ImageImageImageImageImage

OT: Obama now leads Clinton in New Hampshire

Moderators: mpharris36, GONYK, HerSports85, Jeff Van Gully, dakomish23, Capn'O, j4remi, Deeeez Knicks, NoLayupRule

User avatar
riyaz_guerra
Senior
Posts: 525
And1: 0
Joined: Nov 06, 2006

OT: Obama now leads Clinton in New Hampshire 

Post#1 » by riyaz_guerra » Mon Jan 7, 2008 2:16 pm

With Tuesday's New Hampshire primary fast approaching, Sen. Barack Obama has opened a double-digit lead over Sen. Hillary Clinton in the state, a CNN-WMUR poll found Sunday.

Obama, the first-term senator from Illinois who won last week's Iowa caucuses, led the New York senator and former first lady 39 percent to 29 percent in a poll conducted Saturday and Sunday -- a sharp change from a poll out Saturday that showed the Democratic front-runners tied at 33 percent.

Support for former Sen. John Edwards, who edged out Clinton for second place in Iowa, dropped from 20 percent in Saturday's poll to 16 percent.


http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/06/ ... index.html

Damn, I didn't think his momentum was this strong. Considering his relatively poor performance WRT Clinton on Saturday's debate it looks like he may take New Hampshire. It looks like Clinton's latest strategy of attacking Obama's record and his sincerity is not working. She's been pretty aggressive, which she had no choice of being considering a loss in New Hampshire may be the crushing blow for her campaign.

Surprisingly, Edwards's support has dropped, mostly because of Obama's surge. He claims that he's in it until the Democratic convention in late August

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... onvention/

But I don't see how he will survive if he keeps losing these contests in a campaign as cash-strapped as his. I think if he loses the next 2 contests and fails to come second in either contest, he should accept defeat and throw his support to Obama.

In the last debate, it was obvious Edwards and Obama have a silent truce and have decided that Hillary is the prime threat to both of their campaigns.

Edwards's calculation is more strategic as opposed to anything else. If he attacks Obama's lack of experience relative to Clinton's, he indirectly will draw attention to his own inexperience as well. His whole plea for support rests on his claim to be the best agent for change, which is Obama's message as well,...which is why he is forced to not confront Obama as long as Hillary is in the race.

By attacking Hillary as well, Edwards knows he can provoke angry reactions by Hillary that only enforce the negative perceptions about her being overly aggressive and unlikeable. He is hedging his bets that both Obama and himself can wear Clinton down and that he can eke out a second place victory in New Hampshire...thus crippling Hillary's campaign. If he can force Hillary out of the race then in the context of a two-man race, he will then aggressively go after Obama. His plan was to make it a two man race and that voters will ultimately find him a better agent of change than Obama as well as more electable.

Obama has not gone after Edwards because simply Edwards is a tool that can attack Hillary for him without getting his own hands dirty. If Hillary should be forced out of the race, Obama's reluctance to attack Hillary will be a factor in the frantic yard sale that will result in the scrambling for Hillary's supporters.

Hillary's in serious trouble. She is no longer the front runner so she HAS to attack Obama in order to weaken him enough to gain ground. In the process of doing what she must, she only plays to negative perceptions about her personality. If she were to stay nice, Obama would simply cruise to victory and ride his massive momentum. It's seems to me to be a no-win situation for her.

With that said, I reiterate a Obama / Edwards dogfight will be more interesting to see as opposed to a Obama / Hillary showdown. Hillary is going to keep spouting her record in an attempt to convince people that her record is significant enough to deserve the nomination. She has to live and die by that record as a means to secure wins because while she's very intellectual, she doesn't have the oratory skills of an Obama or even an Edwards.

An Obama / Edwards showdown would be more about the future as opposed to the past. Since they both have bet the farm as presenting themselves as agents of change, the focus of the election would primarily shift to specifics about future policy.
"When you are right you cannot be too radical; when you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative." - Martin Luther King Jr.
User avatar
Flaming Mo
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 23,334
And1: 225
Joined: Jan 30, 2002
Location: Germany
     

 

Post#2 » by Flaming Mo » Mon Jan 7, 2008 2:40 pm

Politics... isn't it funny that these people are fighting each other despite being from the same party and when they should have the same, sincere motives?!? Ridiculous, it happens in every country...

Good that this Obama guy isn't going down to Hillary's niveau...
Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things. And no good thing ever dies...
User avatar
Knick4Real
General Manager
Posts: 7,973
And1: 7,146
Joined: Jan 20, 2005
Location: NYC
 

 

Post#3 » by Knick4Real » Mon Jan 7, 2008 2:59 pm

Never in my life have I been so moved by a politician as I am by Barack Obama. He is the REAL DEAL! Smart, charismatic, inclusive, calculating, contemporary, all in one. The way he moves a crowd has some calling him a modern day Martin Luther King or JFK. I have donated money and time to his campaign which is a first for me, because that's how much I believe in him.

The OBAMA TRAIN is moving, and as many have said it may very well be unstoppable. I'm just glad I'm on board and enjoying the ride. Anybody not already registered to vote should register TODAY and hop on board too in helping this man make history!

:nod:
Image
User avatar
Teen Girl Squad
Head Coach
Posts: 6,896
And1: 2,988
Joined: Jul 29, 2005
Location: Southern California
       

 

Post#4 » by Teen Girl Squad » Mon Jan 7, 2008 3:05 pm

This is the problem with the electoral process. One candidate wins one frankly unimportant state and gains massive momentum. Luckily this year its with Obama (whom i like) and not Hilary (whom i hate).
Image
User avatar
richardhutnik
Banned User
Posts: 22,092
And1: 10
Joined: Oct 13, 2001
Location: Linsanity? What is that?
Contact:

 

Post#5 » by richardhutnik » Mon Jan 7, 2008 3:29 pm

I find it a tad ironic that Hillary is supposed to have "a lot of experience" in this campaign. For her to attack Obama on this is absurd.

If people this election cared about experience, they would be looking at Bill Richardson.

If Obama builds up a ton of momentum, wins New Hampshire and goes on from there, having Bill Richardson as his VP would make a LOT of sense. It balances the ticket geographically for one thing. Richardson's experience is also another addition. Lastly, Richardson's ethnic background works to. I know people shouldn't be looking towards gender or ethnic background as anything, but people do.

- Rich
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - G. Marx
Brooklyn718
Analyst
Posts: 3,268
And1: 181
Joined: Aug 31, 2004
     

 

Post#6 » by Brooklyn718 » Mon Jan 7, 2008 3:59 pm

Not much being made of the fact that History can be made here. A Woman or an African American. People make bigger deals of sports than this big peice of history.
User avatar
Capn'O
Senior Mod - Knicks
Senior Mod - Knicks
Posts: 79,979
And1: 89,951
Joined: Dec 16, 2005
Location: Our Process is... Underground
 

 

Post#7 » by Capn'O » Mon Jan 7, 2008 4:10 pm

:rockon: :rockon:
BAF Clippers
PG: CP3 | SGA
SG: SGA | Big Ragu
SF: J Brown | Dorture Chamber
PF: Gordon | Niang
C: Capela | Sharpe

Deep Bench - Forrest | Oladipo | Fernando | Young | Svi | Cody Martin


:beer:
Clark_Kent411
Banned User
Posts: 2,366
And1: 0
Joined: Dec 19, 2005

 

Post#8 » by Clark_Kent411 » Mon Jan 7, 2008 4:13 pm

No one can mess with The Huckster and Chuck Norris.
User avatar
aluball17
Pro Prospect
Posts: 964
And1: 1
Joined: Dec 20, 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Contact:

 

Post#9 » by aluball17 » Mon Jan 7, 2008 4:21 pm

Knick4Real wrote:Never in my life have I been so moved by a politician as I am by Barack Obama. He is the REAL DEAL! Smart, charismatic, inclusive, calculating, contemporary, all in one. The way he moves a crowd has some calling him a modern day Martin Luther King or JFK. I have donated money and time to his campaign which is a first for me, because that's how much I believe in him.

The OBAMA TRAIN is moving, and as many have said it may very well be unstoppable. I'm just glad I'm on board and enjoying the ride. Anybody not already registered to vote should register TODAY and hop on board too in helping this man make history!

:nod:


Felt the same way since I read his book a while ago. His ideas are new and refreshing.
User avatar
Knick4Real
General Manager
Posts: 7,973
And1: 7,146
Joined: Jan 20, 2005
Location: NYC
 

 

Post#10 » by Knick4Real » Mon Jan 7, 2008 4:30 pm

richardhutnik wrote:I find it a tad ironic that Hillary is supposed to have "a lot of experience" in this campaign. For her to attack Obama on this is absurd.

- Rich


Yeah I was thinking the same thing. She talks about all her "experience", but her experience was only living in the White House while her Husband was President.

Barack said it best the other day: If Hillary is the best choice for President because she was married to one, then perhaps when the President of General Motors steps down, his wife is the most qualified to run that company.

Absurd!
Image
JohnStarksTheDunk
General Manager
Posts: 8,595
And1: 2,008
Joined: Aug 16, 2005
Location: Los Angeles
       

 

Post#11 » by JohnStarksTheDunk » Mon Jan 7, 2008 4:44 pm

Brooklyn718 wrote:Not much being made of the fact that History can be made here. A Woman or an African American. People make bigger deals of sports than this big peice of history.


I think that's a good thing. It shows that people care more about a candidate than simply his/her sex or skin color.

I have no problem if someone wants to vote for Hillary, Edwards, Huckabee, Obama, McCain, etc. because he or she thinks that this person is best for the job, but I do have a problem with people being swayed by "making history". Make history by fixing this country.


EDIT: I will add though, that of course the first African-American President, or first female President would definitely be a big deal, and would be a positive sign that we have come a long way.
User avatar
LaCosaNostra
Analyst
Posts: 3,382
And1: 12
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
Location: The Bronx
       

 

Post#12 » by LaCosaNostra » Mon Jan 7, 2008 4:52 pm

I like Barack Obama in the same way I like Herm Edwards. They're both great motivational leaders. But like Edwards, he brings little substance to the table. I've yet to see him get down to any specifics, though from what I've READ, I'm against most of his views.

It would still be great to see a black president though. As for Hillary being the first woman, I think we should wait for a woman with a brain and morals. Besides, Margaret Thatcher was elected British Prime Minister in 1979 and Kim Campbell became Canadian Prime Minister for a brief stint in 1993. Both (particularly Thatcher) much better than Clinton II.
cmaff051
Inactive user
Inactive user
Posts: 13,071
And1: 2
Joined: Nov 02, 2006

 

Post#13 » by cmaff051 » Mon Jan 7, 2008 5:00 pm

Knick4Real wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



Yeah I was thinking the same thing. She talks about all her "experience", but her experience was only living in the White House while her Husband was President.

Barack said it best the other day: If Hillary is the best choice for President because she was married to one, then perhaps when the President of General Motors steps down, his wife is the most qualified to run that company.

Absurd!


This is wrong. Obama is a one term senator. Clinton is a two term senator who has precided over several Senate commities. It's not just her experience as a first lady, she has more experience as a senator. She also won her Senate election against a formidable opponent, which is more you can say of Barrack.

I do agree that if one wants experience in their candidate, Bill Richardson is the best candidate. It's a shame his campaign has never taken off because he has a lot to offer.
User avatar
riyaz_guerra
Senior
Posts: 525
And1: 0
Joined: Nov 06, 2006

 

Post#14 » by riyaz_guerra » Mon Jan 7, 2008 5:11 pm

Teen Girl Squad wrote:This is the problem with the electoral process. One candidate wins one frankly unimportant state and gains massive momentum. Luckily this year its with Obama (whom i like) and not Hilary (whom i hate).


I wholeheartedly agree. I read some newspaper was advocating a change and recommending that the primaries be arranged with regional voting blocks going at a time, as opposed to the current system which gives Iowa and New Hampshire a lot of power in deciding the eventual candidate.

While better than the current system, I disagree with that recommendation, because then specific regions will gain too much power in deciding the next president.

It would be better the states were to be divided into say, four regions, NE. SE, NW, SW. Each of these regions would have a more or less equal number of representative states on any given day. Space them out accordingly so as to give the campaigns time to campaign in each of them prior to the primary. Limit the number of states that will be up on any given day/week as another means to address obvious campaign difficulties brought upon by this structure. Using this method we would be in better position to get a candidate elected that is more or less representative of the interests of the entire nation as a whole.
"When you are right you cannot be too radical; when you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative." - Martin Luther King Jr.
User avatar
riyaz_guerra
Senior
Posts: 525
And1: 0
Joined: Nov 06, 2006

 

Post#15 » by riyaz_guerra » Mon Jan 7, 2008 5:34 pm

richardhutnik wrote:I find it a tad ironic that Hillary is supposed to have "a lot of experience" in this campaign. For her to attack Obama on this is absurd.

If people this election cared about experience, they would be looking at Bill Richardson.

If Obama builds up a ton of momentum, wins New Hampshire and goes on from there, having Bill Richardson as his VP would make a LOT of sense. It balances the ticket geographically for one thing. Richardson's experience is also another addition. Lastly, Richardson's ethnic background works to. I know people shouldn't be looking towards gender or ethnic background as anything, but people do.

- Rich


You are absolutely right about Richardson, and if he were a better campaigner he would be attacking Hillary on this aspect and try to siphon votes from her by positioning himself as the singular candidate that possesses the most experience.

Right now, Richardson is playing a foolish hand. No one is going to give him a second look just because he is being 'the nice guy' of the remaining candidates. You see in the debates, he jumps at the chance to chime in how the primary has become bitter and such and to try position himself as the true positive candidate. He is destined to exit NH with single digits if he continues doing this.

What sadly works is a candidate that maintains media focus, whether it is because of some nice speech, or a candidate that levels a stinging attack on another. THAT generates headlines and THOSE HEADLINES are what persists in the public consciousness. Whether it is a positive perception of a candidate or a negative perception facilitated by another candidate.

Therein lies Richardson's greatest weakness as a potential running mate. Historically, VPs are supposed to be the attack dogs of the presidential candidate team. The VP candidates do the dirty work while the actual presidential candidate attempts to stay above the fray and continue to play the role of the uniter. While Richardson has appeal because of his potential ability to draw the latino vote, I think there are certainly others that would be better in filling the VP role and be better in compensating for Obama's weaknesses...ie...

1. Edwards
Can anyone deny this guy will be the 'lord of attack dogs'? :lol:
He can be scary aggressive when he wants to be. His experience as a trial lawyer will certainly come in handy to deal with the likes of Giuliani or Thompson. His weaknesses could be that his alleged Southern appeal is not what it used to be.

2. Wesley Clark
Not many people can command the international respect and the military background that a man like Clark can. He would be great to cover Obama's perceived foreign policy weakness. Weakness...gaffes that may haunt him during his own presidential run four years ago.

3. Evan Bayh
A Democrat that has proven he can win in a deeply Republican Indiana, a champion of ethanol and renewable energy. A man that has proven Southern appeal,..what's not to like? He's very charismatic and he would also fit very nicely. Weakness...not the big name that other candidates would provide to the ticket.

Hillary wouldn't run for VP. She wants to be president and her best bet, should Obama win, would be to let Obama serve and if he messes up, be in prime position to run again in 2012. She cannot be his running mate because she would effectively become complicit in Obama's policies and it would be impossible to run against him in 2012. Her window is closing fast so she needs to be able to run again in 2012 should she have any presidential aspirations remaining.
"When you are right you cannot be too radical; when you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative." - Martin Luther King Jr.
User avatar
Capn'O
Senior Mod - Knicks
Senior Mod - Knicks
Posts: 79,979
And1: 89,951
Joined: Dec 16, 2005
Location: Our Process is... Underground
 

 

Post#16 » by Capn'O » Mon Jan 7, 2008 5:39 pm

riyaz_guerra wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



I wholeheartedly agree. I read some newspaper was advocating a change and recommending that the primaries be arranged with regional voting blocks going at a time, as opposed to the current system which gives Iowa and New Hampshire a lot of power in deciding the eventual candidate.

While better than the current system, I disagree with that recommendation, because then specific regions will gain too much power in deciding the next president.

It would be better the states were to be divided into say, four regions, NE. SE, NW, SW. Each of these regions would have a more or less equal number of representative states on any given day. Space them out accordingly so as to give the campaigns time to campaign in each of them prior to the primary. Limit the number of states that will be up on any given day/week as another means to address obvious campaign difficulties brought upon by this structure. Using this method we would be in better position to get a candidate elected that is more or less representative of the interests of the entire nation as a whole.


I've never understood why presidential primaries aren't held all at once the same way that the general election is... they could still be administered state my state as they are now.
BAF Clippers
PG: CP3 | SGA
SG: SGA | Big Ragu
SF: J Brown | Dorture Chamber
PF: Gordon | Niang
C: Capela | Sharpe

Deep Bench - Forrest | Oladipo | Fernando | Young | Svi | Cody Martin


:beer:
User avatar
richardhutnik
Banned User
Posts: 22,092
And1: 10
Joined: Oct 13, 2001
Location: Linsanity? What is that?
Contact:

 

Post#17 » by richardhutnik » Mon Jan 7, 2008 5:51 pm

Knick4Real wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Yeah I was thinking the same thing. She talks about all her "experience", but her experience was only living in the White House while her Husband was President.

Barack said it best the other day: If Hillary is the best choice for President because she was married to one, then perhaps when the President of General Motors steps down, his wife is the most qualified to run that company.

Absurd!


Well, a bit more than that. She did try to do health care reform, but that is about it.

Someone jokingly posted on Usenet that Brett Farve's wife will be starting for the Packers this coming weekend.

- Rich
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - G. Marx
User avatar
richardhutnik
Banned User
Posts: 22,092
And1: 10
Joined: Oct 13, 2001
Location: Linsanity? What is that?
Contact:

 

Post#18 » by richardhutnik » Mon Jan 7, 2008 5:52 pm

LaCosaNostra wrote:I like Barack Obama in the same way I like Herm Edwards. They're both great motivational leaders. But like Edwards, he brings little substance to the table. I've yet to see him get down to any specifics, though from what I've READ, I'm against most of his views.

It would still be great to see a black president though. As for Hillary being the first woman, I think we should wait for a woman with a brain and morals. Besides, Margaret Thatcher was elected British Prime Minister in 1979 and Kim Campbell became Canadian Prime Minister for a brief stint in 1993. Both (particularly Thatcher) much better than Clinton II.


What you speak of Edwards refers to the current Edwards running now.

- Rich
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - G. Marx
User avatar
richardhutnik
Banned User
Posts: 22,092
And1: 10
Joined: Oct 13, 2001
Location: Linsanity? What is that?
Contact:

 

Post#19 » by richardhutnik » Mon Jan 7, 2008 5:59 pm

cmaff051 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

This is wrong. Obama is a one term senator. Clinton is a two term senator who has precided over several Senate commities. It's not just her experience as a first lady, she has more experience as a senator. She also won her Senate election against a formidable opponent, which is more you can say of Barrack.

I do agree that if one wants experience in their candidate, Bill Richardson is the best candidate. It's a shame his campaign has never taken off because he has a lot to offer.


Obama has been a legislator for more years than Hillary has. Unless you think that being a state legislator is the same as being on a college student government, it counts for something.

Anyhow, Obama or no, Hillary doesn't have much experience, period.

Please tell me exactly WHO did Hillary win her Senate election against, Lazio? Lazio was a weak fill in, who took the place of Rudy, after he bolted.

Second term, this was the competition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_United_States_Senate_election,_2006

NY state GOP is in complete shambles here. They don't produce ANY notable competition to the Democrats now. Pataki totally wreck things here to. He is the Dubya of NY politicians.

- Rich
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - G. Marx
User avatar
riyaz_guerra
Senior
Posts: 525
And1: 0
Joined: Nov 06, 2006

 

Post#20 » by riyaz_guerra » Mon Jan 7, 2008 6:39 pm

richardhutnik wrote:


Rich is right, prostate cancer spared Hillary from Giuliani. According to an article in the NYTimes, he was probably going to be a serious challenge for a vulnerable Hillary. An excerpt...

Television advertising scripts had been drafted (
"When you are right you cannot be too radical; when you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative." - Martin Luther King Jr.

Return to New York Knicks