The frontloaded primaries may be what actually does Hillary in

[ButterflyBlood]

Which is ironic, since they were supposed to limit Iowa and NH's influence. Instead they become far more important. Before there was ways to recover from a defeat in both, more smaller steps along the way before Super Tuesday. Not anymore. If Hillary loses NH, what can she pick up before Feb. 5? If Obama can win in a state like Iowa, how can she beat him in South Carolina where the elctorate is about half black? And can she get more of her supporters out to the Nevada caucuses with the media railing about how she's a sinking ship while Obama's supporters will walk over broken glass for him? Sure she'll win Michigan and Florida, but they're now about as relevant as those online polls that get stuffed by Ron Paulites resulting in landslides for him.

Lose NH, and she basically has to adopt the Giuliani strategy: Survive a month of being touted as a sinking ship and then somehow pull off a big win on Feb 5. Not a strategy I expect many to try in the future.

[Skidmore]

1. Beating the machine...

The machine is breaking itself. Now it is up to us to step up and to build a nation--our own.

[FrenchieCat]

Sounds like a much better proposition...."Build a nation of our own"....

than having to deal with that broken down machine, hey?

Certainly sounds good to me. Great to be reminded as to what this is all about! :thumbsup:

[DFLforever]

2. It's glorious to watch.

this brainchild of McAuliffe coming home...

[hlthe2b]

5. No... very sad, even for those who revel in schadenfreude

I'm not and have not been backing Clinton, but still-- I can feel the intense sadness of lost dreams--not only for Hillary, but for countless women who thought finally they would see a woman as President in their lifetime. I'd be content with Obama or Edwards (just taking the top three for discussion), but I do feel the pathos.

I'm not saying she doesn't bear responsibility for what is happening--just that I find it very sad.

[thoughtcrime1984]

8. Perhaps there'll be more female candidates in the future

I'd bet on it. I'd also bet on one winning the Presidency in the next 20-25 years, one that is more acceptable to the general population than Hillary.

[ButterflyBlood]

10. Agreed.

n/t

[sam sarrha]

3. the ReThugs are stealing the Election in the primaries, it is set up.. they will nominate a candidat...

that cant be elected or a president they can totally destroy like one that used crack and they think they can hang sex scandals on

notice Obama was first and Hillery was 3rd... they are afraid of Edwards and are making him a non candidate.. i haven't seen him ANYWHERE but Cspan...!!!! he is the only anti-fascist. anti-corporatist.. all the others say they will work with the insurance companies and the status Quo..

you have to read the "Shock Doctrine"... disaster capitalism is a self perpetuating cancer that will enslave us all

[Skidmore]

4. Get a grip! Have a cup of tea.

Turn off the computer and go talk to some people around you about the state of the nation and hear what they are saying. Get out of your head and in to the street. People will strive for freedom and they will only tolerate oppression for so long and then they rebel. The revolution has come. Quit wringing your hands and join in.

[sam sarrha]

6. they sat quietly drinking tea as the band played on.. sorry i have been in the revolution since '64

the war is still raging.. you better wake up read the 'shock doctrine'

[thoughtcrime1984]

7. You know what does her in the most?

The US as a whole just doesn't like her very much. For whatever reason. It doesn't really matter why, because when someone flat out doesn't like a candidate, they will not vote for her/him, regardless of what the candidate says or does. Likability is pretty big, whether you care to admit it or not.

[Peace Patriot]

9. As long as Diebold, ES&S and Sequoia are 'counting' the votes, anything can happen.

This extremely non-transparent, insecure and insider riggable voting system should be our first priority, and should be the context in which we discuss candidates and issues. The far rightwing Bushite corporations who are now 'counting' all our 'votes' with TRADE SECRET, PROPRIETARY programming code, don't give a fuck who we, the people, want as a candidate or president. Their choices will prevail, not ours. And they also can pick and choose among R's and D's to shape a congress that will vote billions and billions more of our tax dollars into Bush/Cheney's war, no matter what the American people want (70% opposed to the war). With this kind of power--direct Corporate Ruler power over election results--a Hillary "comeback kid" scenario has likely been written and will play out (if that's who they've chosen). (Could be that Obama's the 'made' candidate--but we'll see.)

This should be our chief concern: Who is 'counting' the votes, and how? How can you verify the 'count'? In most cases, you cannot verify it. The system is WIDE OPEN to insider fraud, in almost every state. There is hardly a member of Congress who can prove that he or she was actually elected. And Bush/Cheney certainly cannot (and were not, either time). This shadow play that is being presented to you--a presidential race in which you think that you have a 'choice,' and that the peoples' opinion matters--is a very diabolical and super-cynical business. Kucinich is the only one who has 'called' the system on it, in a big way (--he proposed a bill to require paper ballots/handcounting in the presidential election), and the war profiteering corporate news monopolies got rid of him quick (excluded him from debates); Edwards has said a few things, but not much. (He would be VP today, if not for Diebold et al.) The rest of them are running for Holy Roman Emperor, as far as I can tell. (Whom will Pope Diebold crown?)

Long and short of it: NOBODY with any sincere intention to reform this government (which of necessity means busting corporate/war profiteer power) will be permitted to become president. Back in the '60s, they just shot them. Today, they Diebold them. And any political discussion that does not include that reality veers into Alice's Wonderland. To discuss Hillary's up's and down's BEFORE Diebold & co. have had their say is rather like a Madhatter's Tea Party discussion.

[suston96]

11. Good one. Ties in with taking our eyes off the real prize - real control of the Congress....

While we are all busy with our intra-candidate orgasmic support system, Karl Rove and Diebold and their ilk are nailing down key congressional elections - US Senate and the US House.

Party on, kids. The rest of the country is in good hands.