MuadDib

If you want to take it that direction, I'm going to have to object. Clinton ran a very clean campaign in New Hampshire. Certainly she attacked Obama, but only in a permissible issue-related manner. But before you jump on me for my "issue-related" statement, let me clarify that Obama's personal experience and the manner in which he runs his campaign are issues because they are the chief things he campaigns on and why he claims he should be elected. Now, if you want to claim the choking up was some political strategy then I think you are making Hillary out to be a little more than she is. Granted the Clintons and their staff are superb campaigners, but they aren't prescient. Claims like this are the same made every time something happens to humanize Hillary. It's unrealistic and the simple truth is that (wait for it) Hillary actually is a human being! I think it's much more likely that a human being, even a superbly accomplished politician, might occasionally act humanly than that there exists any human so cunning and calculating that every human emotion they exhibit is just a means to ends.

As I said earlier, I don't think this is a make or break deal, but I do think this primary is a pretty big deal. New Hampshire isn't THAT unusual of a state. At least it is much more representative of the nation than Iowa, all the more so when we are talking about democratic politics specifically. I think Obama needs to learn a lesson from the state or it will become a big deal because he is relying so heavily on independent and young voters who did not come through for him in a heavily independent state.

Also, I do want to briefly address this notion that President Clinton's comments were "unfounded". The fact remains that Obama did say that he was the same as George Bush on the war, granted while in the context of the assumption that we were already in it. He also said he did not know how he would have voted on the war, granted in the light of the Democratic National Convention where he did not want to contradict party leaders on the issue. Further, I will contend that Obama is given a much easier ride by the media and he plays off of it, as well he should. He has a ludicrously short record which makes him difficult to report on and that is no fault of his own, but beyond that his newness is something the media can, and I contend does, get behind in order to increaser readership/viewership. It's the same thing they did with Dean. New players are better stories who will get protected for a time by the media until their newness wears off. It's a classic media sale tactic and the Clinton's are right to call attention to it. Overall, the reason none of this was unfounded was because these are the very issues on which Obama justifies his candidacy. He claims to be an agent of change but did not disagree with Bush as late as 2004 when talking about handling Iraq now that we were there. He claims to be someone who is not a business-as-usual kind of democrat, but he valued party unity over stating that he wouldn't have voted to go to war; that either makes him a business-as-usual party player or inconsistent on the issue in my book, I'll let him take his pick which.

You are right about the delegate count. What I want to know is where was this kind of analysis when Hillary got one less delegate in Iowa. This goes into the current media, and national, easy ride argument I already mentioned. When Hillary came in third in Iowa everyone was calling lights out for her and talking about the scathing defeat she suffered in a third place showing (though she picked up one more delegate than the second place candidate Edwards). Isn't it a little telling that this 'big picture' analysis only comes out now that Obama is on the receiving end? Also lets look at the superdelegates, if you want to measure the primary that way. All delegates currently accounted for gives Hillary 183 delegates to Obama's 78. Now I'm not saying that this is a huge difference, but the implication is that Obama needs to make up his deficit in superdelegates in pledged delegates. Simply tying Hillary or getting one more delegate is not going to cut it. The big picture at this stage in the race is NOT delegate count anyway, it's momentum. Hillary has effectively regained momentum, but not only that she can run with the image of snatching victory from the jaws of defeat which is a much bigger deal than a delegate count this early on.

I hate to say it but your analysis, which is the Obama camps analysis as well, is the same that lost Dean the nomination. You want to rely on the caucus system which is out of sync with what actually get candidates nominated. Focusing on delegates means ignoring states like Michigan and Florida, which lost their delegates, even though the results of these states (especially Florida) will be what make up voters minds coming into Super Tuesday, which almost always decides the nomination. Momentum, surprise victories and losses, and, unfortunately, media coverage is what wins elections. Hillary is primed to strike now with most recent polls showing her leading Obama by 12% in Nevada and 22% in Florida. That was before her upset victory this evening! She is in a great position because she has the momentum, the national lead, and, perhaps most importantly, she has the media in a position where they can't just turn around and declare the race 'her's to lose' again. They are going to have to either continue portraying the race as Obama's to lose (which will make New Hampshire appear like a biting loss to him) or portray it as clean and even between them (which gives her an edge in fact because she is leading in the major remaining states because she ran a national campaign early on). This race is NOT over, but I strongly disagree with your analysis and believe that if the Obama campaign chooses to approach New Hampshire and the future campaign the way you do then they will lose. Obama will be reeling from tonights primary and to brush that aside would be more than foolish, if he is to win he is going to need to dig deep and stem the momentum beyond just South Carolina, but in every race up until Super Tuesday. Moreover, if the Clinton campaign can portray New Hampshire correctly then they can make that task a monumental task for Obama.

Elphaba, I do have to say that Hillary is my first choice and I know she is not yours, but despite that I really like your attitude towards this election. I personally feel it's different for me to say that I would have to grit my teeth to vote for Obama than for all the Hillary haters out there to decry her from within her own party. I truly hope that these democrats are just getting caught up in the excitement of the primaries with a good field of democrats where there is a lot of hope for the future in a democratic win regardless of which one we choose. Your ability to look past your first choice and see that the real issue is getting neo-cons out and some democrat blood in brings me hope that regardless of who our nominee is (Clinton, Obama, or even Kucinich or Gravel) that at the end of the day the next four years will be so much brighter than the last eight we've had to endure.

__________________
"The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751