Just one more reason for the big Hillary upset

[billbuckhead]

"So what happened? There are multiple theories. Stu Rothenberg, of the Rothenberg Political Report, noted that Clinton received as much, if not more, support from voters who were as angry at the Bush administration as Obama. With Sen. John Edwards receiving less support in New Hampshire than in Iowa, it seemed likely that Obama would pick up his votes. But, as Rothenberg noted, the opposite may have been true."

"It's possible that Edwards's collapse may have helped Hillary - not Obama, as I would have assumed," said Rothenberg. "I have to wonder - with Edwards failing, why wouldn't the other "change" candidate benefit? Obama apparently didn't, while Clinton won downscale voters who might have found Edwards's message appealing."
--------------snip-----------------------
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/08/obama-faithful-shocked-in_n_80591.html>

Even tonite Obama kept sucking up to bipartisanship and wanting to sing Kumbaya with Bush Republicans. There's far to much bipartisanship now. Yech:puke:

[AX10]

1. I agree with you about Obama and "bi-partisanship"

[lvx35]

2. Edwards is an "experience" candidate too, don't forget.

Maybe that was it.

[RummyTheDummy]

3. This was no upset

[billbuckhead]

4. Be honest. "Intrade is never wrong" " "Double digit Obama lead" "end of Clinton restoration"

Give credit where credit's due. Hillary beat Obama, Edwards and the corporate media all at one time against staunch odds.