New Hampshire Primary Running Thread

But the Michael Moore/Daily Kos party is liberalism as you always understood it?

All that's left of that once-great party is sneering, bullying and cutting off their noses to spite their faces and avoid getting power (which is their best trait).

 

Good discussion here. I keep hearing that Obama has avoided talking about the issues. Is that by design? Is he waiting until everyone is listening? I'm somewhat uninformed, but I'd like to hear about the differences between Clinton and Obama. And I'm not so much talking about their records. I'm more concerned with what they have in mind for the future of the country.

 

Great thread. There's some of the usual tone-deafness here, but it hasn't erupted into outright hostility. Good deal.

 

F_B,
Quality stuff! I wholly agree!

 

I'm not affirming for all-time that New Hampshire was McCain's high point of this storyline -- though it may well have been.

He figured to do spectacularly there, and did.

He's awfully old, he's sawed a lot of people off who used to be allies, and his temper WILL get him in serious trouble at some point.

The Money's behind Romney. The real money, and the real power. Of the guys with a chance, Romney's the devil, and it's a shame he'll likely win Michigan, since a loss there would kill him for good and all.

Romney vs. HRC would be a disaster beyond imagining. It would be Business As Usual, in the worst sense.

 

I just want to point out that Dean didn’t really collapse from his own doing. The GOP, and other Dems, had been painting him as crazy for quite some time. They hammered and hammered at the issue. Then when Dean gave at the yell, which really wasn’t a big deal at all, it was sort of the nail that the hammers were searching for. The GOP was able to say “See?!?” Had Dean not yelled that day, he would inevitably had said something that would have been twisted into “See?!? We told you he was crazy!”

Obama doesn’t have that label right now. The argument against him is that he’s too inexperienced. If at some point Obama makes a statement that could be twisted into demonstrating his inexperience (and we’ve seen Hillary try already) then we could see a collapse.

 

Just a tip, but when you make such a charge on a politics thread, the burden of proof is on you. Another poster should not have to substantiate your claim.

 

I am shocked, shocked, I say, to see that a certain WSJ columnist just loves Hillary's NH strategy.

http://online.wSportsJournalists.com/article/SB119992615845679531.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

 

This from a man who was approvingly quoting Andy Sullivan a week ago.
(snerk)

 

I gave it more thought this morning, and I just don't have faith in the American public electing President Obama. I realize that it's just a name, but I think it's enough to keep him out of office. I tend to have similar thoughts about Mitt and Huckabee.

I'm supporting Obama, and I would have told you four years ago that it would be McCain versus Obama. At this point, my money is on McCain being the country's next president. I don't want to see that, but that's my prediction. His has good name recognition.

I think folks are wrong to think that Hillary is the candidate that Republicans want to see on the ballot next fall. Perhaps it's true, but it's certainly not a good move. She has lots of name recognition, and that plays big in any election.

I also don't know that Edwards is quite done yet. Perhaps. But I wouldn't rule out at least a mild rally.

Then again, I'm still waiting to hear about the major differences between the Dems. I don't think there are any, just as I don't see many differences in the Republicans.

 

Honestly, there's really not much of a difference between Hillary and Obama. I think both would be fine Presidents, but I guess they have to attack each other since they agree on almost every issue.

 

You can keep saying that, but it isn't true.

It was a quote from Obama that was on Sullivan's site.