People are genuinely hungry for change, and Obama/Edwards reflect that. Bill Richardson is not a stupid man, and knows which way the wind is blowing. It ain't towards Hillary...

I think the deal was real, and TPMelectioncentral.com has video of samantha powers on fox admitting it. oops.

I am also concerned with the notion that alot of republican support went to obama as an anti-hillary vote. it would be nice to believe the movement of all repubs is honest, but there was a good deal of personal narratives about repubs going to obama in caucus to counter a hillary vote.... so i am cautious...

Steve

Terry McAuliffe is exactly the reason why Democrats should not vote for Hillary Clinton.

He was a bad Chairman of the Democratic Party--just look at how much better the DNC is performing under Howard Dean. Don't believe me? pick any metric you want. McAuffile performed brilliantly inside the beltway, an area which has no electoral vote, but even his vaunted ability to raise money is not as good a Dean.

It would be nice if the Clinton campaign had something to tout along with her experience; you know, something like positions on issues rather than vague sound bites.

jim

I think Hillary has a lot of positives, and agree with Steve's "tilt" here on TWN over the past week, but what a lot of people find annoying about her is the vibe she's been giving off -- not just that she's the inevitable nominee, but that the Clintons own the Democratic Party.

McAuliffe's comment is in keeping with what I have heard from former Clinton appointees I personally know, that the word was put out that people who signed up as advisors, contributed, or openly supported any of the other candidates in the primaries would never serve in an appointed role in government again. There would be no foregiveness or healing after the primary season had ended -- if you're not on board with the Clinton machine, and they win (as you know they inevitably will your career as a Democratic "in and outer" is over, fo good. That sort of explicit hardball hasn't gone over well...

Jives???

Wassup wit dat, Stevo?

Hmmm, so Edwards got more 2nd choice votes.....

Perhaps people listened to Ralph Nader who said if Edwards was the candidate, he would not have to run because Edwards has the most progressive agenda. I value Nader's opinion a great deal, but I prefer Richardson now. At least it's all still interesting with a tight three-way race.

That's good.

I agree totally that Hillary has chosen the worst face(s) of the Democratic Establishment to whitewash her campaign persona (now chipped paint).

It's sad that she failed to see that Terri McAuliffe, James Carville and Begala are real clowns in the eyes of Dems and progressives. When they talk, I get a bad after taste in my mouth.

I'm sorry that Biden lost (my pick), and may still write him in, regardless of his withdrawal from the race. I also strongly disagree with Kleefeld in arguing that Edward's should interpret some hope from his 2nd place tie with Clinton in Iowa. Statitically speaking, it seems that Obama and Edwards got equal spoils from the 2nd tier supporters. Edwards campaigned for 4 YEARS. This is not very impressive outcome in that context.

On a side note,... what do you think of Juan Cole's interesting take of how the delegates for Michigan and Florida may, in a twist of fate (and favors), help Clinton win the nomination during the Democratic Conventions? ...

http://www.juancole.com/2007/12/michigan-delegates-excluded-from.html