decided to be whiney today and I am having enormous difficulty in following my own thougts. grin. Sorry to all for my disjointed discussion. It is hard to post and settle spats thoughtfully or timely!!! Ha.

[Sara]

Interesting, via Coldheartedtruth:

Mitt Romney has won at least 8 of the 12 delegates up for grabs in today's Wyoming caucuses, with Fred Thompson winning 2 and Duncan Hunter 1 and one final delegate not yet determined. It's a boost for Romney, coming just two days after he was whipped by Mike Huckabee in Iowa's caucuses and coming just three days before the New Hampshire primary. Romney, Thompson, Hunter, and Ron Paul were the only Republican candidates to campaign in person for delegates in Wyoming.

Wyoming is the first state to officially award delegates for either party and, despite being the least-populated state in the union (and being penalized half of their delegates for selecting before February 5), actually has more delegates to the Republican convention than New Hampshire. That is primarily because bonus delegates are awarded for having voted Republican in the previous cycle and for having Republican governors, legislatures, and (I believe) congressional delegations, and on those measures Wyoming scores better for Republicans than New Hampshire.

Which leads me to the question of how Michigan and Florida's penalization by the DNC will affect the Dem candidates. Anyone know?

[centralcal]

As usual Other Tom says it pretty concisely (since I obviously can't!

"I really don't think either of the two I named can beat Obama, but I don't see anyone else who could come close. Huckabee might well lose forty states."

[centralcal]

Oh, you are all gonna scream bloody murder at me, but here goes (I gave the girls a treat so have probably 30 seconds to say this).

I want Hillary to get the nomination.
I want Hillary to be gloriously defeated by our side - not her side (we know most of them really, really hate her).
I think a number of our candidates from the best to the only mediocre could beat her handily! (Not Huck! Not Paul!)
I think we are gloating over a "kill" way too soon to do our side any good. I want Hillary to survive to get the nomination so WE can do the honor and the glory of ending the Clinton reign.

Time's up. Girls are back. Gonna go watch the debates.

I honestly do respect everyone here enormously and hang on your every word (okay, most of your words).

[Ann]

So, is anyone live blogging the debate?

Looks like we got our wish for a round table discussion without much of a moderator talking all the time. Still think they should of added cigars and alcohol. :)

[Sara]

Let us lay to rest, once and for all, the myth of a small group of ideological purists trying to capture a majority. Replace it with the reality of a majority trying to assert its rights against the tyranny of powerful academics, fashionable left-revolutionaries, some economic illiterates who happen to hold elective office and the social engineers who dominate the dialogue and set the format in political and social affairs. If there is any ideological fanaticism in American political life, it is to be found among the enemies of freedom on the left or right—those who would sacrifice principle to theory, those who worship only the god of political, social and economic abstractions, ignoring the realities of everyday life. They are not conservatives.

Who said that?

If you guessed Ronald Reagan, you win the door prize.

[Ralph L]

With Blumenthal and Begala orking for her
I thought it was spelt "orc", but I never read Tolkein.
Will Obama supporters be called the Obamanation by the Clinton camp?

[clarice]

[W]orking for her.

[anduril]

I prefer "orcing." Somehow it says something very true about the Clinton camp.

[sbw]

If the actions describe the man, Sid Blumenthal is aptly characterized as an orc. Imagine making Nixon's situational ethics seem saint-like.

[narciso]

In other news, it's time for more offerings from the Herald's McClatchy editorial page.
The first piece, by left wing curmudgeon Leonard Pitt's; is "Years after 9/11; The
Nation is still scarred" You think that would be the funeral pyre/crater for nearly
3,000 souls (many who can never identified)

Of course the dead giveaway is the example used is the Argentine process; a counter insurgency program carried out by the Argentine military with ruthless abandon; first directed against college age dillentantes playing Che Guevara, that went off the boards. In Mr. Pitt's mind,everything we've done to prevent any further occurrences of said events (including waterboarding the planner of those events, KSM, interrogating Moh. Quahtani, the man who would have turned D.C
into another ground zero, intercepting terrorist communications, financial transactions, et al) is equivalent to what happened in Chile or Argentina.

The next piece, comes from someone who you think would know better. Donald Gregg, the
former analogue to Scooter Libby in the previous President Bush's administration,
in a little thing called Iran Contra; you would think he would say, "there but for the grace of God, I go)(read the Walsh report; a more scrupulous; not really, version fo the Fizgerald witch hunt)has a piece lamenting how in the future, foreign
agents would not cooperate with us. He cites
the WMD findings in Iraq; not communicating
with our enemies, interrogation techniques,
et al)To that I say, first of all, if foreign officials are unwilling to help us
in the future, because of their perceptions
of us; that's mighty selfish of them.

Then one recalls the C.V, of thisgentleman, he was with such efforts as the Phoenix Program (a real 'hearts and minds' program in the last 'quagmire'. As such he was likely very familiar with various
'informational gathering approaches' by the ARVN and the PRU. Then he went on to Korea, where he 'dialogued' with the likes of Gen. Park's KCIA, whose army would be responsible
for a certain civilian massacre some years later, And of course, he was knee-deep in Iran Contra, which was the atrocity and international law violation de jure of the 1980s, One recalls the history of associates
like Vincent Cannistraro, who wrote the counterinsurgency manual for the contras, before he became the jihadist's handmaiden
in Afghanistan. The highlight of this piece of high dudgeon was the late Meg
Greenfield's slam against Dulles and the calling for a 'George Smiley type' to lead
the agency. Which of course, meant the likes
of William Colby, who leaked every operation
he was ever aware of to the likes of Sy Hersh and Stanfield Turner. He makes the obligatory comments that those interested
in an intelligence career should study nation's cultures and foreign languages. The
question of course is why. If the media and
even your own senior officials in the community are willing to badmouth your efforts; admonish us, for not reaching out
to the enemies, they would be confronted had they been in those shoes today. Truly
covert operations are a complicated mid point between even more expensive, in terms
of lives and treasure, direct military intervention, and the more often than not; fruitless pursuit of diplomacy. Yet those
who encouraged and funded the Cuban
enterprise, Guatemala, Iran, Vietnam, et al
are wiling to 'turn tail' because it doesn't 'feel right' to them; leaving tens of thousands of people, we gave our word to in the lurch(I voted for it, before I voted. . .is not unique to Kerry, Edwards, & Biden)

[kim]

So tell me about Sibel and Marc, mon ami.
==========================

[sophy]

I do not know how to use the flyff gold ; my friend tells me how to use.