One thing that shouldn't be overlooked, though, are the Independents in NH. So far, the Democratic primary is garnering far more attention than the Republican one, so the Indies will probably vote disproportionately in the Dem primary in NH. From polling data and anecdotal conversations with friends and family, Obama seems solidly ahead of Clinton with Independents in NH as of now. And, considering Hillary's status, I don't see her picking up a lot of Indie support in NH.

She may go negative against Obama in the few weeks before the primary to try to hold Indie turnout down in NH.

New Hampshire underwent a full-scale political revolution in Novemeber 2006. The NHDP elites and usual suspects who've been courted by presidential candidates since the dawn of time don't really run the party anymore nor do they have a clue about what's going on among the rank and file of the state party.

Ask yourself this question: why did presidential candidates trip over one another to give money to the independently wealthy Martha Fuller Clark (who got her clock cleaned) in 2002, but avoided Carol Shea-Porter like the plague in 2006?

Clinton is courting an obselete leadership.

The most coveted endorsement in New Hampshire isn't the Shaheens anymore. It's not even Lynch. It's Shea-Porter and DFNH.

Hillary's doing great.  She has a great team working for her in N.H. and that is going to continue to help her.  Heck, they haven't even begun, when you think about it.  

As an Edwards supporter I must say that I pray to god that New Hampshire does not move ahead of Iowa.  I have heard that New Hampshire's Secretary of State is determined to make sure that they retain their importance in the nomination process.  However, Iowa has sent signals that they are not going to take this lying down and after New Hampshire passed the law saying that they had to be first in the nation they grandfathered Iowa into the law because they have a caucus that had already been going on before the NH law, so I think this is less about being in front of Iowa and more about NH wanting to avoid being just another state when everyone and their mother wants to move up to Feb. 5th.  My fear is that because primaries are easier to move than caucuses New Hampshire could win a game of chicken with Iowa.  In the end, I wonder if Dean will have to step in with some kind of plan that would completely discourage states from moving up.  The only thing I can think of would be some kind of rule that any candidate who campaigned in the states who move up would forefit not only any delegates won from that state but the ability to win delegates period (thus ending their bid for the nomination).  Because the media attention is the driving force behind the need to win in Iowa and NH that would be all that would stop the candidates from playing along with the constant schedule changes.  But is that even "allowed"?  Clinton seems to have NH in the bag, though with Vilsack gone and Edwards nearing 50% of county chairs and co-charis behind him in Iowa (and he has led every legitimate poll there as the 2 ARG Hillary polls have been thoroughly discredited)he seems to have Iowa pretty much in the bag.  

Any Edwards supporters interested in being part of an organization of grassroots supporters check out our still under construction (it still needs a final edit) blog at...

http://firstroundknockout.blogspot.com/

It is on hold because we want input from other Edwards supporters before we launch it.  There's an e-mail address listed where you can contact us if you want to be part of project development or if you have any comments.    

Dean lost NH, so did edwards

Has anyone else noticed that Clinton's rhetoric is starting to sound a lot more like John Edwards?

I noticed it in invisible speech and also in some of her recent comments about health care and Iraq.

That is a good clip. Clinton is adding a powerful populist message.

I don't know if I would say that Clinton is "doing great".  In fact I think this calls for a little bit of rambling.  Trying to ramble with one hand (shoulder injured) will be interesting.  Typo city here I come.  The media had to go easy on her at the start because they have the most to gain from her being the nominee.  They can use the whole "first woman serious contender vs. first African-American serious contender" storyline and if all else fails they can do what they are going to do sooner or later and that is go in for the kill.  She is the candidate most easy to sensationalize so of course they love her.  Her campaign has been about as dishonest as it gets.  Howard Wolfson is a turd in a pinstripe suit.  First there was the attack at Edwards (the best candidate) that lied about what he said, then there was the attack at Obama (a great candidate)that lied about Geffen's relationship with Obama.  Geffen was right about one thing.  The media is going to use Hillary's personal life to destroy her.  The only question is whether it's during the primaries or after she wins the nomination (the very thought makes me sick).  Clinton/Bayh would drive away so many Dems (who would vote for a progressive independent or perhaps Unity 08') that she would lose.  And that is assuming that if all the Dems stayed intact she could deal with the 47% of the country who won't vote for her. She has no room for error and losing Dems (recent polls show she loses 6% with freaking Ralph Nader as the progressive option) finishes her off.  Speaking of finishing her off back to her other serious problem (actually her whole candidacy is a serious problem).  Not only will she get whacked over Iraq (she wants it to keep going until 2009 so she can end it) and health care (she doesn't want universal care until 2016) but we all know what will do her in.  Bill.  I don't think their personal life should matter but she has been such a tremendous sell out (all the stuff about finding the "right way to get out of Iraq" - translation "look at me I'm a hawk...caw...caw...(hawk noises)") that no one feels like standing by her on this one.  And Wolfson is such a massive idiot that he buys the media spin that they will only pounce if there is something new.  I picked up a book that had nothing to do with the Clinon's whatsoever (at least it looked that way) called The Way To Win (it is about the 08' race) and it wasn;t long before I'm confronted with some guy telling stories about Clinton confesing all these affairs to him in 88' when he considered running.  The story might not be true but it won't matter.  He promised he didn't do anything with Flowers then in his book he said "Oh yeah, sorry, I did do the nasty with her" (clearly that was paraphrasaing) and we all know about the other one.  So when he denies it this time (and we all know that the GOP will hit him with someone, even if thet've never met him before) no one will beleive him.  So the media will find something "new" even if that is from 1987.  This will turn Hillary from the "wronged woman" in the eyes of many women to the "woman who is so power hungry that she stays in a marriage of political convenience".  Her and Wolfson's strategy is to prepare us for this gently.  She issues statemetns like "Bill I began a conversation a long time ago and we haven't stopped talking since" that makes them seem like really good friends.  Sorry Hillary but it's going to take more than that.  And then when the media asks Wolfson direct questions he just says that they should respect Bill's private life.  Huh? I'll agree with him on that but do we really think that the rest of America will?  Team Hillary is a house of cards.  She is running as her husband against Georege W. Bush.  We all know that she has nowhere near as much charisma or political skill as Bill (his charisma got him elected while she was a drag on the ticket) and while McCain, Giuliani, and Romney are all weak candidates and political shapeshifters they will be smart enough to say the 11 words that will derail Hillary's whole campaign, "You are not Bill Clinton and I am not George Bush".  Or how bout these 12 words "Senator Clinton, America should know, is your hudband faithful to you?"  We all know that America shouldn't know and that Senator Clinton should be judged on substantive matters.  She fails there just as miserably.  But she will not be judged on those matters and if she guilt trips the party into nominating her with her "You kno who my husband is, now you owe me" campaign then the GOP will eat her alive.  I'm sorry but to say that Clinton's campaign is "doing great" is to say that the Titanic was "doing great"...right before it hit the ice berg.  

I hope you are right about Edwards and NH.  I think that if the schedule stays Iowa, Nevada, then New Hampshire he has a better chance.  I desperately want him to win New Hampshire, our organization is just trying to prepare for the possibility that he comes in second there.  If voters pay attention to who is the most substantive and who is most willing to take real action then Edwards will win NH.  Paying attentiont to who is the most electable might not be a bad thing for once.  I think that for the first time in a long time we have all the attributes we look for in one candidate...John Edwards.

If New Hampshire moves up ahead of Iowa I hope all the candidates boycott the state and the DNC doesn't seat them at the convention. I'm tired of NH being petulant children when it comes to their elections. It has zero to do with healthy democracy and everything to do with maintaining a very lucrative plum of having political campaigns and media outlets spend money in their state.

It's time to go to 4 rotating regional primaries and teach the moron press to cover it like an NBA game - it's not over until the last quarter because everybody goes on a run. Why should I give a rat's ass who New Hamphire votes for in Florida?

That is exactly why in both cases I said "seems to" before I said that anyone has anything in the bag.  Things can change.  But 8 months of 2004 Iowa polling was not as consistent as the 2008 Iowa polling has been.  Polling aside, the point is that Iowa Dems seem to gravitiate towards Edwards.  Just like NH Dems have a lot of respect for the Clinton's.  I'm not saying that anything is set in stone, which is why I pre-empted both statements by saying that it only seems this way.  But with Vilsack out and much of his operation going to Edwards he has done a lot to secure Iowa.  As for Dean and Gephardt they fell from the first two because they went at each other.  I don't see Edwards and Obama having a scorched earth confrontation.  Every one learned from 2004.  Gore's support will likely be split between Edwards and Obama with the bulk of it going to Edwards (recent polls show that when Edwards drops it's because Gore rises or vice versa), add to that the "unity" endorsement from the Unions Edwards is likely to get and he becomes very hard to beat in Iowa.  Things could change but I don't think that saying that Edwards is in position to win Iowa is going too far.

If so, I would question their loyalty to the values expressed by Gov Dean.  As an early supporter of Dean, I identified most of the effort to prevent his nomination to be emanating from the Clinton/DLC camp.  It wasn't so much that they supported Kerry as they were afraid of losing their clout within the Party.

I would hate to see all the work that the grassroots has done toward reestablishing representative government, including electing Carol Shea-Porter, to be overtaken by the moneyed and corporate interest represented by Hillary Clinton.

Rotating regional primaries sounds like a good idea.  Some kind of fairness has to be restored. The problem is that the presidential candidates are all to afraid to tell IA and NH to be grown up about at so unless rank and file Dems demand it I don't see how an idea like rotating regional primaries (which is a very good idea and would have broad support) becomes a reality.

I find it so intersting that the Clinton campaign would tout hiring all these Dean staffers - Dean lost and lost horribley - especially in NH. So, why would it be such a great thing to hire these people?
And I was a Dean supporter - but I recognize that while the message and the candidate were right on - it was the poor infrastructure that helped sink the campaign.

And why would anyone hire Gephardt staffers!? That's even worse.

I don't think Dean is too happy with the Clinton's and it's clear he is from a different wing of the party.  I'm sure however that he is under a ton of pressure from Clinton friendly hacks that try and bully the party.  He wants to be a neutral and fair referee but because he won't play Hillary's game Carville goes for Dean's job and wanted to replace him with who?  Oh yeah Harold Ford Jr. the new chairman of the  DLC whose last major rally for his Senate race  Clinton used to try to talk the party back to the "center" so his wife would be able to look "centrist by association".  I doubt Carville would have went after Dean unless he had the Clinton's permission.  Just like people forget that Hillary would not have voted for the war that both her and her husband claim they would not have started unless of course her husband told her that it was the smart thing to do.  Anyone who thinks that Bill Clinton didn't essentially vote for the war is fooling themself.  He did a lot of good things but NAFTA, doing nothing about Rwanda, and not speaking out against the IWR were not among them.

"With Edwards still in the thick of it from his '04 operation, I don't think it too sacrosanct to say that Obama is way behind in New Hampshire."

As the only one of the "Big Three" who hasn't been running for president for the last four years (or more), it's probably fair to say that Obama is way behind everywhere.

Anyone know what was taken when the New Hampshere Democratic Party office was broken into?

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/48579 /

I feel some dirt, some real dirt...?

At long last Jerome has understood that Senator Clinton's support and advocates are quite committed and quite substantial.  She was never the enemy, and the bloggers have been routinely misdirected to label her as such.

I witnessed the C-Span broadcast of the New Hampshire 100 Club affair.  She was supremely motivated and the affection for her--inasmuch as it presages a return to a Golden Era of Clinton leadership--was quite genuine and most potent.

Indeed her vote on the Iraq incursion was a grave mistake, as were the votes of the vast majority of the Senate members, an exclusive club to which now Senator Obama did not then belong. It is futile to argue that he would have voted otherwise; one simply can never be certain. Hindsight is always an easy perspective.

What is certain is the fact that Senator Clinton has had a demostrated track record of championing all manner of Civil Rights, from her college years and beyond.  It is also a fact, not a judgment, that she is easily the most seasoned of the candidates on a presidential level of any of her current Democratic rivals.  

She has withstood investigations that would have made candidates like former Mayor Giuliani wither under such scrutiny.  Her negatives are high because there is virtually nothing either she or her husband have not already been accused of.  

And that is why her negatives are also her strength, inasmuch as the brilliant oratory of Senator Obama is not unto itself sufficient for him to be easily redfined by what is certain to be a very brutal opposition.  Again, his short period in the Senate makes him far too green for this early leap into the Platinum round of United States politics.

I find all the current crop of Democratic camdidates to be most alluring.  However, the Clintons (indeed they are ever a tandem) have mastered our political process to the point of diamond-laser brain surgery.  They perceive intricacies and foresee obstacles few in their realm are capable of comprehending.

When someone talks about how she has so much experience, it shows you how out of touch they are with the American voters.  Polls and actual election results show, Americans don't care how much experience you have, or else the best resume would win all the time.  What they want is the X factor (ala American Idol), a gut reaction on how you feel about that person and wether or not you feel you can trust that person. Some of the best singers and more experienced ones lose early because they just don't have it. Unfortunately, Hillary lacks instant likeability and trusthworthiness.

What with the National Primary on Feb 5.

I just can't see that there will be some "big mo", from Iowa, NH, that will unduly influence voters for  what will basically BE the election on Feb 5.

While the metaphor for political junkies is the "horserace', with the winning in one state, then going to the next state, etc, like winning days on  the Tour de France, that metaphor is really lacking for 2008.

Figure that if someone wins Feb 5 BIG, that person has won the election - period.

Clinton could win all 4 races - Iowa, Nevada, NH, South Carolina - and if Obama wins big on National Primary day - well those 4 states won't mean much.