Even though its close, from what I've heard it will be the older voters who will have breathed life back into Hillary Clinton's campaign. Many think that the debate did in fact help Hillary as well as her "almost cry" moment yesterday. There is a big gender gap this time favoring Hillary, AND independent voters went to McCain more than the Obama camp was hoping for. The older voters came out today and supported her much more than Obama. So it appears as though New Hampshire has made Hillary, like Bill, the comeback kid for the campaign. Again, this is why you can look a bit into polls but at the end of the day its all about who shows up to vote. Did Obama's large poll lead mean that some felt they could stay home? Did the above normal temps bring out the elderly today, thus favoring Hillary? How does Edwards play in this? He and Obama are splitting the "change" vote, thus an advantage for Hillary. Bottom line....GAME ON!!! This is what makes politics great. I said after Iowa that it was a big win for Obama but the calls for the end of the Clintons were premature. While it still looks like the sum total of the votes will be close, I am projecting Hillary the winner. This really makes things interesting. Even if Hillary had lost by 1 or 2% points she still would've been able to spin it in her favor with the polls having her down so far. Her winning with all the Obama hype is a huge story with Obama fever since Iowa. Politics...YA NEVER KNOW!!! This is just getting started.

I really think that Hillary and Obama should just go for it and have a "double minority' ticket for the general election. I would not cae who is Prez or VP. I think both are terrific in their own ways. They represent the true double whammy if working together- experience and youth, female voters for Hill, elder voters for Hill, youthful voters for Obama, diversity for Obama....

If they can find a way to work together and create a solitary strong message, they will present a formidable force that I don't think the Republicans could truly match...

As long as the campaigns refrain from swift boating, this is good for whoever ends up with the nomination. Now someone please get Edwards out of the race.

So if Hillary becomes President, does that make Bill Clinton the first lady? haha...

In all seriousness... it's pretty close in NH eh? Should be interesting to see how things pan out on Super Tuesday.

OFFICIAL: Be it a narrow margin, its still a victory for Hillary in New Hampshire. CNN is not yet prepared to call it because the college towns haven't come in but the Associated Press, MSNBC, and Fox News have all called New Hampshire for Hillary. WOW!!! What a turnaround!! Can't wait for the speeches.

GREAT NEWS! This is truly stunning. She was down and out by double digits in polls in New Hampshire just yesterday. I'm glad for her. This should be a really exciting thing to watch Obama vs. Clinton over the next several weeks.

McCain's speech was embarrassing tonight.

Obama should still feel very good. The gap of Hillary in New Hampshire was very high just a month ago and he closed the gap by 2-3% points. Definitely game on!! Talk about a wide open race. I mean I said before that at this point it seems like Hillary and Obama couldn't be on the same ticket if one is talking so much about change, but I still would still like to see that ticket. Bottom line is that this is a lesson learned for all parties that you can't trust the polls and exit polls. The Obama campaign will now realize that they either suffered from the Bradley effect in New Hampshire, or something happened in the past 24 hours that really swung things Hillary's way. 2 states out of 50 baby. Just getting started.

I'm actually glad that she won in New Hampshire, because maybe this will shut the conventional media gasbags up for a few minutes! They had already called her out of it, and the damned vote hadn't even taken place. It's just disgusting. Why can't these multimillionaire idiots do their jobs and stop creating dumb, hateful narratives about the candidates. Just tell us the truth, tell us if the candidates are telling the truth, tell us what their plans are, and do polls. And otherwise, shut up. Chris Matthews has been particularly disgraceful in his sexist verbiage against Hillary Clinton, so I hope he was wiping the egg off his face tonight. I couldn't bear to turn on MSNBC. But they're all bad.

Women voted mostly for Hillary, men and the young'uns for Obama. It appears to be about 290,000-280,000 votes for Democrats, 230,000-220,000 for Republicans. Poor John Edwards finished with only about 17%. If he doesn't finish second in Nevada and South Carolina, how much longer will he be in it? And Bill Richardson I hope is angling for a Secretary of State position with one of the leaders. I'd much rather have him as the top diplomat than Joe Biden.

Obama did well, but he needs to bring more substance to his rhetoric. As people on here know, I've long been a champion of his, especially when he ran against that pack of goofballs the Illinois Republican Party fielded, and he beat both the other Democrats *and* the Republicans, before Jack Ryan's hypocritical *ss had to drop out and Alan Cuckoo Keyes stepped in. But the US is not Illinois. Obama has got to start articulating a bit more what his plans are, and he definitely needs to say more about how, while bringing everybody together in a lovefest (and I think he's sincere in this), he is going to address the pressing problems of middle, working-class and poor people. Edwards has done this, but he's already got the Chamber of Commerce and so on against him, trying to bury him, so Obama should energize the acolytes to really change things. I think he will, but he just needs to utter it more.

Also, is Ghouliani going to get out of it finally? He's finished abysmally low twice now. There's no rationale for him to be in it. I am seriously looking forward to McCain, who is 71; Romney, who acts like the Man who Fell to Earth; and Huckabee, who is the real Southern working-class deal, to slug it out in South Carolina and Nevada. I hope Huckabee gets it. I wouldn't ever vote for him in a trillion years, but he represents what the Republican Party has become, at least in some key ways, so he should get the nomination.

Go Hillary, and please, cut the nasty personal attacks against Obama, because the GOP and the mainstream media are going to come right back and throw them at you!

Yeah fantomas....Hillary's negative attacks against Obama since Iowa have been ridiculous. The negative fliers that she has put out in New Hampshire is politics as usual, and thats kind of why I'm pulling for Obama. She is not a change candidate and I think it will for the most part be politics as usual with her in the White House; just with more Democratic ideals. Both the Republican and Democratic parties have frustrated me for many years. I've thought about going independent but I'm gonna stick with the donkey. But, she's certainly better than any Republican so I'd support her 100% if she won the nomination.

One Yahoo headline said that women got out the vote for Hilary and that moderate Conservatives turned out for McCain. This is great news x 2. Last Presidential election, didn't soccer moms swing Republican? And the moderate Conservative bit ...that's good too. Let move that party toward the center!!!

These political guys crack me up. Its funny listening to Hillary talk about New Hampshire making her the "comeback kid part 2". She was ahead in the New Hampshire polls until right before Iowa, 5 days ago. What really happened is that Obama came a few points short of upsetting her after being down almost 20 points less than 2 months ago. He still came a very close second in an area that is a strong Clinton base. I swear sometimes I wish someone would get up there and tell it how it really is. I have heard people saying she can't label herself as the comeback kid because she was leading the polling for so long. Sure, the polls had Obama up lately, but it was for 5 days, and something about that was clearly off. It is great to see all the pundits with egg on their face though. They are shocked!!!!

I watched the MSNBC coverage. I didn't realize that Matthews had been such a jerk regarding Hillary lately (I honestly only watch Olbermann on that channel). But tonight Matthews was almost apologetic and he made the comment that he'd never underestimate Hillary the rest of the way after coming from behind in the final days to win in New Hampshire.

Yes indeed, history did repeat itself. Just like her hubby in '92. I said the other day, don't count her out just yet. I will say in a way I was pleased, because I too feel, that if both her campaign and Obamas keep things POSITIVE, they will both push each other to be thier best, and with luck we could very well end up with what would be a dream ticket IMO as Clinton/Obama or visa versa...but it was fun listening to Matthews last night and his opinions change about Hillary, because indeed alot of the pundits and pollsters were saying this could have been the end of a major campaign...while polls can be interesting, this goes to show they can be wrong too, even though I like to hear what the polls are saying... Now, on to S. Carolina and beyond....for the Republicans, McCains speech was just AWFUL? Whats the matter McCain?? Can't wing it?? Good grief, so much for originality!! It was dreadful.....I also don't see how Ghouliani can survive too much longer without better results.......

Um, none of these candidates can "wing it." Obama, Clinton, Romney, et al all use a teleprompter for their speeches. If you think any of them are winging it, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you.

As for Guliani, his strategy from the outset was to make only token efforts in Iowa, NH, etc. and essentially sit it out until Florida on January 29th, followed by the big states of NY, NJ, California, etc. on Feb 5th - states where his positions are much more palatable and mainstream. He's spent a lot of time down here while the other candidates have been up North; we'll know in a few weeks whether it was a smart strategy or not. Of course, there's been little coverage of the upcoming Florida Primary since the national parties have disenfranchised the voters here by refusing to seat the delegations, but there's now a lot of speculation that Clinton may start campaigning here in order to blunt Obama's expected success in South Carolina.

That maybe regarding the use of a teleprompter, but McCain spent most of his speech looking down and reading from a small peice of paper. It did not come across as anything original. I watched and listened to Huck a boob whose effort seemed far superior.....if he was indeed reading from a teleprompter, it was very difficult to tell.

Of course it's difficult to tell. That's the point of a teleprompter - to fool people into thinking the speaker is "winging" it.

Although I am glad there will be no coronation for any Dem candidate, and I long ago decided to sit the primaries out in terms of supporting anyone, I am beginning to have more concerned about Clinton as the nominee. If the public is really looking for someone to bring the Congress together behind the President's plans, etc., is Clinton really the person to do that? She has so much baggage, and I can just imagine another 4 - 8 years of Whitewater-like investigations and attacks by the right wing. Also, I think Clinton provides the perfect rationale for the GOP to get united behind whatever loser they eventually nominate, so the election will be uglier. I am not thrilled about an Obama candidacy, but he seems to have what it takes to unite the country, at least that's what it appears now. We shall see.

I thought Matthews was great eating his crow last night, particularly when one of the MSNBC panelists pointed out the Matthews was being named as the worst of the anti-Clinton pundits who mobilized voters to get out for her. And talking about sexism, why is Clinton referred to constantly as "Hillary" or "Mrs. Clinton" when Obama and Edwards are always provided at least the respect of their last names, not to mention their actual titles as Senator.

As for McCain - according to the coverage, last night was one of the few times McCain did not wing it, instead choosing to read a speech. I don't know who wrote the speech, but he/she needs to be fired immediately. It was an incomprehensible collection of political platitudes put in no particularly order. Mike Barnicle was on MSNBC as well and he sarcastically mentioned the doorman at his hotel was happy because McCain had used one of his lines.

I worry about Hillary and Obama both being smeared by the Republicans in the general election campaign. The Repubs will smear whoever the Dem nominee is and they will be ruthless in their attempts. In a lot of ways, I think Obama faces a bigger challenge in the general election than Hillary. What else can they possibly say about Hillary that we haven't heard for the last 16 years? Republicans have torn her apart for the better part of two decades and she's still standing, which is quite surprising actually. Barack hasn't been around long enough to face all of their BS. Sadly, I think the Republican message against Obama would be reduced to the easiest and simplest of slogans. They will ask America one question... "Will you vote for a black man named Barack Hussein Obama?" That's what the entire race for the presidency could boil down to. Is it right? No way. But will that be what they reduce it to? I'm guessing yes. It's kind of like how they reduced Kerry to "flip flopper." Two words! It's disgusting, but sadly it works in so many parts of this country. I don't think any Dem will be able to unite the country... not because they don't have the ability to do so, but because Republicans do not want to unite the country. Repubs will never work with Dems, and frankly I'm kind of tired of Dems always giving in and trying to work with Repubs because it would NEVER occur if it were the other way around.

Also you asked why people call Hillary by her first name rather than her last. I think that's an easy answer... she uses it as her campaign slogan and her signs and bumper stickers almost exclusively say just "Hillary." Plus, I think Bill has pretty much owned the name Clinton. Calling her by her first name doesn't bother me. In some ways I think it's a more powerful statement to simply use a female first name. And I know her campaign wanted to make the distinction that this is Hillary running, not Bill.

FSU said:

Oh you can count on them attemtping to swift boat ANY Democrat......but I think these two will FIRE BACK immediately, in what comments I have heard both say about the Republicans is they expect it....the other thing to expect is FEAR MONGERING which Ghouliani has already spoke about in relation to what else:??? 9/11....

Both Hillary and Obama have big trouble ahead if either wins the Democratic nomination. I can't even say which one would have the tougher time. Hillary has the experience edge, but the country has shown it wants change. The Repubs will hammer her on a number of issues relating to whether or not we want a continuation of the Bush/Clinton dynasty. They will put doubts in people's heads when they question all of this experience she claims to have. I actually have many questions about that myself. Being first lady of the US and first lady of Arkansas isn't exactly experience. Traveling to foreign countries as the President's wife doing photo-ops isn't really experience, but she has more than Obama. But, the Repubs are going to paint her as someone who can't lead the country in this time of terrorism/nuclear threats. I think she'd do a fine job in that arena. If there is another huge crisis that threatens American security and Obama wins the nomination, he'll be in big trouble because of his lack of national security experience.

Breaking it down further, if Hillary wins the nomination, she's got a tough road with Independents and men. There are people who would never vote for Hillary simply because of the Clinton attachment and because she is a female, and there are people who would never vote for Obama because he is black and they don't think this is the time to put a "rookie" in the White House. I still say many will have a tough time with a female commander in chief as well.

With McCain building momentum again, he's my biggest Republican worry at the moment. Then, I am PRAYING that Bloomberg keeps his billions and sits at home and doesn't enter as a third party candidate. Any vote for a third party candidate is pretty much a vote against the Democratic nominee. I really do think though that Obama and Hillary need to begin talking behind the scenes about playing out the rest of this process and teaming up either way no matter which one wins the eventual nomination. I do think that ticket will be formidable. You'd have the women's vote, the black vote, a large number of latino voters, an energized Democratic base who wants change and would see this diverse ticket as a huge opportunity to change American political history.

There is one thing I have thought about that Pat Buchanan said last night that I fear as well in that the Democratic party could be very divided over racial lines. A Democratic pundit said black women will be a huge factor in deciding the nominee. Will they vote with gender or with race? Iowa and New Hampshire are great and all because they are first but I'm going to be more interested when they get to states with more people of color. The black radio shows this morning were all over the Bradley effect and how we see polls often can't be trusted when you have a black candidate against a white candidate. AND...there have a few rumblings that if the Clintons continue to campaign negatively toward Obama, some blacks will vote for McCain if he ends up being the nominee, or not vote at all just to spite the Clintons' negative campaign tactics. Goodness knows why people would do that, but even some political "experts" have said that if the Clintons are viewed by blacks as using negative tactics to dash the dreams of Obama being the first black president, they will make the Clinton legacy and their strong support among blacks a thing of the past. I always say that any Democratic nominee is better than any of those Republicans but c'mon, Bush got votes because people thought he would be the best guy to have a beer with. Why my people see Clinton as the "first black President" in the first place is beyond me. If you really study his policies, that is not a label African Americans should be giving him. Playing the saxophone and getting along with blacks doesn't mean a hill of beans when your policies don't really match up with it. I thought he was an excellent President, but he was very much a centrist So there are so many variables in this race that could swing things during the nomination process, and the general election. I'd be happy with either Hillary or Obama, and definitely with them on the same ticket. But, if Hillary continues negative campaigning I don't see how that ticket would be possible. Its going to be the most fascinating election in history.

That's not entirely true, MM. Hilary Clinton is well known for not using even notes for many of her speeches...

Campaigns are always the same damn thing in this country: Change. Well, duh. The past seven years have been disastrous for America....sure, we need change, that's rather f*cking obvious. How about having an election that doesn't run the same old line, such as 'better pay for teachers.' Every election in the past twenty years has said that but does it happen? What needs changing is the phony nature of elections, the money it takes for anyone just to run, and the corporate control of our government. That's just the beginning.

And why does Barack Obama suddenly sound more and more like a preacher? I think he caught the Oprah bug.

The age and gender gaps may have favored Clinton in NH, but those are 2 groups that always vote in high numbers during general elections. Every election for decades, in both Canada and the US, we hear about the importance of the youth vote, rock the vote etc, but on election day their importance is minimal because they generally don't turn out in high enough numbers to greatly impact the outcome. If you want to win an election you need to get the women and people over 40 on your side.
Clinton was also supported by those who are worried about the economy, which may become more important as economic indicators slide downwards over the year .

Right swim. Also take into account the unseasonably warm temperatures in New Hampshire which could've helped more older people come out. I will say though that this could be an election where the youth vote actually does impact this time. Obama really seems to have energized young voters. I love how Hillary got rid of her senior citizens backdrop from Iowa and had a bunch of young people behind her in New Hampshire. That proves to me that even they are aware of how younger voters can influence this election.

I just read an interesting article because people are scratching their heads over the exit polls and all the polls leading right up to the primary. One professor said that Obama's positioning on the ballot could have had a slight effect. Apparently they don't use alphabeticals for the ballots, but rather some kind of random system, and Barack Obama appeared way down the list of 21 candidates. Are people in this country that dumb that a primary/election can be influenced, even a little bit by the positioning of a candidate's name on the ballot? Please refer to my signature. People are just kind of stupid, huh? And don't even get me started on the "almost cry" moment that ended with her attacking Obama. Sort of like when Bill Clinton was at Ron Brown's funeral laughing, then spotted a camera and put his finger up to act like he was wiping a tear from his eye. There is something I have always found real shady about the Clintons, and that is why I have issues with Hillary, but not in a way that wouldn't make me vote for her. I don't give a damn about likability when it comes down to it. Can you do the damn job is what is important to me.

The only thing I liked about John Edwards last night was that we are only 2 states down. All this hype going into two small, non diverse states as if Iowa and New Hampshire are the be all, end all. As for Edwards and Richardson, at this point I see them as only being spoilers at this point. Seriously fellas, its going to come down to Hillary and Obama. Then Edwards had the foolishness to say that it was good Hillary won because that means Obama isn't running away with it. Try that BS on someone who will buy it Mr. Edwards. He needed Hillary to take another hit so that it could help him try and get further up and make it a competition with the two change candidates. He also wanted Obama to win because if and when he stumbles, he figures he'll be there to pick up as the "change" candidate. Political spin is the WORST!!!

Obama picked up a couple of major endorsements from Nevada today, most importantly the culinary union. Last night there was some talk about whether they would still endorse her with Hillary winning New Hampshire, but they stuck with him. What Obama needs to be working on right now is his debate skills. He needs to show me and the rest of the world something in the upcoming debate before Nevada with a bit more substance. Hope is great and all but it can only take you so far. He's got to perform well to remove any doubts left after New Hampshire, which I still say there should be none. Barack went from -20% to -3%in under 2 months in New Hampshire, and had the media and the polls not been so wrong, the story would've been "Hillary survives New Hampshire scare" instead of all this comeback mess. You can't come back from something you probably never lost to begin with. Obama still has huge momentum. The closeness of NH says that this is going to be a dogfight.

Caught David Gergen in a group talking on CNN today talking about Hillarys big win last night. In his opinion its good for the country, because he said he was speaking to a large group in Oakland, Ca. last night and we westerners want OUR voices heard too, and we are somewhat concerned that things were going to be wrapped up even before the candidates get out here! He thought it was good for the Dem. party and the country, and he thinks this will make them both ( Hillary and Barack)stronger in the end. JUST KEEP IT POSITIVE, you'll need the nesgative stuff for the GOP, when they start it up! And FWIW Martha Stewart weighed in on her show today. I was fortunate to hear the part where she said she supported Hillary, but wished both Hillary and Obama good luck. Her "dream" ticket was a Hillary- O'Bama ticket, or the other way around!

I support Obama to the point I am going to volunteer for his campaign (first time I've ever done that). As far as his lack of policy specifics, I believe that if you want good, practical federal policies, then you should vote for good, practical Congressmen and Senators. A President's job is to set direction and tone--and then lead and unite. I believe Obama is best qulified of all the candidates to do that.

That being said, I may be naive and this may be just trying to make lemonade out of the lemons of the NH loss, but I am a little glad the race is back on. America needs to think, carefullyconsider and be convinced that Obama is the best choice for the right reasons and not just vote for him because he is on some "rock star" roll.

mdterp: good point and one that needs mentioning more: two rather non diverse states have gotten so much coverage! everyone needs to filter through this over abundance of pundits and minute by minute coverage...the news outlets simply have too much time to fill. It's just two states...Obama and Clinton won them both by relatively small margins. Edwards is still a factor.

The good news is that we have three, even four smart, strong Democratic contenders. There's validity to both major criticisms: Obama's lack of experience and Hilary's boat full of baggage. The facts state that both are intelligent insightful politicians who would work very hard for this country and for a 360 turnaround from the disaster known as Bush/Cheney. I would love to see them both stay away from personal attacks and simply show respect for one another while stressing their own qualities instead of the other's negatives. The Republicans are more than happy to hit those negatives.

McCain is actually a concern because to me, even with some of his own baggage, he's a stronger smarter candidate than any of those religious nuts getting all the attention. Huckabee is a devil in disguise and Romney is one of the most insincere chaps I've ever seen...

J1780...very good point about Obama needing to not be immediately coronated, but rather having to slug it out til the end. It is good that there will be a healthy debate. We've got two really good candidates and this is the most imporant election in history. If a Republican gets back in the White House I'm going to slit my f**king wrists. In the end, it will be good because both will feed off of each other and show how strong they can be in such a tough battle. Then after what will hopefully not be a lot of mud slinging, the two joining to set political and world history.

J1780...I am thinking about supporting Obama's campaign as well. I've already donated financially to it, but this whole election has made me more interested in politics than I've ever been. I feel like I need to be doing more. If he loses the nomination, then I'll send my money to Hillary and volunteer for her campaign.

Keith Olberman is saying it sounds like Richardson is toast. May back out within a day or so.

This election season strikes me as very much a campaign of smoke and mirrors in several and different ways.

Apparently there's a widespread visceral hatred of Hillary Clinton. Why? What did she ever do that people should react in this way? She forgave her husband when he was caught sleeping with the help. She tried to do something about the healthcare crises in the days before it became even worse. I can't help feeling that mostly it's about her gender.

Barrack Obama - great motivational speaker, inspires the youth. Pundits are starting to ask where's the beef? I do want a change in the White House but I'll settle for a change from red to blue. Democrats will be lucky to pull that off.

Rudolph Giuliani the hero of 9/11. What did he do exactly that was so heroic, that you wouldn't have expected from any Mayor of NYC in similar circumstances?

I've made no bones about the fact that I'm an Obama supporter -- I simply cannot understand why Dems can't see that nominating Hillary will be a disaster. Sure, she'll be a fighter and a tough campaigner, but the Clintons have shown time and again that they are their own worst enemies. They simply cannot help but giving a loaded gun to the opposite side.

The GOP coalition is so incredibly fragile -- why would anyone who wants a Democrat to win want to nominate THE ONE candidate everyone knows will re-forge their unity? Obama can defuse them, he has shown to be appealing to independent and the entire class of Republicans who believe the GOP has lurched too far to the right and left them. This opportunity is like Reagan's after the Carter debacle and Democrats are just so stupid and short sighted to want to bypass their shot at being the party of national unity. It makes me sick to think that so many people are going to line up and cast their ballots for this woman.

On top of guaranteeing the continued culture wars (in which gay people *WILL* be hauled out of the barn yet again for another few years of public flogging), the Clintons will do as they always do: make it all about them, do nothing to build bridges or strengthen the party or its interests and then move on once they've sucked the last bit of lifeblood from their positions.

I have never voted for a Republican for president, but I can think of three or four in the Republican field that I would vote for ahead of Hillary (McCain, Thompson, Ron Paul). Heck, I'd vote for Romney over her. He's as much a phony and a narcisist as the Clintons, but with Bill and Hillary in addition to the fakery and ego-masturbation you get a lethal dose of cynicism.

Mark my words: if Hillary is the nominee, she will lose the election, the Dems may very well lose many of the seats they picked up in the House in 2006 and a Republican president will be picking the next three Supreme Court justices. Worse would be if she actually won. She will not undo any of Bush's abuses of executive privilege, she will not defund the war, she will probably continue with whatever warrantless wiretapping program is in place and she will almost certainly fill posts with sycophants and Clinton supplicants. She will be about as unifying as Bush.

Wow, aquaman, you're sounding like a log cabin republican there...you'd vote for romney over Hillary? Gay rights mean nothing to you? Are you serious?

Torgauer - great points. I don't understand the so-called hatred of Hillary. She stood by her man. She's raised an upstanding, smart responsible daughter, has done extremely well as a New York Senator...and honestly, is still to me one of the smartest candidates we could possibly have...The Clintons have attracted the bile of the right wing because of their intelligence, their great abilities as politicians, and their absolute lack of fear to battle back as hard as they get. Let's face it, the Clintons have been targeted by the most vicious of the right wing for many many years - they're still here, they're still fighting for their country. (I know they've made many many mistakes - no need to mention them for the gazillion-th time, it's all about NOW) Hillary's made a few moves that are too reactive to the right wing's agenda when she should be speaking from her heart and for what's right - i'm hoping she's learned this now...And honestly, I think it's Bill Clinton who makes the biggest stumbles in that duo...which may come from being one of the most talented politicians ever.

I have no doubt that Obama is smart, straightforward, and able to fight the hard fight...and having grown up in Chicago, I know how rough it is there for politicians...but, honey, the right wing will go ugly and uglier on him when it gets down to it...and they will play the race card...as disgusting as that is...

I think we have to have the toughness of Hillary Clinton in this next election...she can give as good as she gets...and that unfortunately is the temperature of the country. If only she and Obama could team up - Barack's time will come and should come...I'd like to see the Democrats in the oval office for several years to come...

The only thing that would really disturb right now is if the Clinton camp does go negative on Obama - that would really bother me...I already believe that Edwards and perhaps even Obama have been too bitchy and shrill towards Hillary. And I do think there's sexism in the air...The first female President is bound to attract that element...

Rudy's a mess...in some ways, an amusing mess, and he's someone who really does believe that gay rights are valid and unquestionable...but he's got too many 'weird' elements following him...

Ohhh aquaman..BITE YOUR TONGUE!! You'd really vote for those RepubliCANTS over Hillary? Granted, I'm over the Clintons and the Bushes (I've always said that the Democratic choice to me is the lesser of two evils) but in no way would I ever vote for those shyster Republicans over a Democratic nominee. Obama is the first presidential candidate I have connected to, and the first campaign I've ever donated money to, but c'mon..we have to support Hillary if she is our nominee. I don't think she will make all these campaign promises and talk about change only to go away from that after getting in office. If she did she'd be someone satisfied with simply a one term Presidency. For whatever reason, the woman is polarizing and I actually do think the Republican base will be stirred incredibly if she gets the nomination. I mean even when this whole thing started, Republicans were hoping she'd get the nomination. Now why would they be hoping for that? I think her choice as V.P. if she wins the nomination is going to be the biggest decision of her ENTIRE campaign. But aquaman, c'mon man...I understand you have issues with Hillary and I respect that. I don't know why there is such a hatred toward her, but its there, and it will be problematic in the election. But, you can't go to the other side if you care anything about gay rights.

To add aqua, granted the Republican base may be all riled up at the thought of Clinton part 2, but don't discount the intelligence and preparedness of the Clinton machine should Hillary win the nomination. They are organized and have a great ground game in terms of getting people to the polls. I think you are also forgetting how sick people are with the Republican administration at this point. Thats also something that favors Hillary. The overwhelmingly large Democratic turnout for these caucuses and primaries actually make me feel a bit better when it comes to the general election. The Republicans always seem to one up the Democrats when it comes to turning out the vote, but I think this election is going to be different. I predict Democrats will come out in huge numbers in support of whoever the Democratic nominee is. And if its Hillary/Obama, forget about it...all the way to the White House baby. That ticket is unbeatable.

Sh*t motherf*cker f*ck sh*t....Bloomberg has launched an exploratory committee to assess his Presidential chances. The summary I got from Anderson Cooper is that if Obama, someone seen as a unifying candidate wins the nomination he'll more than likely stay out, but if Hillary, a more polarizing figure, not likely to be real popular among Independents gets the nomination, he will more likely decide to run!!! I know....I know...it shouldn't just be Democrats and Republicans and the process allows every right for their to be a third party candidate. But come on...we know what effect these third party candidates have on these elections. You know the Repubs are hoping he gets in the race.

I sound like a Log Cabin Republican? Thanks for the insult.

Yes, I said some things that were a bit anger-inspired, but if Hillary can trigger this response in me, pretty much a life-long Dem, think of what it will do to the voters who think she is the devil, the people who really want to turn back the clock on choice, on gay issues, on healthcare reform. I'm telling you, if she is the nominee, the Dems WILL lose the election and your gay issues, choice, etc. will all be in greater peril than they are today. Putting her forth as the nominee will only endanger whatever gains our various interests have made in the past thirty or so years. When Hillary loses, consider this: the next president will likely replace John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. In a second term, he or she could replace another justice. Do we want to risk that just to gratify the Clinton ego machine?

And of Hillary wins, she will most certainly govern the way Bush has: to do no more than appeal to her base, just enough to earn 50.1% of the votes out there. There will be no compromise, there will be nothing but bad feelings. Personally, I am tired of going to family events or dinner parties and having every conversation about politics descend into a world war. Our country faces enormous problems and we need to put our best brains togethr on both sides of the aisle to come to consensus on the solutions. We need to tone down the rhetoric in this country, we need to find common ground, and Hillary is NOT the person for that job.

I understand that many of us want to give the GOP as good as it gave us for so long, and that Hillary and Bill are take-no-prisoners types, but someone has to stop the cycle of bad politics.

Unfair or fair, she is a lightning rod of divisiveness. We can talk all day about who started the witch hunts against the Clintons, but that's not the issue. The issue is what impact her nomination will have on the opposition. I'm telling you, she will galvanize the GOP as though Hitler himself was on the ticket. A Hillary nomination is a Rove and Limbaugh wet dream and base Dems are going to run right into their trap once again.

I don't think Hillary will govern as Bush has. She's far smarter, has an incredible grasp of the issues, and witnessed her husband's two terms up close, so she's had extensive preparation on what works and what won't work. The main issue during her terms, if she's elected, will be how to deal with recalcitrant Republicans and the hostile media, who generally LOATHE her. They absolutely, completely loathe her, especially the mainstream media types. Just look at the recent extremely nasty commentary and hostile behavior (in the debates) by the likes of Chris Matthews, Brian Williams, Tim Russert, Pat Buchanan, and so on, or the columns by the likes of Maureen Dowd, Gail Collins, etc. They really, really, really, really, really HATE HRC and her husband. HATE. THEM. They were so gleeful when they thought she was out of it they were really to blow one. So she'll be starting off as Bill did at a severe disadvantage.

But as a Senator she has worked well with Republicans, including some extremely right-wing ones. (As has Obama, who actually partnered on a bill with crazy Tom Coburn of Oklahoma.) She would have to have a compliant Democratic Congress to work with, and she might encounter the same problems Bill did at times, but for the most part she'd govern from the center, working with whatever Republicans she could, and would probably be less secretive (though not as transparent as Obama might be) than Bush, on what she was up to. The chief issues I think would be how progressive HRC would really be; would she triangulate in DLC fashion, as Bill did, which enraged the Democratic grassroots and still did not get the crazy Republicans off his back, but pleased a majority of Americans, particularly when the economy began expanding? Or would she push progressive legislation, in the face of Republican and media hostility, and get the Democrats to push it through as Bush did with the Republicans? Remember, it took 9/11--cf. Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine on this--for W to push through all kinds of extreme legislation, and he's never looked back.

I don't think HRC would be anywhere as bad, because she's not a faith-based idiot and she wouldn't have the likes of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice, etc. on board. But I do worry about her warmongering and her constant need to appease the Joe Liebermans of the Democratic Party. Some of her votes have been pretty problematic. I've viewed them as political opportunism rather than conviction, but as with her husband, you just can't always be sure she won't knife you in the back at times, even though he also was willing at times to stand up to the Republicans and the media, at his peril--and he won in the end.

ANY of the Republicans, including McCain, who has flipflopped his positions, is 71 years old, and is a certified warmonger, would be very, very dangerous. Just keep in mind, if you think John Roberts and Samuel Alito are bad news, if you think that warrantless wiretapping and torture should be prosecuted, if you think that Guantánamo is a disgrace and Abu Ghraib is not an aberration, if you have an issue with the $9 billion that went missing in Iraq, the hundreds of billions blown on Musharraf's dictatorship, the failure to rout the Taliban and Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, and Blackwater's behavior anywhere, then keep in mind that ALL of the Republicans agree that these things are just fine. All of them. Including McCain, who is such a liar that he denounced the whole torture crap then went right ahead and voted for the Military Commissions act. He has not spoken out against the signing statements. He is just as bad as all the rest of them. And they ALL think that Don't Ask, Don't Tell is just fine, along with DOMA and the other anti-gay legislation that closeted gay Republicans keep pushing.

How any non-closeted gay person could possibly vote for any of these national Republicans, including Romney, who tried to overturn the gay marriage ruling in Massachusetts, is beyond me. The Republicans have shown that they couldn't give a damn about family values OR fiscal responsibility OR honor in the White House, or anything else. Any of them. Oh, and don't forget, Huckabee isn't a primate, he thinks the world is 6,000 years old, and he's talked about revivals on the White House lawn. Think he's kidding? Think again, read his own statements, including his hateful comments about gays and HIV, which he isn't disavowing.



They already have. She and Bill were viciously attacking Obama before Tuesday's vote, and just yesterday Hillary supporter Andrew Cuomo, the New York Attorney General, made a racially questionable comment about Obama, saying that he couldn't "shuck and jive" and "dance" his way to the White House. I mean, what on earth? Where the hell did that come from? Would he say that about any of the White candidates? I don't think so. It's the sort of thing one expects out of Republicans' mouths, but then Biden said that Obama was "clean" and articulate," etc., drawing on all kinds of long-standing racist tropes, so perhaps many of the White Democrats are going to give Obama a run for his money too.

I hope not, but if they do, I hope he's ready.

Which is why I'm absolutely baffled by aquaman's argument that Hillary won't compromise. Like Bill before her, Hillary the person may be divisive, but her politics are pure pragmatism. In fact, I would say she'll compromise more than any of the other democratic candidates--for better or for worse.

Aquaman - okay, we get that you despise Hillary, that's loud and clear...Just because you predict that the rightwing will bring out their big guns if Hillary wins the nom isn't a justifiable reason to vote against her. That's way too reactive and giving way too much power to the bad seeds of the Republican party. Hillary's taken blow after blow from those people and she's stronger than ever. By all accounts, she's been a very successful Senator. I don't need charm in the White House, I need an action oriented intelligent person who isn't connected to the big oil companies and who can be tough and pragmatic.

Cuomo's comment is idiotic...

Remember when people were also saying that Hillary could never win a senate seat in New York? All of her detractors were saying that she would probably be able to win New York City but she'd never fare well enough in upstate New York and the many rural areas of the state to become a senator.

It seems like everyone wants to keep telling us that the Clintons are bad and won't win, but they always seem to do a pretty good job of winning.

I voted for Clinton in 92, I voted for him again in 96. I voted for Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004. I think it's safe to say that I am heavily in the D category in terms of national politics. That's why it pains me so much to see so many people jumping on the bandwagon of a candidate who, if she loses will do so because she suffers from the same arrogance and blind ambition as Gore and Kerry, or who, if she wins, will end up being no more popular than W. For a change, I want a different ending to this story. I want a nominee and president I can be proud of. I want a president who, like Reagan did in the 80's, can inspire a shift in the political dynamics of the age and I want that president, for once in my life, to be a D. Obama can be that president. Hillary cannot.

I never said that one should not vote for Hillary because the GOP will pull out the big guns. I said I can't understand why Dems would fall behind the only candidate in the field who will cause a very fractured, very weak and very vulnerable GOP to consolidate their coalition. Yes, the GOP will pull out the big guns, and they will beat her. They will also probably get enough voters to come out to reverse those House seats in red seats the Dems picked up in the 2006 election. They'll get to nominate justices and they'll turn back the clock on the very things most of us Dems cherish. Some of you are comfortable risking those things by nominating Hillary. I am not.

Obama, on the other hand, has shown that he attracts voters on the other side of the aisle. He is the first Democratic candidate since maybe Johnson in '64 for whom more Republicans are willing to turn their back on their own party by voting for. Aside from just electability, shouldn't we also consider what kind of president the candidate would be? Hillary has shown me nothing about her ability to speak to all of us as Americans. I have seen nothing that shows me she is any different from the person who couldn't locate requested documents in her own office. She has shown nothing to prove her administration would be any more transparent than Bush's or any less focused on playing electoral politics with important issues. Am I the only one who is sick and tired of the division in this country? Do any of you honestly believe that we will emerge in 2012 more united behind Hillary than we are in 2008 under W? She'll be languishing around 47% approval and, with possible having lost the House, will be in bunker mode.

Unfortunately, I don't think many people are looking beyond the fact that the Clintons are fierce campaigners and that we, as Dems, are desperate for a win. We're starving for it and the Clinton War machine is a very seductive thing. But the risk of losing our big opportunity is greater under her than under Obama. Since 1996 we've gone with presidential nominees with huge negatives, candidates who are easily cast as elitists, as snobs, as stiffs, as humorless bureaucrats. We've also figured out how to nominate the ideal candidate for the opposition to rip apart and candidates who inspire heavy GOP voter turnout. Obama can change this. Hillary cannot.

It's up to each of us to decide who we want, who we can live with and who we cannot tolerate in the WH. Many of you think Hillary is the right person. I've made it clear that for me, Hillary is a disaster waiting to happen. I simply cannot see that she could be anything but divisive and untrustworthy to 50% of the public should she be the nominee and not much more than who she has always been should she actually win. Again, I'm not blaming her for everything that's negative about her reputation or partisanship. She's incredibly smart and from all accounts is charming in small groups. But the Clintons are their inner circle share some of the blame for the heavily partisan problems that have been festering in Washington for the past fifteen years.

I think it's time to turn to a new chapter in the book. I think it's time for a fresh start. Obama can be a fresh start. Hillary cannot.

...Oh, and about that Cuomo quote, the rotten apples don't fall far from the mother tree. This is all part of the surrogate campaign stuff the Clintons are good at. Cuomo's is but one of many quotes in the past few weeks. There was the Shaheen quote about Obama's being a drug dealer. Bill Clinton referred to Obama as a "kid" (I guess "boy" would have been a bit too obvious.) I saw another quote today, this time by a Hillary advisor who said people voted for Obama because he makes them feel like they have "a hip black friend". Back on top after NH and the true nature of the Hillary folks comes shining through. Class acts. I suppose we can expect quotes from Web Hubbell and Suzanne MacDougal any day now?

Boy I tell ya. Some people are so ignorant. Theres an email going around locally now about Obama. Father of a radical muslim, mother an atheist. He never states the pledge of allegiance or respects the flag. This email, obviouly sent by white supremist, says he's the 'weapon' used to 'destroy the U.S. from within.'.
The most stupid part is that the email provides a link to back up all these claims. When you go to that site, it says all this info is false.
What interest me is that now emails and the net is used to spread any and all lies. Not only that but people will believe it without checking things out for themselves.
I guess my point is: do research, check the facts about all the canidates. Make an educated decision. Vote your conscience.
Although never vote for someone with perfect hair. Thats just creepy.

No offense but those Republicans you are talking about are probably willing to "turn their backs" on their own party because Bush is so horrible and not because Obama is so charimatic.

The party he is REALLY attracting though, are Independants. Hillary is getting some, but Obama got most of that vote in New Hampshire....

By the mid to late 70's there were millions of Democrats who thought their party went off the deep end ("I didn't leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me" was and is a common statement). Reagan capitalized on both this sentiment and on the fallout of the disastrous Carter administration to pull in these "Reagan Democrats".

The Democrats have a similar opportunity to pull in millions of votes from disaffected Republicans. I don't care if they come to the D column based on Obama's charisma or what, but he has shown he appeals to them where Clinton has shown she repels them.

I am surprised at a couple of things being done by the Clintons or their supporters lately.

The race-baiting does not surprise me, however subtlely done, and can only loosely be linked to Hillary Clinton if at all. But the suit in the Nevada caucus seemed like a waste of time and political capital. Apparently the Spanish-language media in Nevada are making a bigger issue of it than it is. And not to her advantage.

Also Bill Clinton's aggressive response to a reporter asking a leading question about the failure of that suit simply played into their desire to draw viewers. Bill Clinton is (was?) a smarter politician than that. And getting angry in defense of your spouse is understandable. But is he hurting her more than helping her? I noticed Mark Shields on NPR thought it was the former.

And the last Bill Clinton that Hillary wants seen right now is one that might remind the public of him red-faced and denying he had ever had "sexual relations" with that woman, or parsing the word "is".

That will be fuel for the Republicans that will burn like a wildfire should she get the nomination, which still seems likely to me at this point.

Barack Obama has been surprisingly sedate in his responses and even seems to have calmed Michelle down.