Like you, I'm waiting to see what those so-important New Hampshire voters are going to do. After chasing the candidates--all of them!--around the state for nearly a week, today is a day of calm. The candidates tend to do little, other than visit polling places and shake hands. There won't be any speeches, there will be few press releases blasting an opponent. No one wants to make any last-minute mistake. There's often an eerie calm on Election Day. So below are some reflections first posted on MotherJones.com on what a loss might mean for Hillary Clinton's presidential ambitions.
ELECTION DAY IN NH: HILLARY'S LAST HURRAH?
Last night, at a rally near the Manchester airport, Hillary Clinton packed 'em in. A thousand or so people listened to her deliver a long speech outlining virtually every policy position she has ever mentioned during the campaign. On one level, it was an impressive performance. She demonstrated a command of policy and facts. She spoke passionately about her intellectual passions. On another level, it was, perhaps, too much too late. As at least two reporters in the room --including Mickey Kaus--quipped, it seemed she was delivering a State of the Union speech, particularly the sort that her husband use to give. Remember how he would go over a long laundry list of policy proposals? One of the biggest cheers of the night came when she said that if elected president she would make sure the federal student aide form wouldn't be too long.
This was as good as she gets. The crowd was pumped--though it did lose some energy as she went on and on. (And on Election Day eve, you don't want to tire out supporters who have to get up early the next morning and start working for you.) She pointed out that she was the candidate who was strong enough and experienced enough to deliver the change that the American electorate yearns for. But she took no pot shots at her opponents. "Time to tell her story," a Clinton aide said to me.
It's not such a bad story. And did the size of the crowd indicate she might just be able to pull out a win in New Hampshire? Once upon a time--that would be sixteen years ago--another Clinton became the self-proclaimed "comeback kid" of New Hampshire. (That was after placing second in New Hampshire. Talk about chutzpah!) There's no reporter in New Hampshire I've spoken to who thinks that HRC can pull it out. Instead, we discuss how big Barack Obama's win will be--and what the point spread will mean. Some political commentators claim that if Clinton can hold him to a 6-point or less win, she can claim a moral victory. I dunno. Seems to me that whatever the win is, as long as it's more than a close call, the important statistic will be this: 2 for 2.
At their morning and afternoon events yesterday, Obama continued to soar, preaching his politics of hope, and Clinton continued to blast away at him, using weak ammo. His events were jammed. Hers (until the evening rally) were not. At a gym in Dover, there was an embarrassingly small crowd, and a Politico reporter spent an hour trying to find young pro-Clinton voters in the room. She failed. At the opera house in Rochester, hundreds of people waited in the cold for Obama, and then many did not get in.
I'm not making any prediction. But I would be stunned if Obama does not end this day with a commanding lead. And the key question of the Democratic race will only become sharper: what is she to do? I keep saying this: he's selling vision, she's selling vegetables. You can't beat vision by saying my vegetables are better yours--especially if the consumers are in the mood for vision.
And where can she stop him? In Nevada, which will hold a caucus on January 19? That caucus--a first-time event in the state--will likely be quite small. And the one political powerhouse in the state--the culinary workers union--seems poised to endorse Obama. (That endorsement could come on Wednesday.) Nevada might easily become Obama's third in a row. So South Carolina? It's hard to envision the dominant African-American vote in that state not flowing to a sweeping Obama. Some pundits floating about New Hampshire are saying Clinton ought to pull out of South Carolina. If she did, she would appear weak. But if she looses there, she would appear weak. She has no good choices in South Carolina.
That leaves Super Duper Tuesday on February 5 as the place for Clinton to make her final stand, if the Obama wave doesn't crash on its own. That's a long way off. Then again, it's in less than a month. In a way, she's being forced into a Rudy Giuliani strategy: loose all the initial bouts and then shoot the moon in the near-national primary. It's a tough model for success. Will she be able to beat back Obama in California, the key prize of February 5?
Politics is a fluid business. But things, at the moment, do seem grim for the Clinton gang. So maybe Kaus was right, and last night Clinton delivered her fantasy State of the Union speech because she realizes she might never get to do it for real.
![[RSS]](http://67.192.49.194/templates/images/rss_icon.gif){kind=icon}
Comments
Hopefully, I will not offend, but it seems that you are pontificating quite a bit about Hillary "loosing" this primary. I am not quite sure if she'll "loose" it as much as she may lose it to Obama.
Posted by: Ed
| January 8, 2008 11:23 AM
As much as I consider Ms. Clinton a truly mendacious character, I still believe she has the best chance to best the Republicans in the fall. At some point during the general election, the candidates are going to have to stop talking about "change" and start talking specifics. I think Ms. Clinton is much closer to the middle of American politics in that regard, and, like it or not, it is the middle who elect candidates.
I believe the Republicans to be reveling in the Obama candidacy. Of course, there is the old adage about being careful about what one wishes for.
Tom
Posted by: Tomcantu
| January 8, 2008 1:29 PM
I cannot imagine a scenario where any of the GOPhers could win the top slot.
I also couldn't imagine Bush winning against Gore or Kerry so my predictions stink.
The GOP have the inside scoop. Wiretaps and reading emails - not so much for anything specific but for popular trends and potential weak points in the opposition.
Bush has packed the courts and the US attorney offices with loyalists so any challenge wil be met with denial, distraction, delay and the rest.
What would stop them from stealing the election and standing there saying (again) that any question about election fraud is just "sour grapes" and "we have been through this before" followed by promises of investigations and reform.
Based on the performance of the democratic leadership - anything less than super-majorities in the house and senate and a dem in the WH will mean they can’t move forward a progessive agenda anyway.
The GOP is not above changing their message into whatever sells if they can retain the power or at least make the repeated theft of power seem somewhat plausible. It is like we have to prove “beyond reasonable doubt” that elections fraud occured AFTER the fact and AFTER the results have changed the political landscape AGAINST the will of the people.
Gore won Florida - America lost the election in 2000. It will likely happen again.
Posted by: capt
| January 8, 2008 2:03 PM
Like I said before when correcting Corn, Mccain will be GOP winner and will crush Obama or Hillary in the general.
Posted by: LBH
| January 8, 2008 4:41 PM
The GOP have the inside scoop. Wiretaps and reading emails -
I believe it was Jim McDermont (D-Washington) that was sued and lost for violating federal law regarding knowingly distributing illegally obtained wire and electronic communications.
But, lets not let the facts get in the way here?
Posted by: LBH
| January 8, 2008 4:50 PM
Romney Backs Bush's Approach to Wiretapping
The Des Moines Register ran a story Thursday about how Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney while on the campaign trail defended President Bush's approach to wiretapping.
The story failed to mention any details about the terms on which the wiretapping has been conducted.
****
Curious, no mention of anybody wiretapping except Bush?
Those pesky stupid facts, eh?
If you want to be taken seriously you have to try to sound a little bit honest and a little bit serious.
Just a thought.
Posted by: capt
| January 8, 2008 5:03 PM
Oh - snap!
It is only a crime if the person is caugh, convicted, and NOT commuted or pardoned (in the Bush conman reality) .
A criminal enterprise with the supporting dupes.
How pathetic can you get?
Posted by: capt
| January 8, 2008 5:09 PM
Oh - snap!
It is only a crime if the person is caugh, convicted, and NOT commuted or pardoned (in the Bush conman reality)
Hey knuckle head - Jim McDermont was caught and convicted - Snap!
Now, are you whining about the Bush FISA bill that the Democratic controlled congress passed? Go snap on that for a while~
Posted by: LBH
| January 8, 2008 7:38 PM
In Tuesday evening's New Hampshire primary results, Clinton and her special interest party won tonight over the party of the people.
The people of New Hampshire stood in long lines to vote and the exit polls were not wrong and the pollster were not wrong, by all rights Obama should have won New Hampshire, but the special interest groups pulled another rabbit out of their hat and gave the victory to Clinton. The earlier results where there were paper ballots the victory went to Obama in a very large margin, with the voting machines Clinton got the victory. This same scenario happened to Gore and Kerry. The exit polls and pollster saying one thing and the machines saying another. That is why people cannot trust their government, and until we have voting machines that are fool proof and tamper proof and go go back to elections with paper ballots, like in Iowa, we cannot really trust our election results.
On the eve of the election, Hillary played her poor me, self-pity act (her so-called authentic moment) and Media complicit in this charade, played this teary-eyed Hillary over and over again to get out the "sympathy vote", which she did, but neglecting the air the piece right afterwards in which she lashes out at Barack Obama . This policy blunder will be huge ammonition for the Republicans if she wins the nomination. This "teary-eyed" piece will be aired over and over again in campaign commercials; citing her as to weak and to unstable to lead the country. A big mistake for her!
Change is hard, but Senator Obama will continue on with his message of hope and change. The special interst groups do not want to give up their power and they will do everything they can to keep power in their hands and out of the people's hands. Deciding who to back, be it Republican or Democrat as long as they serve their ends. Eventually the people will win and we will keep on fighting.
President Clinton, a man supposedly of honor, distorted and took out of context words Senator Obama's spoke at the 2004 Democratic Convention about his stance on the Iraq war. Do we really want people like that in the White House who will lie and distort for their own selfish gains? Or do we want a man of goodwill and integrity in the White House a man more concerned about you than himself. It is no easy to task for a man to risk his life for you because he answers the call to make America better and to take it to a higher ground.
When President Clinton achieved his Presidency, he took a lot of Democrats down. They had record loss in both the Senate and the Congress and the tone of Washington, D.C, was divisive and nasty, and a Hillary Presidency will do the same and we will have lost our moment to come together as one.
Much is at stake, we are at a crossroads. Change is hard because the media is in their pockets; the voting machines cannot be trusted. We can only HOPE! God bless this county!
Posted by: bacaangel
| January 9, 2008 2:27 AM
Post A Comment