coemgen
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Hillary, Romney.
Yes. I expect them both to lose, too.
Yes. I expect them both to lose, too.
MERGED--> NH predictions + Hillary's win + NH recount?
- Thread starter 2861U2
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
verte76
Blue Crack Addict
You think Hillary will win? I'm still hoping that Edwards will win. Huckabee's got the momentum going from Iowa.
verte76
Blue Crack Addict
McCain winning in New Hampshire? He hasn't been doing well at all.
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
Should be a good turnout- unseasonably warmer temps predicted and no rain. There's a debate tonight.
Washington Post
By Dan Balz
NASHUA, N.H. -- There was a sense of urgency in Hillary Clinton's voice when she opened her first post-Iowa rally in an airplane hangar early Friday morning -- and a look of concern on the face of the man who introduced her, former President Bill Clinton.
New Hampshire and its presidential primary are familiar territory to the Clintons -- not at all like the inhospitable landscape of the flatlands of Iowa and what the Clintons regard as that state's quirky caucus process. They see it as the right place at the right time. They may be in for a surprise.
After finishing third in Iowa behind Barack Obama and -- marginally -- John Edwards, Clinton and her husband launched what they hope is a comeback with an open plea to voters in the Granite State.
The former president leveled a not-so-subtle dig at Iowa as he introduced his wife. "Ladies and gentlemen," Bill Clinton said, "New Hampshire is going to be given the chance to prove that you are the first [pause for emphasis] primary. You're going to be given a chance to show your well known and deeply deserved independent judgment."
What the Clintons fear is a rush to judgment, an Iowa-driven rush to back Obama's candidacy after his decisive victory in Iowa. They want to slow the momentum, force New Hampshire voters to think twice before jumping aboard the Obama bandwagon and prod Democrats and independents here to do what they have done many times in the past by defying conventional wisdom.
New Hampshire saved Bill Clinton's candidacy in 1992 by awarding him a second place after his support had plummeted over Gennifer Flowers and the draft. Hillary Clinton will need more than a second-place finish to put her hopes for the nomination back on track. Back-to-back losses will leave her crippled.
But compare the states of Iowa and New Hampshire and the landscape looks far less favorable for Clinton. The reality is, this is the state that always set up best for Obama, even when he was struggling here. The demographics and political culture lean more in the direction of Obama than toward Clinton. His goal now is to realize the potential that the electorate in New Hampshire offers.
Look first at Iowa and where Obama did best. According to the National Election Poll entranced poll, Obama enjoyed a margin of better than 2-1 over Clinton among independents. He won overwhelmingly among young voters between the ages of 17 and 29 and among voters between the ages of 30 and 44. He was the clear choice of liberals. He beat Clinton decisively among voters with incomes above $75,000.
The entrance poll questionnaire did not ask respondents to say how much education they had, so that critical measurement of the electorate is missing. But the Iowa Poll published two days before the caucuses in the Des Moines Register, which nearly nailed his victory margin exactly, showed Obama the clear choice of those with college degrees.
In virtually every demographic category where Obama found his greatest strength in Iowa, New Hampshire's electorate has at least as many or more of those voters, based on a comparison of the entrance polls from Thursday's caucuses in Iowa and from the 2004 Democratic primary in Hampshire.
Take independents. They constituted 20 percent of the caucus electorate in Iowa on Thursday, but four years ago in New Hampshire they constituted nearly half (48 percent) of the Democratic electorate.
Some seasonal adjustment may be necessary because there was no competitive Republican primary in 2004 to siphon off some of those independent voters. But even in 2000, when John McCain was swept to victory on the strength of big support from independents, the electorate in the Democratic primary between Al Gore and Bill Bradley was 40 percent independents.
Older voters were Clinton's friends in Iowa, not Obama's, and in the caucuses they accounted for 22 percent of the participants. In New Hampshire four years ago, voters over age 65 represented just 11 percent of thee Democratic electorate.
Younger voters accounted for a larger share of the Iowa electorate on Thursday night than they did in New Hampshire in 2004 -- but that may be attributable to the Obama campaign's efforts to encourage college students and even 17-year-olds to participate in the caucuses. That pushed their share of the electorate up over 2004 in Iowa and the same could happen here.
Even without data from the Iowa entrance poll, it is a well-documented fact that New Hampshire's electorate is one of the best-educated of any of the states with early primaries or caucuses. That should help Obama, although in the most recent CNN/WMUR-TV poll by the University of New Hampshire, Obama and Clinton are running pretty evenly among those with college degrees or more.
Clinton's team has long believed they could offset many of those demographic disadvantages with strong support among women in New Hampshire. Women accounted for 54 percent of the electorate here in 2004 and 62 percent in 2000 and in the most recent CNN/WMUR poll, Clinton held an 11-point lead among them.
Look too at past history. It's true that New Hampshire has often favored insurgents or underdogs over front-runners, but that has been the case most often when front-runners were establishment Democrats. Walter Mondale was the establishment front-runner who swept Iowa but lost to insurgent Gary Hart. Al Gore, the establishment front-runner in 2000, trounced Bill Bradley in Iowa but struggled to win New Hampshire.
Clinton will smartly cast herself as the underdog in the final days in New Hampshire and no one knows better than her husband how to put on a stretch drive in this state. But not everything sets up for the senator for New York here, which is why she faces such an enormous struggle over the next four days.
Washington Post
By Dan Balz
NASHUA, N.H. -- There was a sense of urgency in Hillary Clinton's voice when she opened her first post-Iowa rally in an airplane hangar early Friday morning -- and a look of concern on the face of the man who introduced her, former President Bill Clinton.
New Hampshire and its presidential primary are familiar territory to the Clintons -- not at all like the inhospitable landscape of the flatlands of Iowa and what the Clintons regard as that state's quirky caucus process. They see it as the right place at the right time. They may be in for a surprise.
After finishing third in Iowa behind Barack Obama and -- marginally -- John Edwards, Clinton and her husband launched what they hope is a comeback with an open plea to voters in the Granite State.
The former president leveled a not-so-subtle dig at Iowa as he introduced his wife. "Ladies and gentlemen," Bill Clinton said, "New Hampshire is going to be given the chance to prove that you are the first [pause for emphasis] primary. You're going to be given a chance to show your well known and deeply deserved independent judgment."
What the Clintons fear is a rush to judgment, an Iowa-driven rush to back Obama's candidacy after his decisive victory in Iowa. They want to slow the momentum, force New Hampshire voters to think twice before jumping aboard the Obama bandwagon and prod Democrats and independents here to do what they have done many times in the past by defying conventional wisdom.
New Hampshire saved Bill Clinton's candidacy in 1992 by awarding him a second place after his support had plummeted over Gennifer Flowers and the draft. Hillary Clinton will need more than a second-place finish to put her hopes for the nomination back on track. Back-to-back losses will leave her crippled.
But compare the states of Iowa and New Hampshire and the landscape looks far less favorable for Clinton. The reality is, this is the state that always set up best for Obama, even when he was struggling here. The demographics and political culture lean more in the direction of Obama than toward Clinton. His goal now is to realize the potential that the electorate in New Hampshire offers.
Look first at Iowa and where Obama did best. According to the National Election Poll entranced poll, Obama enjoyed a margin of better than 2-1 over Clinton among independents. He won overwhelmingly among young voters between the ages of 17 and 29 and among voters between the ages of 30 and 44. He was the clear choice of liberals. He beat Clinton decisively among voters with incomes above $75,000.
The entrance poll questionnaire did not ask respondents to say how much education they had, so that critical measurement of the electorate is missing. But the Iowa Poll published two days before the caucuses in the Des Moines Register, which nearly nailed his victory margin exactly, showed Obama the clear choice of those with college degrees.
In virtually every demographic category where Obama found his greatest strength in Iowa, New Hampshire's electorate has at least as many or more of those voters, based on a comparison of the entrance polls from Thursday's caucuses in Iowa and from the 2004 Democratic primary in Hampshire.
Take independents. They constituted 20 percent of the caucus electorate in Iowa on Thursday, but four years ago in New Hampshire they constituted nearly half (48 percent) of the Democratic electorate.
Some seasonal adjustment may be necessary because there was no competitive Republican primary in 2004 to siphon off some of those independent voters. But even in 2000, when John McCain was swept to victory on the strength of big support from independents, the electorate in the Democratic primary between Al Gore and Bill Bradley was 40 percent independents.
Older voters were Clinton's friends in Iowa, not Obama's, and in the caucuses they accounted for 22 percent of the participants. In New Hampshire four years ago, voters over age 65 represented just 11 percent of thee Democratic electorate.
Younger voters accounted for a larger share of the Iowa electorate on Thursday night than they did in New Hampshire in 2004 -- but that may be attributable to the Obama campaign's efforts to encourage college students and even 17-year-olds to participate in the caucuses. That pushed their share of the electorate up over 2004 in Iowa and the same could happen here.
Even without data from the Iowa entrance poll, it is a well-documented fact that New Hampshire's electorate is one of the best-educated of any of the states with early primaries or caucuses. That should help Obama, although in the most recent CNN/WMUR-TV poll by the University of New Hampshire, Obama and Clinton are running pretty evenly among those with college degrees or more.
Clinton's team has long believed they could offset many of those demographic disadvantages with strong support among women in New Hampshire. Women accounted for 54 percent of the electorate here in 2004 and 62 percent in 2000 and in the most recent CNN/WMUR poll, Clinton held an 11-point lead among them.
Look too at past history. It's true that New Hampshire has often favored insurgents or underdogs over front-runners, but that has been the case most often when front-runners were establishment Democrats. Walter Mondale was the establishment front-runner who swept Iowa but lost to insurgent Gary Hart. Al Gore, the establishment front-runner in 2000, trounced Bill Bradley in Iowa but struggled to win New Hampshire.
Clinton will smartly cast herself as the underdog in the final days in New Hampshire and no one knows better than her husband how to put on a stretch drive in this state. But not everything sets up for the senator for New York here, which is why she faces such an enormous struggle over the next four days.
maycocksean
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
I'm predicting Obama-McCain. I think the energy his campaign had in Iowa will carry over into NH.
gherman
New Yorker
LETS CHANGE THIS COUNTRY FOR THE GOOD AND VOTE RON PAUL!!!!!
verte76 said:
McCain has worked to a virtual tie in the polls.
I do not believe he will win because the independant vote is breaking towards Obama as I said last night.
THis mornings polls that Anitram posted indicates the independant sway towards Obama is waaaaayyyy more than I had anticipated.
I am now thinking Obama - Hillary 2nd. Romney - McCain 2nd.
The reason McCain won NH in 2000 was the independants chose to vote Republican and for him. THis time, they are breaking Obama's way.
anitram said:
That is a huge turn around for Obama in New Hampshire. The last poll prior to Iowa had Hillary up by 16 points, now Obama is up by 10 points. McCain is up on Romney by 5 points. None of the other Democratic polls have been updated since Christmas, so it should be interesting next week when some new data comes out on the other early states as well as nationally. Hillary may have to adopt the Giuliani strategy if things keep going Obama's way.
Providing that Rasmussen poll was accurate, and unless something dramatic happens in the debates tonight, Obama wins easily in New Hampshire. The next test for him is Michigan(January 15) where Hillary was up by 31 points in the last poll which was from early November.
OP
OP
2861U2
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
I think the debate tonight could still have some influence. Hillary has always seemed to do much better than Obama in the debates. While Obama may do fine giving long speeches, he isn't as impressive giving short, direct answers.
You can almost guarentee she and Edwards will be going after Obama tonight.
You can almost guarentee she and Edwards will be going after Obama tonight.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
Dreadsox said:
and this is why Obama would beat McCain in the general.
are you going to go for a 70 year old who happily says he'll keep troops in Iraq for the next 100 years, or are you going to vote for a youthful, splendid looking orator who looks like the face of the future and not the ROTC side of the 1960s past?
OP
OP
2861U2
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Irvine511 said:
Or you could look at it this way:
Are you going to vote for an experienced, tested military man who has over a quarter-century history in Congress, countless political friends and has proven he can reach across the aisle (not to mention supports victory in Iraq) or the young, new guy who hasn't done any of that stuff, but can give a speech?
phillyfan26
Blue Crack Supplier
- Joined
- May 7, 2006
- Messages
- 30,343
2861U2 said:
It's not about supporting "victory" in Iraq. At all.
OP
OP
2861U2
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Irvine511 said:
I'm not so sure. The head-to-head matchups I've seen are about even. Assuming Obama gets the nomination, I'm confident that in the next 10 months, the Obama hype will cool down. I think as people research him beyond his charisma, by summer he will look, seem and act just like every other politician that he continuously insists he is not. I know all Obama likes to talk about is change and hope and the future. That's fine and all, but that alone won't carry him to November. He's going to have to prove himself and show he knows what he's talking about. I just don't know if he's got it in him.
Last edited:
2861U2 said:
In head-to-head matchups in most places Hillary was way ahead and she's still way ahead nationally.
All of the energy and momentum is on Obama's side. If he's figured out how to get the youth to vote, and the independents, it will be over.
The base hates McCain. There is no more solid and dependable group of voters than evangelicals. Why would they vote for McCain when they find him as transparent as a cheap piece of glass.
If McCain doesn't win NH, I think he's done.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
2861U2 said:
All of that experience and he still let idiot Bush smack him in the face. Yep, that's who I want as my president.
Clinton Operation vs. Obama Movement
By Major Garrett
MILFORD, N.H. — In politics there are operations and movements.
There is an operation in every campaign and the best one always wins. Unless it comes up against a movement.
Operations understand the fundamentals of a campaign and execute them with awe-inspiring precision — everything from the candidate’s message and TV ads, to voter identification and mobilization, to interest group wooing and massaging, to on-site bunting and balloons.
In a national campaign this is a massive undertaking. Getting all these fundamentals right signals important attributes about a future president: discipline, organization, vision and diligence — they always have and always will.
Movements, however, are different and they can sometimes rise up and challenge superior political operations. Movements possess passionate supporters, one or two over-arching causes and a leader with genuine charisma who can attract people even without the well-financed voter identification efforts possessed by a rival’s “operation.”
Movements can be powerful and movements can win. But in my experience, most movements die because they can’t sustain themselves against the overwhelming pressure applied by a superior national “operation.”
I’ve witnessed the following movements come and go: Dean in 2004, Pat Buchanan in 1996 and Ross Perot in 1992.
They all lost. In fact, they didn’t come close. They touched a chord, drew big crowds, attracted massive press coverage and even drove important issues into the debate (Dean the Iraq war, Buchanan trade, Perot the deficit). But they all lost to the superior operations because one or many things broke down, chief among them the leader’s inability to broaden the audience beyond the original “movement” believers.
What we are seeing in the Democratic race for the presidency, I am now convinced, is a movement that may in fact succeed.
It is the Obama movement.
The results in Iowa expanded the known universe of what was possible in Democratic Party politics. Some of the party’s most brilliant and successful leaders have competed in Iowa (save for Bill Clinton, but I’ll be back to him in a minute), and not one of them came close to doing what Barack Obama achieved on Thursday with his win over Hillary Clinton. What everyone thought they knew about Iowa and the caucuses is now irrelevant. Obama changed the game and changed it forever. That is a massive, movement-like accomplishment and what’s even more amazing is this: Obama said it was possible and it happened.
The distance between theory and reality is often what crushes movement because what is dreamed for rarely comes to pass. It did in Iowa and that matters not only at a political level, it matters enormously at a psychological level because movements thrive on the intangible emotional synergy of hope, aspirations and dewy-eyed dreaming — yes, all those things wise observers of politics have long scorned because they flame out and die so frequently.
What’s different about Obama and this moment is the movement has operational tendencies, which is to say it doesn’t live off of its good intentions and good vibrations. This movement gets in the trenches and fights it out — but on its terms, with its gusto and with its inventive tactical precision.
Never was that on display more clearly than at the 100 Club Dinner here Friday night. This is the New Hampshire Democratic Party’s big celebration. It was held in a big dome covering a football field surrounded by a synthetic running track — the biggest venue ever for the event.
What you need to understand about the dinner and the venue is this: it was supposed to be a Clinton room.
The Clinton brand name among Democrats is golden. The party love affair goes back to before 1992 when the Clintons first began campaigning for the White House in 1991. The legend of “The Comeback Kid” and Bill and Hill’s regular and celebratory visits back to the state throughout their presidency and thereafter have made them something akin the party royalty here.
So last night was the perfect night for the Clinton operation to demonstrate that Iowa was a fluke, New Hampshire is home and things will be different on primary Tuesday.
It didn’t happen. The operation tried but just like in Iowa it lost to the Obama movement.
Hillary Clinton’s tables were well within camera range of the TV riser and far closer to the stage than the Obama tables (this is what you can do when your operation seeks to own the room). The Obama tables were on the far end of the domed facility, near the trailers holding the portable toilets.
When Clinton hit the stage, her well-positioned supporters rose up en masse and waved her signs carrying her new one word slogan: “Ready.” It was an impressive crowd and full of energy. By standard operational measurement, it all worked really well. The crowd was bunched right before the TV riser and the “Ready” placards waved happily before the cameras and Clinton beamed at what must have felt like a warm and nerve-soothing homecoming of sorts.
But the first indication of trouble came when she warned that Democrats must not be beguiled by “false hopes” (an obvious shot at Obama) and a ripple of boos arose from the Obama tables.
Clinton’s stump speech was warmly received — of that there can be no doubt — and she certainly appeared to have charmed if not won the room (after all, it was supposed to be hers).
Then Bill Richardson spoke and the Obama movement swung into action.
As Richardson boomed about ending the war in Iraq, team Obama pre-positioned men, women and young adults with Obama signs smack-dab in front of the stage. Hundreds upon hundreds marched silently and cheerfully (some were literally dancing barely suppressed jigs) from their distant tables and into the center of the “football” field, clogging all available space and encircling the tables of the amazed and slightly disconcerted Clinton supporters.
As soon as Richardson finished and Obama was waiting to be announced, Obama supporters hefted placards in bouncing waves and began chanting “Fired Up, Ready to Go” as the fire marshals frantically raced around to keep lanes open for people to walk around the TV riser. Rhythmic chants of “Obama” also arose in the arena as the round O-shaped Obama placards appeared to float by the hundreds in mid-air creating a mesmerizing sea of Obama signs that rocked and rolled before an empty stage.
So intense was the crowd up front, that an announcement was made that Obama wouldn’t be brought out until the crowd returned to their distant seats in Siberia. The Obama legions booed, made a token move away from the stage, but largely held their ground.
When Obama took the stage the response was thunderous and jubilant, three times as loud as that for Clinton. Obama said “Thank you” as a means to quiet the crowd, one woman yelled out “Thank YOU” and the crowd burst out in a roar and cheer.
“In four days you can do what Iowa did last night,” Obama said.
Obama, his voice hoarse, moved through an abbreviated stump speech and called for “one nation, one people.”
“We started last night, attracting not only the tried and true Democrat, but the independent and the Republican.”
On this night, the speeches mattered less than the moment. And at an event filled with party die-hards supposedly devoted body and soul to Hillary and the Clinton cause, the Obama demonstration generated more body and more soul and rolled over the Clinton operation like a tractor tire over an anthill.
And that is why I believe we are witnessing the birth of a movement that may be on the verge of defeating an operation. That would be rare enough on its own. But this particular contest is of generational importance because the Clinton operation is the most formidable modern American politics has ever seen and it would take quite a movement to knock it down.
And in Milford, on Clinton’s best turf, it did.
By Major Garrett
MILFORD, N.H. — In politics there are operations and movements.
There is an operation in every campaign and the best one always wins. Unless it comes up against a movement.
Operations understand the fundamentals of a campaign and execute them with awe-inspiring precision — everything from the candidate’s message and TV ads, to voter identification and mobilization, to interest group wooing and massaging, to on-site bunting and balloons.
In a national campaign this is a massive undertaking. Getting all these fundamentals right signals important attributes about a future president: discipline, organization, vision and diligence — they always have and always will.
Movements, however, are different and they can sometimes rise up and challenge superior political operations. Movements possess passionate supporters, one or two over-arching causes and a leader with genuine charisma who can attract people even without the well-financed voter identification efforts possessed by a rival’s “operation.”
Movements can be powerful and movements can win. But in my experience, most movements die because they can’t sustain themselves against the overwhelming pressure applied by a superior national “operation.”
I’ve witnessed the following movements come and go: Dean in 2004, Pat Buchanan in 1996 and Ross Perot in 1992.
They all lost. In fact, they didn’t come close. They touched a chord, drew big crowds, attracted massive press coverage and even drove important issues into the debate (Dean the Iraq war, Buchanan trade, Perot the deficit). But they all lost to the superior operations because one or many things broke down, chief among them the leader’s inability to broaden the audience beyond the original “movement” believers.
What we are seeing in the Democratic race for the presidency, I am now convinced, is a movement that may in fact succeed.
It is the Obama movement.
The results in Iowa expanded the known universe of what was possible in Democratic Party politics. Some of the party’s most brilliant and successful leaders have competed in Iowa (save for Bill Clinton, but I’ll be back to him in a minute), and not one of them came close to doing what Barack Obama achieved on Thursday with his win over Hillary Clinton. What everyone thought they knew about Iowa and the caucuses is now irrelevant. Obama changed the game and changed it forever. That is a massive, movement-like accomplishment and what’s even more amazing is this: Obama said it was possible and it happened.
The distance between theory and reality is often what crushes movement because what is dreamed for rarely comes to pass. It did in Iowa and that matters not only at a political level, it matters enormously at a psychological level because movements thrive on the intangible emotional synergy of hope, aspirations and dewy-eyed dreaming — yes, all those things wise observers of politics have long scorned because they flame out and die so frequently.
What’s different about Obama and this moment is the movement has operational tendencies, which is to say it doesn’t live off of its good intentions and good vibrations. This movement gets in the trenches and fights it out — but on its terms, with its gusto and with its inventive tactical precision.
Never was that on display more clearly than at the 100 Club Dinner here Friday night. This is the New Hampshire Democratic Party’s big celebration. It was held in a big dome covering a football field surrounded by a synthetic running track — the biggest venue ever for the event.
What you need to understand about the dinner and the venue is this: it was supposed to be a Clinton room.
The Clinton brand name among Democrats is golden. The party love affair goes back to before 1992 when the Clintons first began campaigning for the White House in 1991. The legend of “The Comeback Kid” and Bill and Hill’s regular and celebratory visits back to the state throughout their presidency and thereafter have made them something akin the party royalty here.
So last night was the perfect night for the Clinton operation to demonstrate that Iowa was a fluke, New Hampshire is home and things will be different on primary Tuesday.
It didn’t happen. The operation tried but just like in Iowa it lost to the Obama movement.
Hillary Clinton’s tables were well within camera range of the TV riser and far closer to the stage than the Obama tables (this is what you can do when your operation seeks to own the room). The Obama tables were on the far end of the domed facility, near the trailers holding the portable toilets.
When Clinton hit the stage, her well-positioned supporters rose up en masse and waved her signs carrying her new one word slogan: “Ready.” It was an impressive crowd and full of energy. By standard operational measurement, it all worked really well. The crowd was bunched right before the TV riser and the “Ready” placards waved happily before the cameras and Clinton beamed at what must have felt like a warm and nerve-soothing homecoming of sorts.
But the first indication of trouble came when she warned that Democrats must not be beguiled by “false hopes” (an obvious shot at Obama) and a ripple of boos arose from the Obama tables.
Clinton’s stump speech was warmly received — of that there can be no doubt — and she certainly appeared to have charmed if not won the room (after all, it was supposed to be hers).
Then Bill Richardson spoke and the Obama movement swung into action.
As Richardson boomed about ending the war in Iraq, team Obama pre-positioned men, women and young adults with Obama signs smack-dab in front of the stage. Hundreds upon hundreds marched silently and cheerfully (some were literally dancing barely suppressed jigs) from their distant tables and into the center of the “football” field, clogging all available space and encircling the tables of the amazed and slightly disconcerted Clinton supporters.
As soon as Richardson finished and Obama was waiting to be announced, Obama supporters hefted placards in bouncing waves and began chanting “Fired Up, Ready to Go” as the fire marshals frantically raced around to keep lanes open for people to walk around the TV riser. Rhythmic chants of “Obama” also arose in the arena as the round O-shaped Obama placards appeared to float by the hundreds in mid-air creating a mesmerizing sea of Obama signs that rocked and rolled before an empty stage.
So intense was the crowd up front, that an announcement was made that Obama wouldn’t be brought out until the crowd returned to their distant seats in Siberia. The Obama legions booed, made a token move away from the stage, but largely held their ground.
When Obama took the stage the response was thunderous and jubilant, three times as loud as that for Clinton. Obama said “Thank you” as a means to quiet the crowd, one woman yelled out “Thank YOU” and the crowd burst out in a roar and cheer.
“In four days you can do what Iowa did last night,” Obama said.
Obama, his voice hoarse, moved through an abbreviated stump speech and called for “one nation, one people.”
“We started last night, attracting not only the tried and true Democrat, but the independent and the Republican.”
On this night, the speeches mattered less than the moment. And at an event filled with party die-hards supposedly devoted body and soul to Hillary and the Clinton cause, the Obama demonstration generated more body and more soul and rolled over the Clinton operation like a tractor tire over an anthill.
And that is why I believe we are witnessing the birth of a movement that may be on the verge of defeating an operation. That would be rare enough on its own. But this particular contest is of generational importance because the Clinton operation is the most formidable modern American politics has ever seen and it would take quite a movement to knock it down.
And in Milford, on Clinton’s best turf, it did.
Over at CSPAN, there's a 3-hour-ish, unedited clip of the entire 100 Club Dinner you can watch online.
If you cue to the 2:40 spot, enjoy the Obama chants competing with "Where the Streets Have No Name" and then Obama entering to "City of Blinding Lights."
The speech is solid, and the crowd response incredible.
Apparently, Obama fans rushed the stage, rock-concert style. Quite a show.
Looking forward to the debates tonight, but really looking for to Tuesday's returns.
If you cue to the 2:40 spot, enjoy the Obama chants competing with "Where the Streets Have No Name" and then Obama entering to "City of Blinding Lights."
The speech is solid, and the crowd response incredible.
Apparently, Obama fans rushed the stage, rock-concert style. Quite a show.
Looking forward to the debates tonight, but really looking for to Tuesday's returns.
U2isthebest
ONE love, blood, life
^^That's a fascinating article. I've never heard the movement vs. operation comparison before, but I love it.
OP
OP
2861U2
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
BonoVoxSupastar said:
All of that experience and he still let idiot Bush smack him in the face. Yep, that's who I want as my president.
What, a guy can't lose in a primary without his entire political credentials going out the window?
phillyfan26
Blue Crack Supplier
- Joined
- May 7, 2006
- Messages
- 30,343
It's not the fact that it was a primary ... it's the fact that it was George W. Bush.
More Obama promise:
Barack Rolls: Two New Polls Show Obama Opening Up Big Lead in New Hampshire
By E&P Staff
Published: January 05, 2008 4:50 PM ET
NEW YORK The first two poll results based on survey taken in New Hampshire after the Iowa caucuses both show Barack Obama opening up a double digit lead over previous leader Hillary Clinton.
The new American Research Group poll gives Obama a 12-point lead over Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire, 38% to 26%, a 16% swing since the previous poll. John Edwards moved up on Clinton, at 20%, gaining 5% from his previous percentage.
Most interesting detail deep in the ARG numbers: Hillary actually leads Obama 34% to 32% among confirmed Democrats, while he tops her 49% to 12% among independents, which may make up one-third of the tally.
Earlier today the new Rasmussen survey emerged showing a surprising, but now possibly confirmed, 10% Obama lead. Edwards trailed badly in that one.
Barack Rolls: Two New Polls Show Obama Opening Up Big Lead in New Hampshire
By E&P Staff
Published: January 05, 2008 4:50 PM ET
NEW YORK The first two poll results based on survey taken in New Hampshire after the Iowa caucuses both show Barack Obama opening up a double digit lead over previous leader Hillary Clinton.
The new American Research Group poll gives Obama a 12-point lead over Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire, 38% to 26%, a 16% swing since the previous poll. John Edwards moved up on Clinton, at 20%, gaining 5% from his previous percentage.
Most interesting detail deep in the ARG numbers: Hillary actually leads Obama 34% to 32% among confirmed Democrats, while he tops her 49% to 12% among independents, which may make up one-third of the tally.
Earlier today the new Rasmussen survey emerged showing a surprising, but now possibly confirmed, 10% Obama lead. Edwards trailed badly in that one.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
2861U2 said:
Yeah, that's what I said.
He lost in a very embarassing way in 2000, his own campaign had financial issues already this time around, and he's kissing too much evangelical ass...
This doesn't speak well of his experience to me. Experience doesn't automatically make you a leader.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
2861U2 said:
my problem with McCain -- who i'd still prefer over all the other Republicans -- isn't even so much with his Iraq views, and how he shamelessly uses the troops to score political points.
it's what the Bush/Rove machine did to him in 2000 and the fact that the two men loathe each other, and yet McCain completely and totally whored himself out to Bush in 2004 under the agreement that he'd get his support in 2008:
