Hollywood Slinging
For those of you that like political cage fights, tonight is your night. With yesterday's departure from the race of John Edwards, tonight's Democratic debate (CNN/8 pm) will feature two hours of straight standoff between increasingly bitter rivals Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
This will be a big test for both candidates, in a setting that fits their star power--Hollywood. Clinton will get her first opportunity to directly challenge the Illinois senator to lay out specifics concerning his plans to implement his agenda for the nation. Thus far, Obama has managed to avoid specifics in the debate format, preferring to discuss policy details on his web page, while using the debate time to present a broader rhetorical vision of the future.
If Obama can stand up to the barrage of facts, figures and history that will surely be tossed his way tonight and manage to remain on even ground with a major policy wonk like Hillary, it will go a long way towards proving that he's is as much about substance as style.
With only five days to go before the 22-state barrage of Super Tuesday, both candidates will need their strongest performances to date, not only to fire up their own voter bases, but also to attract as much of the 20% of Democratic voters that until yesterday were supporting Edwards. Where those voters go could determine everything on Tuesday.
GOP Nominee: Ronald Reagan?
Last night's Republican debate allowed the GOP presidential candidates a chance to reflect on the accomplishments of their beloved two-term Republican president, and explain how they would do their best to continue his policies and legacy. Unfortunately for the current resident of the White House, the president in question left office two decades ago.
Once again, George W. Bush was virtually absent from the conversation, while all four candidates spent the better part of the evening answering questions that basically boiled down to "What would Ronnie do?" Held at the Reagan Library, with former First Lady Nancy Reagan playing host, the representatives of the Grand Old Party even fielded the question of whether or not the great Gipper would have supported their individual campaigns. Guess what? They all said yes.
Big Shot of the Night: After Mitt Romney chided John McCain for winning the endorsement of the New York Times editorial board, the Arizona senator was quick to point out that he has also received the support of BOTH the Boston Globe and the conservative Boston Herald ("the people that know you best, Governor") -- Romney's two hometown papers. He ended by saying with a grin "I'm sure the Arizona Republic will be endorsing me."
Fox Funnies -- Goodbye to "America's Mayor"
What in the world is Fox News going to do now that their favorite son Rudy Giuliani is out of the race? Fox's "Fair and Balanced" love affair with the former NYC mayor had reached epic proportions only a few weeks ago, when they ran a one-hour special on Giuliani's campaign during the run-up to key nominating battles in New Hampshire and Iowa--two states the self-proclaimed hero of 9/11 virtually ignored. The network even went so far as to anoint Giuliani as "America's Mayor". Check out this video of Fox's love for that particular phrase.
Posted by Scott Cavanagh
END OF POST
Leave a Comment
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Campaign 08: Debates, Dropouts and Ronnie
Monday, January 28, 2008
Campaign 2008: Changing the Rules
Posted by Ken Hart
Hillary Clinton, having been soundly defeated in South Carolina, is trying to shrug it off by moving on to Tuesday's primary in Florida. "But," you wonder, "what's in Florida? Sure, the Republicans are having a big primary there and Rudy's about to get his butt kicked, but I haven't heard a peep about a Democratic primary."
Florida, like Michigan, last year announced that it was moving its primary up into January, in defiance of both the Democratic and Republican party leaderships. The GOP punished Florida and Michigan by stripping those states of half their delegates; the Dem leadership went further and stripped those states of all their delegates, turning those primaries into little more than beauty contests.
The Democratic candidates for president agreed that they would respect the party leadership and not campaign in those states. However, while Barack Obama and John Edwards had their names removed from the ballot in the Michigan primary earlier this month and urged their supporters to simply vote "Uncommitted," Clinton kept her name on the ballot and thus "won" the uncontested primary. Congratulations, Miss Michigan! Not much attention was paid to this outcome at the time.
But now here is the Clinton campaign issuing a request to the Democratic Party that all Florida and Michigan delegates be seated at the Democratic Convention, so that those voters can have their "voices heard." And, coincidentally of course, Hillary Clinton will be the beneficiary of most of those poor, unwashed delegates since neither Obama nor Edwards has courted those states. Wait a second, is Clinton so spooked by the fact that she won't clinch this thing by Super Tuesday that she's now trying to change the rules? The rules that were established and agreed upon last year? As Tim Dickinson blogged on the Rolling Stone site, "It’s like changing the rules in the middle of a basketball game to count the pre-game layup drills in the final score."
Now, if you're a die-hard Clinton supporter and you're trying to parse this manipulative, bald-faced load of crap, ask yourself this question: If this were the general election, and McCain or Romney pulled this stunt against Hillary, wouldn't you be screaming and posting with five thousand exclamation points right now?
END OF POST
Saturday, January 26, 2008
O-BOOM-A! Barack bombs Hillary in SC
Posted by Scott Cavanagh
Heading into today's South Carolina Democratic Primary, opinion appeared split among Democratic pundits and bloggers over what (if any) effect recent race-related in-fighting between Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton would have on the large African-American voting community in the Palmetto State.
The answer to that question came through loud and clear tonight, as exit polls proved what many in the Clinton camp had feared--the long-time crown jewel of the Clinton voting block has (at least temporarily) abandoned her for another. Obama captured nearly 80% of the black vote in South Carolina--that, coupled with a strong neck and neck finish with Clinton and John Edwards among the rest of the voting population, allowed the Illinois senator to record a key victory in the heated battle for the Democratic nomination.
Obama's dominating 54%-27% victory, along with Edwards' strong third place showing (19%), presents a possibly troubling scenario for the Clinton campaign heading into Feb. 5's 22-state Super Tuesday showdown. If Obama continues to do incredibly well among black voters and better than her with young voters, while Edwards siphons off another 15-20% of traditional progressives--where will Hillary's majority come from?
SC
END OF POST
Leave a Comment
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Quick Hits and Fazed Cookies
A Cease Fire? This They Can Agree On
They may have been at each other's throats all week in South Carolina, but there is one thing Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama can agree on easily--the need to prevent President Bush from committing the country to long-term military involvement in Iraq without congressional approval.
The two senators and presidential hopefuls first discussed the topic publicly during the hotly contested January 15 debate in Las Vegas, when Clinton appeared to catch her rival off guard by inviting him to co-sponsor legislation requiring the president to acquire just such an okay. Obama responded by saying that the two of them could "work on that" and then followed up his talk with quick action--signing on Tuesday as third co-sponsor of the former First Lady's legislative proposal.
Who says George W. Bush is not a great uniter of people!
SC
Leave a Comment
END OF POST
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Campaign '08: Debating Dems/Rise of McCain
Gloves Off Early in SC
Was that a debate the Democrats held yesterday, or what? Hmm, let's summarize what we learned--Hillary is a lying, manipulative, NAFTA-loving, Wal-Mart globalist, while Obama is a lazy, indecisive, overly sensitive slumlord!! And that was just the first 25 minutes!! I like these candidates very much, but I felt like I needed a shower after those smarmy exchanges. Edwards clearly benefited from the childish behavior of the other two-- but does it really matter if it doesn't translate into votes?
I think Hillary made Obama look like exactly what she wants him to look like--an indecisive, passive guy that can't take a punch and thinks he is going to charm his way to a successful agenda. I thought he won the last debate in Vegas, but he seemed at times weak and undisciplined last night. I also think he is mistaken about his health care proposal. There will always be a rather substantial group of people at the bottom of the economic ladder that will choose other necessities and vices over health care coverage. If coverage is not mandated, these people (not just poor people, but other large groups, like young adults) will simply opt out and continue to blow a hole in any system that is implemented--by over-utilizing emergency room services and the like when they do become ill. I agree wholeheartedly with Edwards and Hillary on this one--coverage must be mandated, or it still won't cover the vast majority of those needing it today or address the problems facing health care providers.
McCain is Democrats' Worst Nightmare
As much as I admire McCain, his overall voting record is just left of Attila the Hun-- so I was very glad to see him sitting so far back in the polls not long ago, particularly with all of the other GOP hopefuls being sooo beatable. Unfortunately, it now appears that even many evangelicals (judging by the results in South Carolina) have wised-up to the fact that McCain is the most electable candidate they have.
McCain is no Bush tool and has a ton of credibility on the reform side due to his sponsorship of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance measures. In addition to the senator's impressive military record, the media's continued treatment of the bribery of the battling Iraqi warlords as a successful surge strategy, allows McCain to rightly take credit as the only guy on either side to be for the troop increases from the beginning. He is also the only Republican running for the presidency that has openly differed with the current administration over the conduct of the war and tax cuts favoring only the wealthiest Americans. In short... John McCain is no Mitt Romney.
An inexperienced, one-term African American senator, or a polarizing woman with very high negatives and more baggage than a UPS man--one of those two will be taking on McCain. One of them is going to have to wage a general election campaign against a former POW and war hero with a reputation for integrity, who is as comfortable on The Daily Show as he is on Meet the Press. I don't know about you, but that scenario would scare me. Perhaps Dems need to start talking about his age.
SC
END OF POST
Comment on this Post
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Barking Back: Top Reader Comments
Ken Hart on The Democratic Race Spat:
"Yeah, the whole "race/gender" fight has been a creation of the media. (I'm still not sure what Hilary was trying to say about MLK, but it wasn't a racial slam.) Tim Russert actually looked disappointed that the candidates weren't continuing the race/gender fight! He pushed it for about 20 minutes, and they all pointedly ignored him. Afterward, the bizarre Chris Matthews even flat-out said that this debate wasn't what he wanted to hear! (Uh, Chris, it's not about you....)"
Cattleworks on The Democratic Debate:
"Personally, I wish the Democrats would come up with a unified policy regarding how they're going to handle the Iraq situation, before the election--or at least a concrete direction and approach. I guess the economy is shaping up to be the main issue for the voters, but I keep thinking that Iraq is just going to be a constant distraction, at best. And anyways, isn't the investment in Iraq affecting our economy as well, at least in part?"
Heartfelt on Looking Presidential:
"You are right. Look at some of the past winners and losers. For example, there is no way Ross Perot would have been worthy with those ears and small head. While a good looking man like JFK or someone with a strong appearance like Roosevelt was a shoe in."
John in Columbus on Baseball and the Mitchell Report:
"What is your evidence that people are going after Bonds because he's black? When McGwire broke the home run record, there were whispers, but the press ultimately gave him a pass. When Bonds broke his record, the press gave him a pass too, maybe more so, because I don't remember steroids even being discussed that year in the press. Whispers, of course, but no open speculation in the press."
Tom May on Baseball and the Mitchell Report:
"I have to agree with Scott that race does play some part--it still hovers in our society, but is getting better--at least I hope. I don't want my little girl to be held back by her race.
I do think, though, that in Bonds' case, his personality plays a larger role, along with the fact that in his case, it wasn't just a player, but a player who has now CRUSHED the two most sacred records in baseball...the single-year, and career, Home Run records."
END OF POST
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Quick Hits and Fazed Cookies
Where's the Iraq War?
As we approach the one-year anniversary of the much ballyhooed "troop surge" in Iraq, news from our ongoing five-year long misadventure in the desert is hard to come by. Has the national press simply forgotten the more than 30,000 dead and wounded American soldiers lost to this fiasco--or the two billion dollars-a-week in much-needed tax revenue we continue to flush down the Iraqi toilet?
One of the reasons for this topical amnesia appears to be the collective acceptance by most major media outlets that the surge has worked. Republican presidential candidates have even stopped avoiding talk of the war and it's prosecution and have begun singing the praises of Bush's wisdom and strategy-- touting lower casualty totals among both American soldiers and Iraqi civilians over the past few months.
But is the strategy really working? Is the country any closer to a political resolution that will solve its bitter sectarian divisions? Are the Iraqi security forces or army anywhere near where they need to be to allow American troops to at least consider drawing down their forces? Have the agents of chaos and violence been defeated or have they just slipped back into the woodwork-- simply avoiding the areas where the troop surge has been focused?
Author and New York Observer columnist Joe Conason takes a critical and in-depth look at what is passing for "progress" in Iraq in a great piece for Truthdig.com. Read it here.
In an effort to reach Pentagon-instituted troop strength goals for war zone areas, the US military is now sending ailing soldiers deemed "not medically fit for battle" back overseas before they have even recovered from earlier injuries.
Most of the soldiers were dispatched from Fort Carson, Colorado--the same Fort Carson that was at the heart of a congressional investigation last year after reports revealed soldiers were not receiving quality medical care after returning from Iraq. Some soldiers with post-traumatic stress disorder said they were punished, rather than treated, or thrown out of the Army for "personality" problems.
SC
END OF POST
Read More......
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Viva Las Vegas? Dems debate in Sin City
Posted by Scott Cavanagh
Heading into last night's Democratic debate in Nevada, I was disappointed in many on the left over their treatment of the recent Hillary-Obama dust-up--which I believe is a totally media-created load of crap. In no way did Hillary demean MLK by correctly stating that the Civil Rights Act would never have gotten through without the support of President Johnson (love or hate LBJ, signing that was one of the bravest political acts in history, particularly for a white southerner--he knew, and it has proven true, that Dems would lose the South for generations), and it was an amazing stretch to try to make Bill's "fairytale" comment into some statement that it was a fantasy for a black man to be elected president.
Still, lefty callers to the radio shows I listen to regularly (Stephanie Miller, Randi Rhoads, Thom Hartmann, etc.) were just running with the press' ridiculous mischaracterizations of these harmless comments and tearing both of them to pieces over imaginary offenses.
Then came the debate. Despite the fact that both candidates in question had repeatedly apologized for any misunderstandings earlier in the day, and vowed to focus the debate on issues, the MSNBC moderators proceeded to spend the first forty minutes or so asking nothing but race-related questions that eventually twisted right back to the same non-story of the prior 48-hours. Once again, Tim Russert proved to be an overrated, "gotcha", hack, who, if not for his moon face, would be best suited for Entertainment Tonight. The rest of the debate was high quality and managed to focus the remaining 90 minutes on mostly important topics that highlighted some nuanced differences between the three candidates.
Overall, I was most impressed with Obama. I think Edwards is sincere when he talks about the plight of poor people, but he voted FOR the 2001 bankruptcy law, as did Hillary. Obama voted against it. When all three were asked the stupid ("Here candidates--point out a flaw your opponents can rap you over the head with for the next three weeks") "give us an example of a personal weakness" question, Obama answered truthfully--that he was a little disorganized and forgetful at times. What did Edwards say? He just gets too emotional when he sees injustice. Hillary? She also just cares too much for her own good. One honest answer and two political dodges—score another point for Barack.
Edwards was strong all night, but he really lost me on both the bankruptcy vote, (which he had no real explanation for), and his claims that he would end talk of storing nuclear waste in Nevada’s Yucca Mountain. Hillary quickly pointed out that Edwards not only voted FOR Yucca Mountain-- he did so TWICE. Throw in his vote to give Bush authorization to invade Iraq, and that adds up to a pretty high number of harsh votes for the "hero of the working man"--particularly when he only served one term.
That said, I think he would be extremely hard to beat in a general election. With Obama and Clinton out (or ideally Obama on his ticket), Edwards would still carry the party's core constituencies of women and minorities, and would also be attractive to the same demographic of white males (particularly in the south) that voted for Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter and Al Gore (to a lesser extent).
I think Hillary's best moments came when she expressed her concerns and ideas on how to stop Bush's plan to sign multi-year agreements with the fledgling Iraqi government that could keep our troops entrenched there long after he leaves office. Her knowledge of the issues and status as a member of the Armed Services Committee give her a real edge in the foreign policy department, particularly with Biden and Richardson now out of the race. She also made a great strategic move by reaching out to Obama to co-sponsor the legislation. If the candidates appear to be on the same page where Iraq is concerned, Obama loses a key campaign issue. If this debate then focuses on the economy, health care and the environment, Hillary has a pretty good track record to run on--and the voters know it well.
One last thought on Dennis Kucinich not being invited (or being uninvited, as it were) to the Nevada debate. Yes, Dennis is a little eccentric and shoots from the hip a bit too often. He also has been getting a very small percentage of the votes in the early primaries. But let's look at some other facts about him. He's an honest, straight-talking guy who truly represents the working people of this country by consistently addressing the tough issues nobody else (particularly the TV networks) wants to talk about. More importantly, he's a duly elected congressman from the great state of Ohio and a candidate for President of the United States. Do we really want MSNBC and other corporate-owned media interests telling us who is and isn't a viable candidate for us to hear--when 90% of the country's delegates have yet to cast a single ballot? That's a scary proposition.
SC
END OF POST
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Face Dances -- who "looks" presidential?
Posted by Frank Dzieciolowski
Oh my God, my mother-in-law was right all along! According to new research by Anthony Little, a psychologist at the University of Stirling in Scotland, faces may actually decide the outcomes of elections.
(Faces Decide Elections, New York Times 12/8/07).
For years I have listened to people express their political preferences, not in terms of where candidates stand on the issues, but rather how they appeal to one's senses. I'm sure you've heard people question whether Abe Lincoln would even be considered a viable candidate for office today due to his appearance. What does it mean when someone says that a candidate looks presidential?
Well, according to Dr. Little, it seems to be all in the facial characteristics. Below is an excerpt from the New York Times article where Little uses 2004's Kerry/Bush face-off to drive his point home.
Kerry's face is longer and narrower; Bush's jaw is wider, his brow lower. Little and several collaborators surveyed people online and on the streets of Liverpool. The Bush face rated more "masculine" and "dominant," while the Kerry face was more "forgiving" and "likable." Though the Kerry face was ranked most "intelligent," most participants said they'd choose the Bush face to run their country. "The percentages were similar to how people actually voted in the election," Little said. People were then asked whom they'd elect during a time of war versus a time of peace: Kerry won the most "face votes" during peacetime. Bush during wartime. Of course, faces don't sway everyone. "Die-hard Republicans or Democrats will vote for whoever leads their party," Little said. But uncommitted voters are another story: "Those are the voters more likely to be swayed by visual appearances," he said. "They're also the ones who really swing elections."
There you have it. Political analysts, bloggers and everyday voters should get their news from the Fashion Channel! By the way, did you note how Dr. Little described Bush's facial characteristics--low brow, wide jaw? Isn't that how one describes a Neanderthal? Once again, a heartfelt apology to my mother-in-law.
END OF POST
Monday, January 14, 2008
Election 2008 - Notes From the Campaign Trail
By Scott Cavanagh
With three weeks remaining before 24 states cast their ballots on Super-Duper Tuesday, candidates and operatives from both parties are working tirelessly to reposition themselves and their campaigns in the wake of some surprising results in Iowa and New Hampshire.
Seemingly overnight, John McCain has emerged as the front-runner for the GOP nomination, while Hillary Clinton's preeminence on the Democratic side is now in serious doubt. Here's a look at some of the major candidates as they try to either ride the wave of recent success or retool their failing messages prior to this week's three contests, including Saturday's first key southern showdown in South Carolina.
John McCain
The Arizona senator seems to have finally recaptured his voice from 2000, and just like 2000, it was the voters of New Hampshire that put McCain in position to make a run at the nomination. No one knows the importance of the South Carolina contest better than McCain, who's poor showing there in 2000 opened the door for George W. Bush. The good news for the former POW is that there is no prohibitive favorite like Bush to deal with this time. The bad news includes low approval numbers among the state's large evangelical community and rival Mike Huckabee's standing as a Baptist Minister.
Hillary Clinton
Despite her hard-fought victory in New Hampshire, the Senator from New York can only feel so good about her current position. While winning the Granite State was essential to maintaining her status as a top contender, her margin of victory over second place finisher Barack Obama was razor thin (39-37). That, coupled with her embarrassing third-place finish in Iowa, makes a strong showing in South Carolina a must if she plans on entering Super Tuesday as the front-runner. With nearly 50% of Saturday's Democratic voters being African-American, the former First Lady may need all the help she can get in order to keep the Illinois Senator from capturing another state.
Mike Huckabee
Once an afterthought, the Arkansas governor heads to South Carolina as the winner of the Iowa Caucuses and the main target of attack ads from all of his major rivals. Huckabee's appeal as a party outsider willing to criticize the current administration, coupled with his obvious attractiveness to religious conservatives, makes him a real force to be reckoned with in the Palmetto State. Money has been a concern for Huckabee from the start of his campaign, but the Iowa victory produced a much-needed influx of cash. A good showing this week could spur enough additional donations to keep the governor on even footing with his better-financed rivals for the remainder of the race.
Barack Obama
If you didn't know better, you'd think the Illinois senator was currently locked in a national election campaign to unseat incumbent Hillary Clinton--that's how rough the recent rhetoric has been between the top two Democratic contenders. What effect those battles are having on the electorate may become a big factor in South Carolina, where the Clintons have a very experienced and savvy statewide organization in place. How much of the large African American vote will go to Obama is uncertain, but one thing is not--his popularity among young voters seeking change. Those voters have been the bedrock of national support for both Bill and Hillary Clinton for 15 years. Their continued defection, combined with a large black voter turnout (another usual Clinton advantage) could tip the scales in his favor in both South Carolina and Nevada.
Mitt Romney
Though he spent nearly as much money in the two states as his three main rivals combined, the former Massachusetts governor was unable capture either Iowa or New Hampshire--making his former home state of Michigan an almost must-win. Although his formidable business credentials make him popular in many GOP circles, Romney's position changes on many key conservative issues (abortion, gun control, gay rights) coupled with his Mormon faith and status as an east coast governor may make South Carolina a tough nut to crack.
John Edwards
Despite a strong second place finish in Iowa, Edwards was unable make himself a real factor in New Hampshire, finishing in third place--over 20 points behind both Clinton and Obama. Edwards' powerful message of breaking the hold of corporate power over the lives of everyday citizens resonates well with voters, but his tough stance on the conglomeration of media outlets and who controls them may be registering loudly with the wrong people. Despite his solid showing in Iowa and consistently high polling numbers nationwide, the former North Carolina senator and successful trial lawyer gets little to no national press attention. On the positive side, recent polls have Edwards neck and neck with his rivals in Nevada (also Saturday), and as a son of the South, Edwards should be able to connect with voters in South Carolina. If not, his campaign is in a lot of trouble.
Rudy Giuliani
Is the former mayor of New York really utilizing a new winning strategy, or just committing political suicide? No one knows for sure, but the self-appointed hero of 9/11's decision to avoid campaigning seriously in either Iowa or New Hampshire to concentrate on later primaries has done nothing so far to boost his national numbers. Spending the last two weeks campaigning in Florida and avoiding South Carolina is his newest strategy. So, he was too liberal for Iowa, too conservative for New Hampshire and too New York for South Carolina. Where's his constituency--Brooklyn? Thus far, the only thing Giuliani is running on is the fact that he was mayor of a city when it was hit by a terrorist attack -- and that city is the bluest city in the nation. Not great GOP credentials.
Ron Paul
The darling of Libertarians everywhere is continuing to raise money at a startling clip, despite finishing fifth in both Iowa and New Hampshire. With absolutely no backing from his own party and fellow GOP candidates that treat him like a skunk at the family picnic, the Texas congressman still managed to garner more total votes in the two states than both Giuliani or Fred Thompson. In fact, Paul came within percentage points of finishing third in New Hampshire, where he received an impressive 17,788 votes, or 8% (Huckabee finished third with 11%). Paul's message of avoiding foreign entanglements and ending special interest perks has, at best, limited appeal among much of the party faithful, but his ability to fire up his core constituents and raise money should keep him in the race for a long time.
Fred Thompson
Iowa voters seemed to like Thompson, giving the former Tennessee senator and veteran screen actor a solid third-place finish in the Hawkeye State--percentage points ahead of close friend McCain. New Hampshire voters were not as impressed. Thompson received only 1% there, finishing in last place--nearly 15,000 votes behind Paul. The rise of Huckabee and the rebirth of McCain seem to make Thompson's presence in the race almost pointless. South Carolina should be fertile ground for the folksy Thompson to make a strong case for his candidacy. Without at least a third place finish there, he's probably through.
Dennis Kucinich
The diminutive Ohio congressman managed to improve his showing from Iowa to New Hampshire--garnering more votes from Democrats (3,841) than Thompson did from Republicans (2,796), but it was not enough to make him a real factor. Kucinich appears to be gearing up to continue on however, despite receiving less than one-quarter of the N.H. votes of his closest competitor Bill Richardson--who dropped out of the race following his poor performance.
END OF POST
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
McCain, Clinton shake things up in N. H.
Posted by Scott Cavanagh
Just days after disappointing third-place finishes in the Iowa Caucuses, Senators John McCain and Hillary Clinton scored impressive and surprising victories in yesterday's New Hampshire Primaries--further clouding the already unpredictable races for their respective parties' 2008 presidential nominations.
Clinton's victory came less than 24-hours after most statewide opinion polls had her trailing Iowa winner Barack Obama by as many as 13 percentage points. The former First Lady's slim two point (39-37) victory over her oratorally gifted rival did not reestablish her position as the frontrunner, but it did (at least temporarily) keep the press corps and big contributors from jumping aboard the Obama Express.
Clinton's win also put some breathing room between herself and fellow rival John Edwards, who was unable to repeat his strong second place showing in Iowa. After capturing 30 percent of the vote in Iowa, the former North Carolina Senator and 2004 vice-presidential nominee got just 17 percent of the New Hampshire tally and will need to win the January 26 South Carolina Primary in order to have any chance of moving on against his two well-funded opponents.
While McCain's New Hampshire triumph may be less of a surprise (he beat George W. Bush there in 2000), his margin of victory is not. The former POW got just 13 percent of the vote last week in Iowa, tying former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson for third place--24 points behind winner Mike Huckabee and 12 points behind second place finisher Mitt Romney. McCain and Huckabee virtually flip-flopped positions this week, with McCain taking in an astounding 37 percent of the vote to just 11 for the former Arkansas Governor and Baptist minister. Romney remained in second place, despite spending more than Huckabee and McCain combined.
Tapping into New Hampshire's large independent voter base, McCain utilized the state's policy of allowing Independents, Democrats and Republicans to vote in either primary. According to yesterday's exit polls, McCain more than doubled the independent vote of both of his chief rivals.
While that news may be good for yesterday's results and great for general election prospects, it does not necessarily translate into a path to the GOP nomination. The majority of upcoming primaries involve only registered Republicans--no Independents (and certainly no Democrats). That's great news for Romney, who was neck-in-neck with McCain amongst New Hampshire Republican voters--and even better news for Huckabee, who will look to right his ship with a big turnout from South Carolina's large evangelical community.
END OF POST
