Maybe he is… he sure does spend money like a democrat.
well it’s playing out that way though, isn’t it? so the repub’s called it right. unfortunately.
I doubt the repubs were trying to influence anything… they’re just more in tune with the clinton manipulating machine than the dems are. You’d have to view the clintons through the eyes of a repub to understand this.
I came in here to mention the very real possibility of a third-place Iowa finish. This is made more likely by the vagaries of the Iowa caucus process. When Biden, Dodd, Kucinich and Richardson’s supporters are freed up after the first round of voting, I expect they’ll gravitate to Obama and Edwards as the anti-Hillarys in the second round. Result: Both Obama and Edwards will turn in stronger numbers in the actual caucus results than in the polls, and both may surpass Hillary.
On the other hand, I expect Hillary to finish at least second in New Hampshire-- and no doubt pronounce herself “the comeback kid,” much as Bill did in '92. South Carolina and Nevada may decide the issue.
I’m not following this. Why wouldn’t Biden throw his support behind Hillary, if he decides to drop out? Same with Dodd. Both are “establishment” Dems, right? And Hillary is main pick for that group, right? Kucinich, I can see going with Obama, but he’s only got minimal support anyway.
I just don’t think Hillary is the second choice of many caucus voters. Nor do I think caucus voters would behave as drones and vote however Dodd and Biden tell them to after the elimination round. Why should they?
I’m not trying to be argumentative, btw. Just trying to understand your reasoning.
I’m thinking that Biden and Dodd supporters would themselves be more mainstream, establishment Democrats, so they’d tend to naturally gravitate towards Hillary.
But who knows. That caucus system is crazy, and almost anything can happen. All I know is that the better your organization is, the better your chances. And HRC = organization.
I think you’re right as far as Biden’s concerned, but Dodd’s been running a very antiestablishment campaign, despite his long track record in the Senate, particularly with respect to habeas, the Fourth Amendment, FISA, and the like: he’s trying to force the Dems to take a much stronger stand against Bush and the GOP than either Reid or Hillary would like. He’s gotten a lot of props in the lefty blogosphere for that, so I expect his supporters aren’t exactly Hillary fans.
The other thing is, in the Iowa caucuses, it isn’t Biden or Dodd or Kucinich that’s throwing support. It’s their local supporters in each individual precinct caucus around the state. I could be wrong, but it’s hard to see an underfunded, single-digit-support candidate having the sort of organization in Iowa capable of tipping his supporters to a particular major candidate in the precincts where he can’t muster 15%. Or caring enough to do so, as his Presidential dreams go down the tubes.
So in other words one would have to be wrong to believe the things you say.
So did the Republicans really promote Hillary as the front runner or was it just a “few of the louder mouths”?
I don’t think people pay much attention to what their candidate tells them to do once they drop out. It seems to me that if you can stomach Hillary, you’re already in her corner. I think there’s definitely a ceiling of support that she can count on even among Democrats and she might be near it. Once the anti-Hillary vote gets cut into fewer and fewer pieces, she might well be in deep trouble.
If Obama gets the nomination, he should privately contact Hillary and ask her to be his running mate. She wouldn’t accept, I don’t think, but it would be a nice way to rub it in her face!
I’m sorry. Try reading the whole sentence again. Let me translate-The louder mouths got the ball rolling, and the rest followed faithfully behind.
Merijeek, you realize you are now going to have to come to work and explain to my coworkers why I just pissed my pants from laughing so hard. 
Dan Bartlett, who oversaw Communications and Media Affairs for Bush up until July 2007, explains how this works in the Texas Monthly:
I think it was when she threw Chelsea in front of the mad bomber to protect herself that people started to realize that she’s insane enough to get us into a nuclear war with the Soviets rather than try for a diplomatic solution. There’s nowhere to go from here but down.
[This post brought to you by the “More Cowbell” conspiracy association.]
Although it is correct that Bush had the power to veto any bills he deemed not fiscally sound and as such deserves any abuse from fiscal conservatives he gets, where do you think all those bills came from? They didn’t materialize out of thin air.
Of course, it’s silly to vote for either party using the fiscally conservative rubric. I can’t understand how the illusion could occur that either care about reduced spending when one ignores the obvious propagandizing that goes on. The power elite will give money to their friends, whichever faction you elect. Plus there’s the overlap of their shared favorites.
Then again, I’m also confused as to how supposedly anti-war and anti-authoritarian liberals could vote for anyone with a D next to their name. That would be more in line with the OP.
I saw her true colors when the whole cannibalism scandal broke out. We can’t trust a cannibal with our nuclear arsenal.
I’m sorry, but this doesn’t make any sense. Why would a cannibal want to contaminate the food supply?
I guess you haven’t heard about the latest weapon in our nucler arsenal: The Microwave Bomb. It cooks enemy soldiers without permanently irratiating them or their surroundings. Using it on a city is like throwing a bag of popcorn in the microwave.