sad news for our country and our party

Well Chris Matthews can still win in South Carolina or Nevada

Edwards gets my vote Feb 5.

A first!

*sigh*

The women of New Hampshire just told MSNBC ---Chris Matthews, Andrea Mitchell, Tim Russert, Howard Feineman----to kiss their collective a**es!

Bravo, ladies!!!!

Were the exit polls relatively accurate?

Clinton cannot win the general people. Wake up!

The only thing I can think of is the independents decided to vote for McCain, because they didn't want Romney to win. This is not possible for the polls to be this wrong. I am really confused. WTF? I guess Hillary is going to be doing a lot of crying from now on!

um.... woot?

Obama concedes!

Rico @ 19:

Sad news for America and the democrats tonight. Hillary-Bush...not more than a dime's worth of difference.

Don't be foolish, competence will make a world of difference, even if you disagree with her politics.

Settle down you Obama bandwagoners.

All 3 candidates can talk their little hearts about who brings the most change to the table but when you actually look at the issues -- they are all pretty much the same Democrat. (Get out of Iraq, Middle Class relief, and Health care.)

To say that you havent been this depressed since 2004 is a little out there.

This is a terrible loss for Chris Matthews

They virtually tied, Obama and Hillary.

Hillary should thank her lucky stars that limp dicks like Chris Matthews couldn't contain their misogyny any better than Dr Strangelove could control his right arm. Women voters in New Hampshire just gave the Chris Matthews of the world a well-deserved "FUCK OFF!"

Apples @ 14:

Were the exit polls relatively accurate?

I have the same question.

No one on television has actually said what the exit poll numbers say. Let's hope that they match up. I couldn't take an election scandal within our own party!

Kevin C. McCarthy @ 354:

Obama supporters: Can you articulate Obama's platform

Obama has plenty of the basic smarts for running the country. And there is very little sign if any that he's not a balanced human being -- compare to the pile of has-beens and rejects on the Greedy Old Pervert party side. NO comparison.

Obama would wipe up the floor with McCain. Edwards is by far a better candidate, but ANY of the Dem candidates down to hapless D. Kucinich would make far better presidents than the neocon traitors who WILL still be blowing up Iran and sending us careening over the edge of the clifff, btw.

Our real problems REMAIN at the other end of Penn Ave. Instead of playing all this politics, people should be trying to get the Cheney impeachment out of committee, to try to change this debate from one about 'change,' to one about JUSTICE--even the justice of just hanging the albatross around the R candidate's neck.

Cointelpro, Obama's agenda is certainly not progressive and certainly not uplifting of the Black community...at least large swaths of it. Here is the rub: sometimes the dominate paradigm gives you the IMPRESSION that you are subverting it, when in fact it is subverting you! It is far more complicated than just saying America is not ready for a Black president. Sorry, your Manichean ways are just as misguided as Bush's. Obama is an inexperienced charlatan who is without ANY substance.

I don't think Mr. Paine would think very highly of any aspect of modern day politics in America. It's not as much of a democracy as he probably hoped it would be 230 years after he put out "Common Sense". Oh well, this is what we have to work with. Every once in a while you have to stop, take a deep breath and recognize the good in the world. Then you can get back to being a hopeless malcontent. It's not 1776 anymore, besides there wasn't nearly enough outspoken blacks and women in those days.

Bwahahahaaaa!!! LMAO at the stupid pundit class that wrote Hillary off this week. I have to say, I'm on Daily Kos all of the time and I really like Obama but some of his supporters over there are really wacked out to the point that they're posting diaries with misleading and bullshit titles that amount to nothing but smear jobs on Hillary. I hope her win tonight took them and the consistently wrong punditry class down a notch.

DonsBlog @ 121:

How can they say Obama lost when they both walk away with 8 delegates to me. Seems like an electoral college tie to me.

actually hill got 11, obam got 12 and edw got 3 delegates (including the superones)...

lolballz @ 367:

Can`t belive CRYIN CLINTON won NH. A sad day.

Yes, I guess Democrats voting for a woman would make you cry.

lolballz @ 367:

Can`t belive CRYIN CLINTON won NH. A sad day.

Yeah, I didn't think anyone was buying those crocodile tears. HRC hasn't had a genuine bone in her body for decades - including Bill's.

But, what the hell, this country allowed a Bush presidency for two terms. I guess the U.S. wants another unqualified, corporatist, beneficiary of nepotism in the White House. Hillary will complete what Bush began.

I hope it's not too late.

Mary @ 12:

The women of New Hampshire just told MSNBC ---Chris Matthews, Andrea Mitchell, Tim Russert, Howard Feineman----to kiss their collective a**es!

Bravo, ladies!!!!

and this right here is ridiculous. voting for someone just because she's a woman, how dumb. thanks for voting away our freedoms. "yay, she's a a woman! I'm going to vote for her! girl power!". Who cares if she voted for the patriot act, the iraq war and the military commisions act(which almost qualifies for treason in my book).

Go ahead and give another 4 years to a republican. you know damn well 60-70% of the country will not vote for Hillary under any circumstance.

Thanks a lot retard Hillary supporters!

fiver @ 372:

lolballz @ 367:

Can`t belive CRYIN CLINTON won NH. A sad day.

Yeah, I didn't think anyone was buying those crocodile tears. HRC hasn't had a genuine bone in her body for decades - including Bill's.

But, what the hell, this country allowed a Bush presidency for two terms. I guess the U.S. wants another unqualified, corporatist, beneficiary of nepotism in the White House. Hillary will complete what Bush began.

I hope it's not too late.

I think the real sad reality is that we, the united states, are not qualified to have a democracy. We have too many people who are dumb, uninformed, and cast their vote based on things like looks, race, sex, soundbites and religion. Somebody kill me now...

Paul in LA @ 338:

Ruthless People @ 268:

Has no one learned their lesson with Kerry? Nominate Obama and Hillary and it's 2004 all over again.

• Kerry won.

• Blackwell, who stole the Ohio vote, is GONE.

------------------------------

Do the math.

Then nominate Hillary or Obama and prevent the Republicans from cheating in a close race and one of them might have a chance.

Jon @ 374:

Mary @ 12:

The women of New Hampshire just told MSNBC ---Chris Matthews, Andrea Mitchell, Tim Russert, Howard Feineman----to kiss their collective a**es!

Bravo, ladies!!!!

and this right here is ridiculous. voting for someone just because she's a woman, how dumb. thanks for voting away our freedoms. "yay, she's a a woman! I'm going to vote for her! girl power!". Who cares if she voted for the patriot act, the iraq war and the military commisions act(which almost qualifies for treason in my book).

Go ahead and give another 4 years to a republican. you know damn well 60-70% of the country will not vote for Hillary under any circumstance.

Thanks a lot retard Hillary supporters!

60-70%? Can you cite any sources that say 60-70% will not vote for Hillary?

Ruthless People @ 378:

Paul in LA @ 338:

Ruthless People @ 268:

Has no one learned their lesson with Kerry? Nominate Obama and Hillary and it's 2004 all over again.

• Kerry won.

• Blackwell, who stole the Ohio vote, is GONE.

------------------------------

Do the math.

Then nominate Hillary or Obama and prevent the Republicans from cheating in a close race and one of them might have a chance.

....either way you cut it it's and uphill battle for either of them. At least Edwards could win by a large enought margin Republican dirty tricks wouldn't matter....which was kinda my point.

So what Hillary won. Even if she won the a nomination. I'm dam sure not voting for a repub. Some of you folks must be retarded. Talking about voting for a repub if she got the nom.

CoIntelPro @ 316:

curtilingus @ 297:

So if liberals and conservatives hate Hillary so much, who voted for her?

Diebold?

women overwhelmingly voted for hillary, especially childless women under 31! huge! gawdawful huge! Women across the spectrum kicked edwards ass. Obama had 'good' numbers, but like it has been pointed out, chris and the hate-hil gang have riled them up!

Brilliant manuever, Throw the General election to the GOP because of a pissing contest with a Chris Mathews remark! That sounds a whole lot like a male response to me. Not a single woman I know (my gender, by the way) on the west coast is supporting Hillary.

"We don't need no stinking facts!"

Jon @ 387:

nonbeliever @ 380:

Jon @ 374:

Mary @ 12:

and this right here is ridiculous. voting for someone just because she's a woman, how dumb. thanks for voting away our freedoms. "yay, she's a a woman! I'm going to vote for her! girl power!". Who cares if she voted for the patriot act, the iraq war and the military commisions act(which almost qualifies for treason in my book).

Go ahead and give another 4 years to a republican. you know damn well 60-70% of the country will not vote for Hillary under any circumstance.

Thanks a lot retard Hillary supporters!

60-70%? Can you cite any sources that say 60-70% will not vote for Hillary?

i don't need any polls to back that up. republicans won't vote for her, and half of the democrats hate her and will vote independent if she gets the nomination. it's as simple as that. look at the comments on this page, and this is a left wing site.

Jon @ 376:

fiver @ 372:

lolballz @ 367:

Can`t belive CRYIN CLINTON won NH. A sad day.

Yeah, I didn't think anyone was buying those crocodile tears. HRC hasn't had a genuine bone in her body for decades - including Bill's.

But, what the hell, this country allowed a Bush presidency for two terms. I guess the U.S. wants another unqualified, corporatist, beneficiary of nepotism in the White House. Hillary will complete what Bush began.

I hope it's not too late.

I think the real sad reality is that we, the united states, are not qualified to have a democracy. We have too many people who are dumb, uninformed, and cast their vote based on things like looks, race, sex, soundbites and religion. Somebody kill me now...

Well said. We don't need a fashion plate. We don't need a drinking buddy. We don't need someone with "experience" in the same old same old. We need a President.

Tom The Patriot @ 383:

Well... Um. someone just called here a B***h on this thread. What is that? Well reasoned commentary? I don't see any sign of content or ideas in your comment either. So I stand by mine, Mr. Ironic.

It's not like you've been the paragon of content or ideas yourself, Mr. Tom.

Pro-PMRC, pro-Patriot Act, pro-Iraq War, consistent funding of said war, border fence funding, Real ID funding, voting to declare Iran’s army a terrorist organization, voting to confirm Tom Ridge, Michael Chertoff, John Negroponte…I can keep going if you want.

We also saw NAFTA and the Telecommunications Act under her husband’s loving watch. Lord knows what else the Clinton dynasty would love to sink their fangs into with another chance at the White House.

But, hey, she says she wants change. Let's take her at her word because she has a D at the end of her name on CSPAN!

gene214 @ 282:

Fil @ 253:

all Liberals who say they won't vote for Hillary if she is the candidate are retarded........ like vote for Ralph Nader retarded..... it's people like you who got Bush elected twice in a row... just remember that

President McCain?

It always amuses me when so called "Liberals" start in with the "You voted for Nader in 2K and that's why Gore lost" bullshit. Allow me to lay upon you a few inconvenient truths about the election of 2000. First, Al Gore ran a lame-assed campaign. If he had campaigned in 2000 the way he has been taking on environmental issues today, no way would the election been close enough to steal. Second, if Gore really wanted the job, he would have gone down fighting tooth and nail after the Supreme Court handed down it's bullshit decision in Bush V. Gore. No, he rolled over and played dead. That's a tough thing to face, but that's the way it was. Blame Nader if it makes you feel better, but remember this: When Hillary (or Obama) lays down in '08 - you're gonna have nobody else to pin this on.

Gone down fighting? Perhaps he could have fought harder durring the recount, but once the Supreme Court was involved that was the end. There *is* no court higher than the supreme court. Gore was quite right in saying that the next step would have been a literal revolution. He wasn't willing to take that step.

Maybe it would have been for the best, though...

All of this constant fighting just to keep from moving backwards is really wearing me down. Maybe we should just let go and dissolve this union. If the red states are determined to give all of their money to the wealthy, choke in their own pollution, and run around the world starting wars, maybe we should just leave them to it. They can also keep the debt they've run up, I say we cut them loose and start fresh.

This is simply more proof positive that the MSM is actively interfering with the Democratic process with their meaningless gossipy "analysis" to paraphrase Glen Greenwald.
They simply do not represent reality.

Are the NH dems going to slap a bow on this shiny gift they're giving the GOP?

"Now will the pundits and bobbleheads on the news shows apologize for writing off her campaign this morning? "

I want the Democrats of New Hampshire to appologize for voting for her!

Nobody knows anything. I'm listening to O'Bama's speech right now -- very Pepsi generation. I think the people of NH did the right thing. And frankly, nobody has been as beaten up and battle tested as Hillary. Yes, she has the machine behind her. But more people have tried to break her than any other candidate. And she's still standing.

"President John McCain" .... I can hear it now... thank NH Democrats.

Not over yet - but once it hits Nevada and South Carolina it will be.

Tom The Patriot @ 383:

Well... Um. someone just called here a B***h on this thread. What is that? Well reasoned commentary? I don't see any sign of content or ideas in your comment either. So I stand by mine, Mr. Ironic.

Arius Collingwood @ 375:

Tom The Patriot @ 365:

Wow! All the GOP anti-Hil venom comes out at once - the character assassination, misogyny, but mostly a lack of content or ideas. All I see above is just irrational hatred and stupidity -- it rushed out of the people on this board like they were possessed by Rush or Grover Norquist or Pat Robertson. What nasty little people.

Right, because you're either with Hillary, or you're a sexist, right-wing Republican.

Where have I heard this kind of polarizing rhetoric before...surely not 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. That would be far too ironic.

No, Tom the Patriot, even though T.V. and the HRC campaign keep telling you that only the GOP attacks Hillary - T.V. often doesn't tell the truth (I know that may be difficult for a "Patriot" to believe). Hillary's constant campaign meme has been that she is unfairly attacked by the right wing but:

The right seldom attacks candidates for being corporatist, and former WalMart director HRC has amassed more corporate cash than any Republican;

The right seldom attacks candidates for nepotism, yet HRC's career reads like a remake of GWB - she has never held a position that family connections didn't get for her, and, despite all her privilege, has accomplished remarkably little;

Of the "big three" lawyers in the Democratic race only Hillary chose to work for corporate interests - Obama and Edwards worked for people against the Establishment;

and the list goes on....

None of these criticisms of Hillary is GOP or right wing, yet, because T.V. says only the right attacks Hillary, large percentages of idiots believe it and parrot the line. Be happy "Patriot"! You can follow your two Bush votes with a Hillary vote and remain consistent.

Global Warming @ 63:

Hilary is worse than a Romney/ Guiliani/ Huckabee Presidency?

Who are you kidding?

Support your party you damn sore losers. All 3 are the same person when you look past the lip service.

I agree! Support your party, dammit, and vote for Kodos.

kaT @ 256:

Sunnyside @ 135:

Her speech is making me very angry. She is stealing lines from both Edwards and Obama. Its like her speech is a medley of lines from Obama and Edwards. She is trying to unite but she is thieving other peoples words. She is listening to the pundits and robbing other peoples words. She does not know where she stands she is just trying to get votes. IT IS SICKINING!!!! PUKE!!!

I don't know what kind of vacuum you're living in, but the Clintons don't need to steal speeches from anyone, they can both speak extemporaneously in an entirely articulate manner. How do you know the other two didn't steal from Clinton? Barack Obama even stole MLK's voice and meter.

Edwards is the only Progressive that has a chance, Hillary is a robot and Obama is too measured.

Its one state, Obama will walk away with the nomination.
As soon as Edwards bows out (and we all know thats coming soon) his voters will go to Obama

I usually vote democrat or libertarian, but if hilllary wins i'm not even gonna bother voting, either way a republican would win.

JustThisGuy @ 394:

gene214 @ 282:

Fil @ 253:

all Liberals who say they won't vote for Hillary if she is the candidate are retarded........ like vote for Ralph Nader retarded..... it's people like you who got Bush elected twice in a row... just remember that

President McCain?

It always amuses me when so called "Liberals" start in with the "You voted for Nader in 2K and that's why Gore lost" bullshit. Allow me to lay upon you a few inconvenient truths about the election of 2000. First, Al Gore ran a lame-assed campaign. If he had campaigned in 2000 the way he has been taking on environmental issues today, no way would the election been close enough to steal. Second, if Gore really wanted the job, he would have gone down fighting tooth and nail after the Supreme Court handed down it's bullshit decision in Bush V. Gore. No, he rolled over and played dead. That's a tough thing to face, but that's the way it was. Blame Nader if it makes you feel better, but remember this: When Hillary (or Obama) lays down in '08 - you're gonna have nobody else to pin this on.

Gone down fighting? Perhaps he could have fought harder durring the recount, but once the Supreme Court was involved that was the end. There *is* no court higher than the supreme court. Gore was quite right in saying that the next step would have been a literal revolution. He wasn't willing to take that step.

Maybe it would have been for the best, though...

All of this constant fighting just to keep from moving backwards is really wearing me down. Maybe we should just let go and dissolve this union. If the red states are determined to give all of their money to the wealthy, choke in their own pollution, and run around the world starting wars, maybe we should just leave them to it. They can also keep the debt they've run up, I say we cut them loose and start fresh.

But I coach little league in the blue states and I have some gay friends in the red states...

Robert @ 34:

Apples @ 14:

Were the exit polls relatively accurate?

I have the same question.

No one on television has actually said what the exit poll numbers say. Let's hope that they match up. I couldn't take an election scandal within our own party!

They actually went into great detail about the exit polls. Broke them down into every category possible. They were accurate.

Joe Scar AKA "K street" thinks political punditry is like sports casting - in essence - "oh, sports casters say dumb shit all the time, so WE can do it too!"

Just luv how Bushcovians use kids games to rationalize EVEry thing.

Pundits suck. Period. Their mouths are sphincters, spewing lies, warping the truth, and hurting the nation.

Jon @ 395:

nonbeliever @ 391:

Jon @ 387:

nonbeliever @ 380:

i don't need any polls to back that up. republicans won't vote for her, and half of the democrats hate her and will vote independent if she gets the nomination. it's as simple as that. look at the comments on this page, and this is a left wing site.

After the Nader debacle in 2000, any so called liberal or Democrat that has the luxury of sitting this election out or voting for a third party if Hillary is the nominee has learned nothing these past seven years. Somehow, I think Democrats are smarter than that.

hillary voted for the war, the military commissions act and the patriot act. She's basically a pro-life neocon as far as i'm concerned. she is a fear mongerer and is apparently all about taking away our freedoms to keep us safe from the "enemy". she also has the most evil man on the face of the planet, rupert murdoch backing her, so that raises some eyebrows. On top of that, I for one do not want 32 consecutive years of bush's and clinton's in the white house. that seems a bit more like royalty than democracy. I'm a liberal, but I don't vote based on party, in fact I think the two party system is terrible. I'm not throwing my support at someone who I know is a terrible candidate just because it says democrat on the ballot. she stands for some of the same things that make me hate neocons the most.

Ok, you've had your say. I think the time to fight against the Bush family's hold on the White House would've been 2000 and 2004. No one talked of the dangers of royalty when Bush ran in 2000. As flawed as he was, I for one liked the Clinton years. Poverty declined and we had the greatest economic growth in a peacetime economy. I don't care that you think it "seems like". No one gets into the White House without a significant amount of the electorate voting for them, that IS democracy and NOT royalty.

If Hillary is the nominee and you choose not to vote for her, then you're complicit in whatever havoc the next freakshow repug president wreaks on this country and the planet. I'm glad you have that luxury.

I call bullshit on Murdoch backing Clinton. He held one fundraiser for her during her Senate campaign. Without question, Giuliani is Fixed News' candidate. This has been well documented on this site.

The two party system is all we've got. This is an election year and you're not going to get a third party that will win in November. All you have to do is look at the history of the country. For a third party to be viable, we have to eliminate the electoral college and change the presidential electoral process to one person, one vote. Using runoff elections would also allow for third and even fourth and fifth parties to present a viable alternative. None of that is happening in 2008.

What we can do in the meantime is work to get the right kind of Democrat elected and run primaries against the ones you don't like the way they did with Lieberman.

I'm sorry, I'm still not convinced that Clinton would be as bad as the neocons currently in charge.

Dan @ 404:

marbotty @ 398:

Global Warming @ 63:

Hilary is worse than a Romney/ Guiliani/ Huckabee Presidency?

Who are you kidding?

Support your party you damn sore losers. All 3 are the same person when you look past the lip service.

I agree! Support your party, dammit, and vote for Kodos.

I am not a Democrat, I am independent and will caucus with the dems here in Nevada for John Edwards. If Clinton is the nom. I will not vote for a Democrat in the primary. She is the corp person most are and does NOT represent change. For those of you true dems I suggest you really think about who you support the independants will not go with a Clinton, even with a win in New Hampshire, the proof is there... either Obama or Edwards. Again realistically Edwards is the only viable candidate that will draw from all sides. Forget your bias and think. Do it fast because if "change" is important to you then you may have to change your support too, and do it in droves!

I consider myself a progressive, but I could easily be considered a left leaning indie, I am in WA State and will caucus first for Kuchinich, then for Edwards. I sent Edwards Money after watching Hillary's speech tonight. We need to Keep Edwards as strong as we can until he breaks through, or at least to keep the pressure on Obama and Clinton to stay as far left in the spectrum as possible. It is too early to not stick to your values, what do you believe in and who best represents those values?

can someone please explain nh to me?

is there any point of really running polls there?

i think the biggest thing to come out of this election is just how many independents voted dem....this bodes well for november

and im getting really tired of people ragging on obama for not having a campaign of ideas...go to his website and see his ideas

gore proved that people dont like a wonk....so obama isnt acting wonky on the campaign trail

Probably some voters figured out the Clintons are running against the Media as much as Obama and Edwards. Hilarious "progressives" like the sore losers posting here tonight; should learn to be careful where they get their, ah, fairy tales from.

The sad Mr. Anderson aside, The Dems have two excellent candidates with maybe a third still having a shot. It should be a great campaign. Let's hope the sour grapes types who really want to vote for supreme war monger John McCain shut up and move on.

nonbeliever @ 410:
If Hillary is the nominee and you choose not to vote for her, then you're complicit in whatever havoc the next freakshow repug president wreaks on this country and the planet. I'm glad you have that luxury.

If you guys want Green votes, start running candidates that Green voters can stomach. Until then, you have nobody to blame but yourselves.

Thanks a lot New Hampshire!

What a shitty day for progressives

New Hampshire motto: "Live Free or Die"

Hmmm... Were those the choices on the ballot?

fiver @ 422:

New Hampshire motto: "Live Free or Die"

Hmmm... Were those the choices on the ballot?

Classic

It will be a sad day for the Democratic Party if Hillary wins the nomination. Why? Well, let's take a look at favorability polling on the frontrunner candidates (All figures come from a USA Today/Gallup poll conducted from 12/14/07 to 12/17/07):

Hillary Clinton
Favorable: 51 percent
Unfavorable: 48 percent
Likability rating: +3

Barack Obama
Favorable: 57 percent
Unfavorable: 30 percent
Likability rating: +27

John Edwards
Favorable: 53 percent
Unfavorable: 33 percent
Likability rating: +20

Of the frontrunners, Hillary has the highest negative rating (by a double-digit margin) and thus the lowest likability.

The ratings of prominent Republicans from the same poll:

George W. Bush
Favorable: 36 percent
Unfavorable: 53 percent (only 5 percent higher than Hillary's unfavorable rating)
Likability rating: -17

John McCain
Favorable: 54 percent
Unfavorable: 30 percent
Likability rating: +24

Mitt Romney
Favorable: 32 percent
Unfavorable: 35 percent
Likability rating: -3

Rudy Giuliani
Favorable: 50 percent
Unfavorable: 41 percent
Likability rating: +9

The talk about Hillary being unelectable isn't just anti-Hillary or because of Hillary's policy positions. She is highly divisive, and a Hillary nomination would almost certainly negate the possibility of Independents, a key contingent in the general election, voting for her. By contrast, it would be quite easy to mobilize a whole host of voters, some of whom from the Democratic Party, to vote Republican, if only to keep Hillary out of office.

Do favorability ratings matter for voter turnout? Research in political sciences suggests as much:

Turnout among respondents who saw little or no difference between Bush and Gore (a net difference of ten degrees or less on a one-hundred-degree feeling thermometer) was 60.3 percent. It rose to 84.7 percent among respondents who strongly favored one candidate over the other (a net difference of fifty-five degrees or more). A similar pattern is evident for Clinton and Gore (sic--I suspect they meant Dole) in 1996 as well as for Clinton and the elder Bush in 1992. Relative candidate favorability ratings are thus strongly related to turnout: in our multivariate model they can mean as much as a ten-point difference in turnout.

Excerpted from Models of Voting in Presidential Elections: The 2000 U.S. Election, edited by Herbert Weisberg (chair of the political science department at Ohio State) and Clyde Wilcox (professor of government at Georgetown).

Thus, to suggest that Obama and Hillary are virtually the same candidate is to miss an especially important point: they aren't, at least not when it comes to ever-important favorability ratings. Obama has a +27 favorability rating--I suspect this would decline once people become more familiar with his policy positions and past voting, but his ratings would not approach anything near the astronomical unfavorability of Hillary. She has unfavorable ratings comparable to George W. Bush, this after a disastrous tenure in office. Selecting her as the Democratic nominee would be a mistake and might well signal the end of any hope for a Democratic president in 2008. If you are looking for someone to unite the country in general or the Democratic Party in particular, I would suggest looking for someone other than Hillary.

Hillary began in politics as a teenage Nixon supporter -- that's twisted. Moved on to corporate law, representing Wal-Mart and bravely defending Coca-Cola from disabled employees. Married out of ambition. Failed miserably as the first lady of health care. Has spent whole of senatorial career as a hawk and a panderer. Would have no shot at becoming president if she didn't just happen to be married to one already.

& her healthcare plan sucks!

Bill Clinton = NAFTA, Telecommunications Act, free market neoliberalism, etc.

The Crying Clinton joins the Dean Scream and the Earth Tones Gore and a long list of hit images delivered by the media for the same purpose over and over. None of those things were significant (or even real in the case of Dean).

And the experience of Democrats is watching the left and the right join in the vicious rhetoric, again and again, happily. It's a scapegoating set of opinions about the world more than it is a concrete program for achieving peace and justice, and it is all too happy to convert disaffiliation into hostile generalizations that usually ignore all context.

Guy Fawkes @ 43:

Sore losers.

*rolls eyes*

I hereby demote New Hampshire to commonwealth status.

I'll be the first to say this. Because this was not a cacus but an actual primary (secret ballot), it TRUELY shows that America is not ready for a black president. People overwhelmingly said they would vote for Obama in public but then pulled the lever for Clinton. At this rate, after our next election, the same people will be in Washington playing the same games while our middleclass is wiped off the map. I hope the people who read this and want change realize what is going on and who our actual only real choice for change is, John Edwards.

jerry mcmeans @ 30:

They virtually tied, Obama and Hillary.

No they didn't. Clinton is ahead by 7000 or more Votes.

Poor John Edwards -- Ever Wonder Why His Campaign Never Took Off

Nevada Man @ 47:

Hillary lost my vote by the way she won...
Hillary lost my vote by the way she won...
Hillary lost my vote by the way she won...
Hillary lost my vote by the way she won...
Hillary lost my vote by the way she won...

Oh, you meant she was doing what a politican does?

Nevada Man @ 47:

Hillary lost my vote by the way she won...
Hillary lost my vote by the way she won...
Hillary lost my vote by the way she won...
Hillary lost my vote by the way she won...
Hillary lost my vote by the way she won...

She never had my vote, but she turned me from a "well at least shes not one of the Republicans" mindset to a "I'd rather see McCain win" mindset

and I know I'm not alone - she's not likeable, period. She's a transparent fraud of a human being with a nasty campaign just reinforcing the status quo of dirty US politics. Fuck you New Hampshire for validating the worst aspects of american politics.

Hillary and Obama may have the same voting record, but Hillary has something Obama doesn't - the majority of Americans despise her. I don't, but I don't want to send up a shitty candidate AGAIN.

Ahh, the sympathy vote worked.

Great strategy. On the day before the primary get all emotional about how hard it is to be on the campaign trial and the female vote will run to the polls in sympathy.

My wife would smack me for saying that.

Goon @ 60:

Nevada Man @ 47:

Hillary lost my vote by the way she won...
Hillary lost my vote by the way she won...
Hillary lost my vote by the way she won...
Hillary lost my vote by the way she won...
Hillary lost my vote by the way she won...

She never had my vote, but she turned me from a "well at least shes not one of the Republicans" mindset to a "I'd rather see McCain win" mindset

seriously? you'd rather mccain was in office??

Worst news of the night, easily, and the tone of the newsbreak on the main page made it seem like GOOD news. Apologize to Hillary? Get real. I'm a loyal read of CL, but that's just stupid.

A Clinton nomination would move the democratic party backwards, and galvanize a Republican base that is largely underwhelmed by its own crop of lifeless candidates. The ONLY way the Republicans have chance to continue control over the executive branch is will another polarizing election, and mark my words, Hillary would provide it.

Way to go, NH. The Rovian strategy of divide and conquer has been short on breathe, but you've decided to provide it an oxygen tank. The GOP loves you.

If Hillary wins the nomination, I'll be staying warm at home on election day, weeping for the future of this nation.

Hillary is one tough person. If she was a man (no joke please), she'd be regarded as a tough guy for the way she's been ganged up upon by her rival candidates, picked at by the media, and absolutely assaulted by the wingnuts. She's still standing. She's still standing. And when the GOP goes against the Democrats, she's the only one I can imagine will be tough enough to take them on.

celsius @ 429:

It's not about religion, race or sex. It's about corporatism, rule of law and a future.

And about religion, race and sex. Who are you kidding?

The claim that an economic analysis is the root of change is not a new one. But in fact the restoration of democracy and the ending of this coup is NOT just politics as usual.

Your suggestion that D=R is noted. What isn't demonstrated is your right of judgment based on your own accomplishments working for change. It's flat-out easy to throw tomatoes and have a righteous analysis, without actually doing anything.

This is a violent coup. A lot of people have died. That's not the context for politics as usual no matter how much lofty Marxist analysis seems timeless.

Arius Collingwood @ 418:

nonbeliever @ 410:
If Hillary is the nominee and you choose not to vote for her, then you're complicit in whatever havoc the next freakshow repug president wreaks on this country and the planet. I'm glad you have that luxury.

If you guys want Green votes, start running candidates that Green voters can stomach. Until then, you have nobody to blame but yourselves.

That's a cop out. We all have a choice in this system. No one is blame free, myself included. Maybe I didn't protest enough or write my Representative and Senators enough. When I see the faces of fallen troops or their names and ages on ABC's This Week, I feel like I didn't do enough. A third party candidate can not win in our current system until the Constitution is amended. I do realize at this point that I can't split the vote. I don't have the luxury if you do, then it must be nice for you.

Paul in LA @ 433:

Hillary Clinton is a liberal.

The most liberal Director the WalMart Board has ever seen.

Paul in LA @ 433:

Hillary Clinton is a liberal. If you can't tell the difference between her and McCain, then you are just not paying attention.

Exactly! For example, Clinton voted FOR the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, whereas McCain did not vote. The difference? Clinton shows up to vote for the neo-con agenda.