Something I’m quite interested in is how people seem to believe Obama is vastly different on policy than Clinton. I may be missing something and I would love the clarification, but on the big policy points the two seem to be pretty much identical. Is it more about an image and personality clash when it comes to Clinton as opposed to a policy one? If not what examples are there of how she is “more republican” than Obama (as I’ve heard described)?

Iraq is a word that springs to mind…

But in what way? Again as far as I’m aware both are in favour of withdrawal despite how time-scales may alter between them, and while Hillary voted for invasion she has long since rectified her position and condemned the intelligence that led her and others to vote in such a manner.

Well for one, he was against the war from the beginning. Hillary was the favorite of a lot of liberals like myself and she had major media clout. We were counting on her to stand up and be a powerful voice against the war, because she would’ve garnered the attention. And while it was a risky position, there were still some 30 Senators who realized that the evidence was far too flimsy, and that Iraq was no imminent threat. Yet, she caved in to the nonsense. Furthermore, many people like myself are convinced that she wouldn’t have even called for troop withdrawal had it not been for her main rivals taking the first step. She was the least vocal in her criticism of the war and she was the last to come out in support of cutting funding.

And it’s not just the war .She’s tried to be right wing on other military affairs, like voting for a resolution that said “it is in our vital national security interests” to stop the Iranian national guard. This resolution, which Obama voted against, paved the way for war with Iran, and were it not for the NIE report most analysts believe that it would have started some time in this month. But there’s more! She also, again unlike Obama, voted against a resolution limiting our sales of cluster bombs. This was classic pandering to the AIPAC (Israel) lobby. Several hundred thousand American made cluster bombs remain unexploded in Lebanon after the 33 Day war and are set off by random encounters by the Lebanese. Also, Human Rights Watch wrote an extensive report detailing how Israel carelessly dropped these bombs in major population centers even though they are completely unpredictable in where they will land and what targets they will hit. And finally, Obama has showed a willingness to step outside of conventional wisdom and to engage Iran directly at the highest levels. While Clinton said she’d be willing to send lower level emmisaries, she would not promise to do the same at higher levels. She’s simply too afraid to change the Washington mold and try something different.

This is very much in line with how Bill Clinton was as president. He considered himself a “New Democrat”, which he used as a means to attack the traditional Democratic establishment. This caused major losses in the House and the Senate during the Clinton era, because it made being a Democrat something to be ashamed of. It, not consequently, led to the death of the most important legislation Democrats wanted to pass (like Health Care!). In this vein, the Clinton’s helped start the most conservative Democratic body out there (called the DLC, Democratic Leadership Council) and this too has been the source of a lot of resentment by progressives. Instead of working to claim Democratic ideals as American ideals (as Obama is doing), they framed the discussion in a way that made being a Democrat a bad thing.

Lee, Clinton and Obama are very similar on policies.

The reason why I think Obama would be a vastly superior President is that he comes across as a moderate and has the charisma to build bipartisan support in Congress.

That brings me on to the main advantage of an Obama candidacy. With the amount of buzz he is creating, especially with new voters, Obama is likely to get a huge turnout. If a lot of these people vote Democrat across the ticket then he could swing tight senate and house races making the House majority even bigger and possibly achieving the holy grail of 60 seats in the senate.

Conversely a Hillary candidacy would mobilise the Republican base. Even though she would probably win, it would most likely be a marginal victory of the type that Gore ‘won’ in 2000 rather than a significant mandate for wide reaching reform.

Finally, Obama would be a fantastic symbol for the rest of the world that despite the fact that America has its faults, its liberal democracy is still something to aspire to. On the other hand, Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton suggests that despite the fact that it is a democracy, political dynasticism is just as strong there as it is in a lot of developing countries.

Interesting question surely is what size margin does Obama need to deal a fatal blow to Hillary’s campaign or can she survive anything provided she bounces back on Super Tuesday…?

Anything above 15% looks to be the devastation he needs. I think he’ll win by something like 8/9%.

Very thought provoking comments, O, definitely exactly the sort of thing I was interested in learning.

And Shariq, I agree (at least in terms of what I knew before reading O’s comment). He is a much better orator and he has clearly made people feel good about politics when he talks to them. This is something all countries should have in a leader. The fact he also represents real change from the previous decade or so is probably key. As O said, and as I previously though was the only real difference apparent, the problem with Clinton is she talks about change as if the fact that she’s a woman and that she’s a democrat is change enough. I’ve no doubt she would be a change to Bush’s line of policies and veto’s in day to day views of her work, but in the bigger picture it’s just more of the same.

Lee, I completely agree with O about Obama’s superior foreign policy credentials. I especially like his comments about engaging with Iran and Syria and am willing to overlook the fact that he said he would send troops into Pakistan if he thought he could capture al-qaeda and taliban over there.

However on economic policy Obama is somewhere in between Edwards and Clinton. In fact before Iowa, major net-roots democrats such as Kos and voiced serious concerns about Obama’s progressive credentials and accused him of the triangulation which O is talking about.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/2/12427/74720/978/429207

I think what some people on the left miss is that there isn’t such a thing as a liberal super-majority and simply pushing progressive ideals while belittling conservative ideas is the way to guarantee victory.

Obama understands this and is always willing to engage the other side rather than dismissing them. More importantly, people on the right seem to be willing to listen to him. Andrew Sullivan for instance has reported on a number of older conservative types, who have decided that they will back Obama. On the other hand even if Hillary had Obama’s charisma, the fact that a lot of republicans hate her isn’t something she can change.

But surely attacking your own side, if that is what you’re talking about, is potentially a good thing when your own side have been ineffectual for 8 years?

Sorry Lee, I’m not sure what you mean. Who attacking who is potentially a good thing?

Sorry, in the link you provided the guy goes in to why Obama is not necessarily so progressive (or at least that’s how it reads to me) because he attacks Democrats before him.

Got it. I agree with you on that point. Obama attacking certain elements on his own side probably helps his reputation as an independent and reform minded thinker as opposed to a partisan hack.

Btw, it appears that the networks have called NH for John McCain.

Sunny, changed your mind on McCain yet :p ??

I’m slightly annoyed by the Anthony Barnett article. Like David Aaronovitch in The Times today, he seems to have jumped on the ‘America will elect a black man over a white woman’ bandwagon.

Maybe it just comes down to the fact that Obama is a more charismatic, media-savvy candidate. If Obama hadn’t won I would have gone along with the argument that his elite reformer campaign failed, just like it did with Gary Hart and Bill Bradley before him.

Yes, some of the media coverage about Hillary has had a sexist touch, but a lot of it has to do with the fact Obama has momentum and the media’s going to look at what’s going wrong with Hillary’s campaign.

Matt Yglesias linked to this post which says that the early results are expected to favour Hillary and if its close then Obama will win.

http://graniteprof.typepad.com/graniteprof/2008/01/what-to-watch-i.html

BBC wondering if this will be another “Clinton comeback night”. If she did come first here surely the Iowa situation is pretty much null and void with Clinton going back to being favourite to seal the deal?

16. Was just going to say I was surprised at McCain being called by the media as the winner already so early. I guess it is because for him he has taken towns/cities that would show trends that he will win overall while on the democrats side things are playing too close from individual locales?

If Clinton won tonight she’d definitely be the favourite again. Having said that her campaign team has been spinning that anything less than a double digit victory for Obama would be a moral victory for Hillary. Let’s see if people will buy that.

Btw, I’ve checked the cnn website for the early towns that GraniteProf said to look out for.

Hillary looks like she’s carrying Manchester easily while Obama is doing the same with Keene. I think this means its going to be close but because of the high turnout Obama should still take by b/w 5 to 10 points.

Again, listening to BBC here, but I’ve never had a chance to really listen to republican candidates properly but Mitt Romney actually comes off like a human being. How strange this feeling is. Making a very good line with his future gazing as it happens.

Sunny, I think the reason that Romney has conceded is that according to GraniteProf’s analysis, he needed to take the Southern part of the state which borders Massachusetts in order to be competitive. However he even lost Manchester and the networks felt pretty comfortable in calling it for McCain. (Although how they still do this after what happened in 2000) is mindboggling.

Another point. Obama has taken Bow by 6 points. Even though he’s still down on the ‘results’, I think Obama is still on track to take NH comfortably.

Bit of a scare for Obama as his rating dropped to 6 points below Clinton at one point 5 minutes ago! Back up to being 3 behind now.

I understand why the BBC has to say this isn’t going as expected, however I really don’t know how qualified that statement is. If Clinton was always going to win certain counties, such as the touted Manchester, then surely the situation is exactly as expected. Wouldn’t it be more sensible to think that rather than these originally more polarised counties it is the more undecided counties that may be yet to come that could propel Obama forward swiftly?

I also hate that they have latched on to this “comeback kid” bollocks. They’re clearly really happy they have political knowledge and are doing lazy journalism as per usual.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/02/projection.explainer/index.html is a particularly mind boggling explaination of projections, but although these people are wrong occasionally we know that most of the time they project things right. It does never cease to amaze me, however, that people willingly concede so early.

Of course, if I read right New Hampshire really doesn’t matter so much for the republicans because of this weird penalisation issue?

Lee, you are right.

It is going as expected if you thought Obama would win comfortably but not spectacularly.

If Obama had done better in Manchester he would be on track for a crushing victory.

Not that I’m a Clinton supporter – far from it – but…

“Obama would be a fantastic symbol for the rest of the world that despite the fact that America has its faults, its liberal democracy is still something to aspire to.”

Why?

“On the other hand, Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton suggests that despite the fact that it is a democracy, political dynasticism is just as strong there as it is in a lot of developing countries.”

Perhaps the more honest picture?

Here’s hoping that Edwards gets the nominations. Exceedingly unlikely, but…

Edwards has got to be strongly positioned in South Carolina. So far the media has been assuming that Obama will win that state, but if the Obama bubble has indeed been pricked, then Edwards surely has a chance of springing a surprise, and then he’ll be right back in the race.

Okay, maybe I’m clutching at straws.

Interesting results so far are Chatham, Dublin, Easton, Eaton, Hancock and several more, where Obama had a significant (20+%) lead over Clinton and Chichester (along with a couple of smaller locations) where there was one vote in it to give Clinton the win.

Trouble for Obama in the early stage is while he has decimated opposition in various area’s, he’s barely beaten them in just as many. Clinton on the other hand consistently wins by 10-14 points or so pretty much everywhere that she wins.

On a side note, McCain *is* Droopy the dog.

Sitting here in the original Hampshire, I’m just loving all those New England place names.

24. Well given that throughout all these media reports of the polls not one has stated that almost a third of the respondents weren’t sure, I think it was very naive for anyone to expect a crushing victory!

25. You seem to have a problem with the idea of Obama being president, care to elaborate? Personally I don’t think you should settle for the “honest” situation if there is a chance to break it and not give anything up in the process. Ruling countries because your family did is one of the worst reasons to vote someone in, yet everyone continues to do it in these systems. Perhaps this is positive light for the UK system after all

It’s also interesting to note that even if Clinton did win by the margin she is at the minute, it would appear to do nothing but effectively tie her in number of delegates for conference.

d0M, I can understand why you support Edwards. Have you read this by any chance
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=14533

Having said that I don’t think Edwards has a chance. Even, if Obama doesn’t win by as big a margin as expected I expect him to give a very good speech to keep his momentum going.

Also, do you really not think that a black guy called Barack Hossein Obama becoming President wouldn’t be a sign of the strength of America’s democracy. Yes the previous 20 years have been dominate by Bush and Clinton but the beauty of democracy is that it provides a mechanism for change when people are fed up with the status quo. Both Obama and Huckabee are symbols of that.

29. I have no problem with the idea of Obama being president, I’m just distinctly underwhelmed by the prospect. American democracy is in a sick state (British democracy is too, though for different reasons). If you want the rest of the world to believe that American liberal democracy is something to aspire to, it will take more than symbols. The world isn’t stupid. Obama would need to not just get elected, but to then go on and fix the system. And right now I can’t shake the impression that Washington lobbyists will eat him for breakfast.

Finally its getting interesting between Obama and Clinton, although CNN has just said that many of the college towns are yet to report their numbers and they expect those to go Obama’s way.

No surprises the kids are voting for Obama and the Women are voting for Hilary….so much for the Oprah effect.

Lee, I’m agreeing with you about the media’s bounce-backability of Clinton. The truth is that a 5-6 point victory would be great for Obama not Clinton. Right now Hillary people are still telling CNN that they are very cautious.

As for the total number of delegates, I don’t think it matters that much right now. Momentum and money-raising capability are more important. Also Obama winning in 2 white states should make people in other places more comfortable in voting for Obama.

Robert, totally agree about your comment on the English place names.

http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/index.html#NHDEM

Exit polls suggest that a significant number of women voted over men, and given how much power clinton seems to command over women voters this might go some way to explain why it’s not as runaway as some suggested. The exit poll also says that people think that Obama has the best chance while also being less good for the role of commander in chief. Clinton also seems to gain more from any anti-obama feeling than Obama gains from anti-clinton feeling. And finally, as I think O said earlier, it’s clear that Clinton commands much more power on the issue of the economy, while Obama wins with Iraq.

All in all the people of New Hampshire seem to think that Clinton will be stronger in the role and be more respected, and even be a better leader…but that Obama is more electable and that he will bring about more change and is therefore more likely to be there come the end.

shariq,

I’ll read the link and get back to you on that. However, the short answer to your question is: tokenism. An Obama presidency would a sign of strength in American democracy not in and of itself but if delivers the goods. The same could be said of a Clinton Mk II presidency.

Hey Vanessa, If you’re watching CNN then this website is very useful.

http://www.politico.com/nhprimaries/nhmap-popup.html

Btw, I suspect that because everyone said that Obama was going to win comfortably and Romney might beat McCain, a lot of independents decided to vote for McCain thinking that Obama would win anyway.

33. not just the kids; the educated, church going, probably single and well off are more likely to vote Obama. Somehow I’m a little surprised at this.

So Londonderry went to Clinton, which was in a previous link suggested to be Obama’s if he was to be winning comfortably.

It really looks as if Edwards is the one hurting Obama the most at the moment by existing in the race.

You’re right Lee. Hillary’s taken Londonderry by 3 although Obama has taken Bow by 5.

I’m guessing this means we should scale down Obama’s margin of victory to 2 or 3 points. Especially as the exit polls show that Hillary has won easily amongst women. I wonder why that might have happened :p

I’m sure it’s just a coincidence

Obama also won Rye by 14 points

Bedford was a dead heat. That leaves Merrimack as the only one of the interstate counties which hasn’t reported yet.

Thanks for that link, unfortunately i havent got a moment to read it as i am doing all planning a demo on friday. I shall have to settle with watching them make news of this current stalemate.

Dare i stick my neck out but i think Hilary will get this one, she has advantage with the Women and the older generation,. When you take into account that only 18% of the vote was made up by under 30s, Obama needs there to be a higher male turn out to counter balance the age stats.

Plus im hooked on this amazing screen CNN keep using to break down the different areas that looks like a massive Ipod touch!

Going on that previous wisdom it is very clear that the balloon is deflating. I wouldn’t say that it is burst, Clinton is clearly riding the percentages here with female voters taking precedence and so Obama can still take feelings of a real victory here. He needs to learn a lesson from Gordon Brown though and tell his team to shut up unless they can be certain of something!

The link is basically a web equivalent of what cnn is using which allows you to scroll over counties to see which way they have voted.

Lee, not sure I totally agree with the Brown analogy as a lot of the hype as been from media polls rather than Obama staffers.

Also, although its tempting to say that Edwards is hurting Obama in New Hampshire he should actually be taking away votes from Hillary.

As I was saying earlier, Obama has actually won in more locations yet he has not managed to win by enough compared to Clinton. If you’re following the percentages then there really is a chance, given how close some of the areas thought to be Obama were, of a Clinton win.

The next question is…is this early deflation of the Obama campaign a good thing in the long run, given that it’s not a destruction of the campaign?

Agreed. Also, Hillary has won pretty big in Manchester and Nashua which are the biggest cities and they still haven’t finished reporting.

Having said that CNN has said that a few college towns which should favour Obama haven’t started reporting yet.

Very interesting exit poll which says that Obama does better with richer democrats while poorer democrats favour Hillary. In the long run this could be more significant than the women’s vote.

Shariq: True, it is certainly different…yet it is the “crushing victory” comments of the Obama team that the media running those polls have latched so readily on to

As for Edwards…the exit polls really show that he is hurting Obama more. If you hate Hillary then you are more likely to vote for Edwards than if you hate Obama. Quite clearly people that dislike Hillary haven’t found a single candidate to latch on to necessarily (Edwards takes 25% of the vote I believe), while people that dislike Obama have already latched on to Hillary (80% or so).

48. It’s very interesting actually, as on one hand you have Obama being more in tune with independent voters which is great country wide, but if Clinton resonates more with the working classes and the poor then I’d imagine a lot of the advantage Obama has with those independents would be eroded away.

Can Clinton really afford to take the foot off the “gas” until February given these results? Obama is a nightmare for her because of the media’s love for him right now, and if he goes and takes a couple more wins then he has huge emphasis going in to super-tuesday. Today of course shows how such momentum can still mean she is the first choice of the American people, but is it really worth the risk?

50. Agreed

Crap. The AP have called it for Clinton. CNN refusing to call it right now.

CNN don’t sound like they would call it until much later into the count. I think this is very premature still to call her the winner, but she is pulling the margain wider again.

Well, they’ve called it. Time for Obama’s speech.

Well, time for bed then…last comment…didn’t Obama sound distinctly evangelical this time around?

Well picked up. He also sounded slightly more ‘black’ and like Martin Luther King. Maybe he’s looking ahead to South Carolina where the African-American vote is going to be crucial.

Bollocks, I can’t believe she scraped through…. although I did predict it.

There’a a few interesting points to make – firstly that Obama’s speech was still very good and he will take South Caroline.

McCain’s speech was annoyingly long and I hope his campaign dies a horrible death asap. In fact, it will soon. I think he’ll sink in South Caroline, where Huckabee will be back.

Thompson is over, and I think Giuliani will be over after Florida.

Also, consider that Romney finished only 5% points behind McCain – despite expecting to lose very badly. Huckabee wasn’t even close. I keep telling everyone not to write Romney off but they keep doing it. I think he’ll be around for a while yet…

Quick point to note. Because the Democrats stripped Michigan of his delegates for bringing their primary forward, Obama and Edwards didn’t put their name on the ballot and no one is campaigning there.

This means that a lot of the Independents will probably decide to vote in the Republican Primary and if New Hampshire is anything to go by they will vote McCain.

McCain also took Michigan in 2000 which should help him. On the other hand Romney’s dad was the governor there, so I do agree with you that we shouldn’t necessarily write of Romney.