This is depressing. Democrats are forgetting the big picture.

[Meldread]

We are cutting our noses off to spite our faces. This is the narrative (that is already taking place) coming out of New Hampshire: Hillary the come back kid.

People are arguing over how Hillary has made her come back, but I have yet to see anyone point out the fact that she's closing this gap through horrible negativity. There was some hope by myself that after New Hampshire, we'd have a clear nominee and we could quickly solidify behind him and prepare to fight the Republican's in the General Election. That is not going to happen.

Things are about to get really ugly. Obama is going to end up launching horrible and debilitating attacks against Hillary, Bill and Hillary are going to increase their attacks on Obama. By the time we get to the General Election it won't matter who has won, because we will have committed collective suicide.

We've been given the perfect opportunity to finally retake the White House. It might not happen.

Also, I should point out that if we get into a state-by-state battle - guerilla warfare - we could potentially be looking at a Clinton / Obama ticket or a Obama / Clinton ticket (assuming that she'd take a #2 seat).

In any event the narrative coming out of New Hampshire will be: Hillary the come back kid. I hope everyone is ready for the "dump truck" - things are about to get ugly for everybody no matter the candidate.

[Connie_Corleone]

1. Status quo wins again.

Obama will not be Hillary's running mate. It'll probably be Clark.

[William769]

2. SO it's safe to assume your for circumventing the Democratic process?

[hayu_lol]

3. I dunno, we have two live and intelligent candidates. Not a bad way to ...

finish up the 2nd primary. Could still go either way but at least the excitement, such as it is, will continue to SC.

Dartmouth and Univ. of New Hampshire returns not yet in. Could go either way yet.

[Meldread]

6. It's no worse than what it was designed to do.

The Clinton's, the DLC, and even the DNC wanted this condensed Primary to elect a candidate after one or two states. They supported it precisely for the reason I outlined.

It may be more "democratic" to have a state by state battle, but is it worth it? At the end of the day the difference between Clinton and Obama (substance wise - policy wise) is razor thin. For that very reason the only way for them to deal with one another is to go negative. That helps NEITHER candidate going into the General Election. That hurts the party and only helps the Republicans.

[William769]

8. I think people in the later primaries would say so.

And it has nothing to do with the DLC it has to do with every vote counts. But I can understand why some would not want that to happen.

[Meldread]

11. I'm in a WAY late Primary.

I am in Virginia, and yes I want my vote to count.

What I am saying, though, is that do we really need for both Hillary and Obama to stand at opposite ends of the hall and shoot each other dead? I am arguing for the big picture. No matter WHO wins we still have to go into the general. We can't deny that this could hurt us in the long run.

[Benhurst]

4. Looks like we may be headed for a convention instead of a coronation.

Who knows? It might be a good thing. Maybe democracy works.

[sandnsea]

5. horrible negativity - but put her on the ballot

:crazy:

Why?

[Meldread]

9. Reason:

If we enter into a state by state battle then people will end up heavily vested into one candidate or another. If Clinton wins I would argue that it would be unthinkable if she did not take Obama as her VP. I am unsure if Clinton would accept it if Obama wins, I have my doubts on that, but I think it would at least be offered.

[Tom Rinaldo]

7. Stop being so damn elitist as to dictate for Democratic voters

what is the big picture and what isn't. Turn out in NH is at historic highs this primary, mind blowing highs. For New Hampshire at least, this is Democracy speaking. Don't flatter yourself that you understand the big picture but the Democrats in New Hampshire don't. They are the ones who have actually been going out several times a week to meet the candidates and watch them up close. They have taken this election damn seriously.

I disagree with your appraisal about who is and who is not more likely to win in November. I've blogged about my reasons here at DU (you can check my Journal) but it's just my opinion. Your opinion is just your opinion also. We both can't be right but that doesn't mean we both aren't doing our best to look at the big picture. And so are the Democrats in New Hampshire.

[Meldread]

14. I don't think anyone would argue...

...that if everyone goes negative - as they have already started to do - is good for us in the general election. This has nothing to do with Obama or Hillary or their campaigns, but more about the tone that is about to be set. A very, very negative tone. I am not even saying that this isn't good for democracy (I actually think that it is), but what I am saying is: CAUTION! Things are about to get ugly, and before we begin to experience it we should really consider what it is going to do to our chances. We cannot and should not take our eye off the prize, regardless of who wins our nomination.

[hyphenate]

10. Why is this so wrong?

We're going to let one event (Iowa caucus) make the singular decision for the candidates? This is a democracy in action! Different parts of the country, different opinions on the strengths of the candidates--in both parties, mind you--and different takes on the messages of those candidates.

It still boils down to three candidates, mostly, in the Democratic party! On the repub side, there is even greater turmoil, and that is worth appraising. Regardless of who our candidate is, the repubs have got a divided party in many, many ways, and there is nothing there to suppose that the turmoil on their side is going to be resolved anytime soon.

On the Dem side, we simply have to see which of the candidates is the most viable--the one that will win over the entire country, and not just the small fragments we've seen from the Iowa caucus or the NH primary. Neither one of these places has a major city, and therein lies the true event of the primaries and caucuses--when cities like New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Boston and states with huge populations have made their decisions, we will begin to see the shape of this year's election.

So what if Obama and Clinton battle it out? That's part of the overall thrill--who will stay above the fray, who will be deemed the congeniality candidate, and the one that stays on message? It's important for the people to see the candidates in a different light than they did for the past year, when there was less riding on the debaters, when less was at stake than now, when collecting delegates is most important?

The easiest way for a candidate to wind up as our nominee is to have people compare debate answers or speeches from a year ago with the current ones--the real winner will be the one who has managed to remain consistent.

These months ahead will show perseverance under stress, and the one who emerges still intact after it all will be one who deserves our votes. It's a whole different ballgame, and we are witnesses to history, whether we like it or not.

[demo dutch]

12. Quite frankly I'll take any of the three Dem candidate, over any Repug!

[Auntie Bush]

13. It will only get ugly if we let it. We are in control.

[knight_of_the_star]

15. Excuse me but

This year I WANT my vote to count, normally California doesn't get to do jack shit because of this front-loading crap, how about letting the WHOLE country have a say and remember this is the USA, not China.

[mrmx9]

16. Message - Iowa Democrats Want to Win Presidential Election and New Hampshire Democrats' Don't

When will people realise that Hillary won't win a general election against McCain, Giuliani or Huckabee - whereas Obama can garner independents and widen the base. If she is the nominee we will have a Republican in the white house!