To Chairman Howard Dean & Superdelegates,

As an "04" National Delegate for Sen. Kerry, Henniker Democratic Chair,
a dedicated Woman for Obama, and Co-Chair of NH Educators for Obama,
I believe that Super Delegates such as Sen. Kerry, Sen. Kennedy and Gov. Patrick
should not have to vote along with the Primary results of MA.
They have all ENDORSED Sen. Obama and should be able to vote for Sen. Obama.
I also feel that votes of FL & MI are not valid, first due to the fact that Hillary was the only name on the MI ballot...
come on...how bias is that?
Second, with the fact that Candidates were not aloud to campaign or even step foot in FL...
You need to re-think this situation out!
Do the elections again, the right way maybe.
Make it "Fair and Balanced" in everyones favor, or don't count it at all.
No way will this be a fair Victory for Hillary,
if she is allowed to keep the delegates from FL & MI
due to the way she won them.
It is up to you to do the right thing!
You are in control and need to make the right decisions for the American people.
"Don't Let Me Down"
Peace, Beatles and Barack,
Brenda MacLellan

There are a lot of problems with our current political system, for which there is no silver bullet solution. There are, however, many things that could be done to improve the situation. It would be an improvement if we got the media out of the role of running candidate debates, for instance.

There is wide agreement that it would be a huge improvement if we could eliminate, or at least minimize, the influence of big money on both the election of candidates and on their performance in office once elected. We have a number of campaign finance laws on the books right now, but there is disagreement as to their effectiveness, and court challenges to campaign finance law restrictions are a regular part of our political landscape.

Many people feel that rather than tinker with campaign finance laws we should simply begin public financing of elections. Two states, Maine and Arizona, already offer public funding as an option for candidates for legislative and certain statewide offices. They have done so since the 2000 election.

A Government Accounting Office study of the 2000 and 2002 elections in Maine and Arizona was inconclusive as to the effects of public funding of campaigns in those two states. It will be difficult and take time to measure the effects of public funding. How do we determine if the quality – whatever that means – of candidates improve, or if they make better decisions once in office? Not easy to do, but the answers are important and over time they will become evident in both Maine and Arizona.

The movement toward public financing of elections seems to be growing, led in large part by N.H.’s own John Rauh, founder and president of Americans for Campaign Reform. ACR figures that for just $6 per citizen we could have public financing of all federal elections. For more information, visit ACR’s aptly-named website, www.just6dollars.org.

The only fly in the ointment is that very rich candidates can, under Maine and Arizona rules, opt out of public financing. I would favor laws to prohibit that from happening, although it is certain such laws would be challenged on constitutional grounds. I would argue that laws designed to level the playing field between candidates for office are not restrictions of free speech.

Television is one of the mixed blessings of modern society. No one doubts its useful capacity to inform, educate and entertain, but we also know it promotes unhealthy eating, encourages alcohol consumption, depicts way too much of what most of us deem senseless violence, and coarsens society in myriad ways. But worrisome as these issues may be, they pale in comparison to the risk television poses for our democracy.

Television certainly serves to educate and inform the electorate, thereby encouraging voters to vote. It provides them with some of the information they need to make informed decisions. The problem is that the information provided by the major television networks is being filtered in ways designed not for the benefit of our country and its citizens, but for the benefit of those who own and manage the television networks.

The result is that those who set the rules as to who and what will, and will not, receive television coverage have a powerful influence on our thinking. And our thinking, of course, influences our choices when we vote. Broadcast media influences elections.

Two illustrations. Representative Paul was recently excluded from the FOX News debate here in N.H., and last night (1/15) Representative Kucinich was excluded from the MSNBC debate in Nevada. We can all agree that not everybody who files to run for president should be given a place on a national stage, but it shouldn’t be the broadcast companies who make that decision. Like them or not, both Paul and Kucinich have millions of avid followers who were disenfranchised in a significant way when their candidates were excluded from these recent debates.

The presidential campaign “race” is already narrowing due to the results of voters, both in the votes they have cast, and in their willingness to fund the campaigns of individual candidates. The broadcast media companies should let this natural selection process proceed, and should not arbitrarily exclude any candidate who has established that he or she has a sizeable following.

Moreover, the broadcast media has done a generally poor job of selecting the questions and topics presented to the candidates during debates. Many questions have been repeated almost verbatim, debate after debate, other very important issues have rarely been mentioned.

MoveOn.org just pointed out in an e-mail message that “last year, the major TV networks asked presidential candidates 2,679 questions.” (Who adds all this stuff up?) The question is, how many were about global warming? Hint: 165 were asked about illegal immigration, 3 were asked about UFOs. You know where I’m going with this, yes, there were just three questions about global warming, it ranked right there with questions about UFOs.

There has to be a better way. Let’s get the media out of the business of running presidential debates.

I was surprised a few months back when President George W. “The Decider” Bush again changed his rhetoric about what lies ahead in Iraq. Instead of saying that when the Iraqi troops stand up, we’ll stand down, or that when we win in Iraq, the troops will come home, as he has said in the past, he stated that General Petraeus will decide when and how fast our troops will withdraw from Iraq.

I found that to be quite astonishing, given as how throughout his presidency he has sought to burnish his reputation as a decisive commander-in-chief, one who makes the final – if bad -- decisions. Perhaps, at a time when the results of the surge and new military leadership were largely unknown, he was more interested in being able to deflect blame for any failure of the surge to work as expected back on Petraeus, than he was in promoting himself as a decisive decision maker.

Under the normal scheme of things, Petraeus reports to Admiral Fallon, the Central Command unified commander, who reports directly to the Secretary of Defense, Secretary Gates, with a dotted line type of relationship to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen. Secretary Gates reports directly to the President.

It is in this context that I did a double-take when I heard Senator McCain recently say the same thing as Bush, that in his administration Petraeus would make the decisions about troop withdrawals from Iraq. Petraeus’s recommendations should be carefully and fully considered by our commander-in-chief, no matter who he or she might be, but the military chain of command should be honored. Fallon, Mullen and Gates should all weigh in on the issue of troop withdrawals from Iraq. There are many factors outside of Petraeus’s purview that come to bear on a decision affecting troop levels in Iraq.

What was McCain thinking? If some other candidate made the same statement, I would excuse it, but I can’t do so with McCain, the presidential candidate with the greatest military experience and expertise.

Senator Clinton, on the other hand, clearly understands the military chain of command. She says the first thing she will do as president is to direct the Joint Chiefs of Staff to develop an Iraq withdrawal plan, the implication being she would review that plan, modify it as she felt necessary, then direct the Secretary of Defense to carry it out. That’s the right way of changing military strategy.

Clearly, some voters are rational in their thinking about which presidential candidate deserves their vote. Denise Rock, in her January 11 post, recommended a selection process we would all do well to adopt. I’ve thought a lot about the candidates, but I was not as rigorous in making my choice as she was.

I recently read a post on another blog about a couple who listed the ten factors that most concerned them, ranked the factors with numerical weights, then compared the candidates against their weighted priority list. That sounds both logical and rigorous.

Blithe Damour, in an earlier post, recommended one of the select-a-candidate websites that are designed to help voters make reasoned choices about their candidates. Such tools are imperfect, but they do make us question our decisions. What strikes me about these websites is that they often suggest choices we don’t accept, for one reason or another. I don’t have any reliable statistics, but I keep hearing of instances where Representative Kucinich comes out on top of a Democratic voter’s select-a-candidate list, but the voter opts for another candidate in spite of the computer’s advice.

In this connection, I read a January 11 New York Times story by Eric Konigsberg about former Nebraska Senator Bob Kerrey, who recently endorsed Senator Clinton. He stated he was supporting Clinton, even though he liked Senator Obama as a person he would more like to have “in your living room every day for four years.” Then Kerrey said that after being prodded he took one of the select-a-candidate online quizzes, which suggested that the candidate who most closely matched his views is – you guessed it – Representative Kucinich.

I think the bigger problem is in the choice of questions on the select-a-candidate websites, but I believe there is more to it than that. My point is not that we should all have voted for Kucinich, and certainly not that we should let a website make our decision for us, but that we should, as Denise pointed out, question our own thinking process before casting that ballot.

The piece of information that got me on to this issue again was a poll result I read yesterday (damn the polls!) that showed that Mayor Giuliani had dropped from a 22% favorable rating to 10% in about a month’s time. Does this mean that even if we make an informed decision about who we support, if we don’t see much press on that candidate for thirty days because he or she is not campaigning in the states that are getting the media attention (Iowa and N.H. in this case), that we lose interest in the candidate? Must our decisions be continually reinforced by the media? Can select-a-candidate websites help us make better decisions? Or, in this case, were voters simply swayed by new, more complete information about the candidates?

I’ll be closely following the results of the upcoming primaries, but I’m as interested in the system we use to elect presidents as in our final choice for president. If we improve the system, we’ll have better presidents well into the future.

My concern is that for a variety of reasons, and despite a patch here and there, the primary process is becoming more not less broken. One can argue whether Iowa and N.H. should be first in the process, but it’s hard to argue against the merits of Iowa’s and N.H.’s retail politics, politics that allow relatively unknown candidates to make their case directly to concerned and involved voters. Most important, they can do so without a lot of money.

The fly in that ointment is that during this election cycle national campaigning among the well-known candidates began at the same time that retail campaigning began in Iowa and N.H. That drew attention away from Iowa and N.H., but even more important, the nationally broadcast debates and the incessant handicapping of the races on the national stage influenced the process in Iowa and N.H. The question of who is electable, based on the latest national poll, got asked much too often.

I propose three changes. First, the states that follow Iowa and N.H. in the primary process should reverse their moves to have their primaries closely follow Iowa and N.H. Most of these states will see less of the candidates than they otherwise would have, which seems to be the exact opposite of what was intended. If that happened, Iowa and N.H. could move their caucus and primary elections back to more seasonable dates.

One thought is that each state’s primary or caucus should be scheduled based on population, from smallest to largest state. The small states would establish the trends and weed out the weak candidates, the larger states, with their rich delegate counts, would be the king makers

Second, I propose there be no nationally-broadcast debates between the candidates until well into the primary season, to give low-budget, unknown candidates maximum chance to show their wares in the small, early states, before becoming overwhelmed with national attention.

Third, we must have some sort of independent organization that schedules and moderates the debates. The media must be excised from control of the debates.

The pollsters and pundits are still speculating about the various factors that influenced the discrepancy between the projected results and the actual results in the Democratic primary race. I have seen many possible causes advanced, but there is another one that has not been advanced that I think may explain at least a portion of the gap.

One of the things I first noticed when I moved to New Hampshire was that there was a strong tradition of male dominated families, i.e. the patriarchal family was very strong in the state. From my experience as Executive Director of the Pennsylvania Commission for Women, I had learned that with that type of family structure that it wasn’t unusual for the head of the household, the husband, to declare that he was going to vote for candidate X and would expect the other members of his family, a spouse and adult children living at home, to do the same. Even if the wife or other family member wanted to vote for someone else, in order to keep peace in the family, they would give lip service in support of his choice.

With that background for my premise, I would speculate that if they were asked by a pollster whom they supported, they would name candidate X, especially if the head of the family was around or they feared that the information might get back to him. However, in the privacy of the voting booth, they could actually vote for the person of their choice. Now if the heads of enough of these male dominated households said they should support Obama, their family members would tell that to the pollster and inflate his numbers. However, on election day, if their real choice was Hillary, and they voted for her in the privacy of the voting booth instead, you would get a gap of the type that occurred.

I live in New Hampshire and on primary day I carried a sign for Hillary Clinton at the poll. Throughout primary day I sensed that there was something very favorable happening for her. The number of older women voting seemed higher than usual at our polling place. A surprising number of those over 50, most of whom I didn’t know, would give me a thumbs-up sign as they exited the area and usually very inconspicuously at the waist level, rather than the usual shoulder high level. Several came up to me to thank me for being there holding a sign for Hillary. Some of the bolder women would come up and tell me that they voted for Hillary and that they had waited a long time to be able to vote for a woman for President. It was very unusual that people would tell me who they voted for, either directly or indirectly. You could sense the pride and excitement in their action. Many women found their voice in New Hampshire during the presidential primary, not just Hillary Clinton.

The more I read and think about presidential primaries, the clearer it becomes that the entire system is broken and getting worse. The issue of voters in open primary states voting not for the candidate they want to win, but to influence the election in some nefarious way has raised its ugly head again. While I don't know of this being a problem in past N.H. elections, apparently it has been a problem in Michigan in the past, and threatens to be a problem again.

On Thursday, 1/10, Markos Moulitas (Kos) posted a piece on his widely-read blog that urges Democratic voters in Michigan to vote for Governor Romney in the upcoming Republican primary. The idea behind the tactic is to keep Romney in the race, so that the Republican battle for the nomination remains wide open for a longer period of time, draining the Republican candidates of resources they would otherwise direct against the Democratic candidates.

You can find the blog at http://kos.dailykos.com/. Look down the page for a 1/10/08 entry titled, "Let's have some fun in Michigan." The blog describes three cases where this tactic has worked in the past in Michigan.

Will this work? Probably not, Kos is not that widely followed, but who knows? I do know I don't like the idea if even one voter follows Kos's plot.

It's time to close the barn door on open primaries before the horse gets out of the barn, and we're standing around shaking our heads after some election wondering, how could this have happened?

AP and other news sources are reporting that Representative Kucinich has requested a recount. Under N.H. rules, his campaign will have to pay the cost of the recount, except there's no way to calculate the indirect cost of a recount. Lots of people will invest lots for time for which they will receive no or below market rates compensation. The question is, why would he do it, the race wasn't even close for him?

Kucinich cited "serious and credible reports, allegations and rumors" about the integrity of Tuesday's election in his recount request. Really? Will he present the evidence?

Speculation has it that the Obama campaign is behind this. I hope we soon find out if that is, or is not, the case. It will be a big black eye for Obama if it turns out he is behind this and is using Kucinich as cover. On the other hand, he shouldn't be cast as the bad guy if it wasn't his, or his campaign's, doing. We need to know the truth behind Kucinich's request.

Bev Harris, writing about recounts on http://www.opednews.com, describes some of the issues involved in N.H. recounts. Most notably, she quotes Nancy Tobi, a N.H. election integrity advocate, who says the big problem is that we have no chain of custody control on the ballots once they have been cast. That is, we don't have a verifiable system of knowing who has had access to them.

This looks to me to be a campaign game and not a real effort to seek the truth. It smells like rotten fish to me.

Now we learn that the nicest person in the whole campaign has dropped out. Governor Richardson withdrew from the race yesterday (Jan. 10). While I'll be the first to say we shouldn't elect someone as president on the basis of how nice he or she is, it does strike me as a bit odd that the three Democratic candidates at the top of my "nice" list have dropped out of contention. That's Senators Biden and Dodd, and Governor Richardson. So much for being nice.

One of the beauties of blogs is that one can spout off on anything, with or without the facts necessary to substantiate their opinions. Doing so without the facts is exactly what I did when I made N.H. out to be an oddball state with its semi-open primary.

Listening to POTUS-08 on my XM-Radio (C-SPAN radio has totally ruined my drive-time music listening), I heard someone talking about South Carolina's OPEN primary. That got me thinking about the issue again. Checking Wikipedia, I discovered that fifteen states have open primaries, where a registered voter can pick the ballot of either party at voting time. Two states are semi-closed, N.H. being one of them, and twenty-three have some form of closed primary. The difference is made up by caucuses of various types.

Having plugged that gap in my knowledge, I looked to see what I could find about South Carolina's open primary. What I found is that some there want to keep it open, and others are lobbying to change it to a closed primary, for reasons similar to those I've posted against the way we do things here in N.H. The interesting thing is that in 1980 Republican-controlled South Carolina adopted its open primary as a way for Republicans to build party membership. For more information, follow this link: http://screpublican.blogspot.com/2006/09/gop-debates-closing-primary.html.

A bit more research uncovered a paper written by two professors from Dartmouth and one from UCLA, titled “Sheep in Wolves’ Clothing: Undeclared Voters in New Hampshire’s Open Primary.” It posits that undeclared voters, i.e. Independents, behave and vote pretty much like registered partisan voters, and don’t have as much influence on results as popularly imagined. Said another way, they are not a problem as far as election results are concerned.

That takes a bit of wind out of my sails on my arguments against the way we do things here in N.H. But, just as there are now those in South Carolina who want to shift back to closed primaries there, I continue to believe that the trend in N.H. of increased numbers of undeclared voters is not good for the two-party system.

It is evident to me that our entire presidential election process is under assault by a confluence of forces. Over the longer term, how we conduct our elections will be even more important that who we elect in this election cycle. Open versus closed primaries is just one issue that deserves more thought and discussion.

Thanks to Donna Richards and Jackie C. for their responses to my post about Independent (undeclared) voters. Let me make clear that my principal point is not that Independent voters should be excluded from the primary process, but rather my belief that we would be better off if more of them chose a party and worked to make it more reflective of their own views. I agree with many of the points Donna raised in her rebuttal to my post.

The question, it seems to me, is do we, or do we not, believe in the two-party system? It appears that some 40% of N.H. voters do not. That to me is not a good omen. What if the number grows, as it has been growing, to 60% or more? What would be the implications?

Our high number of Independent voters, who we allow to vote in either the Republican or Democratic primaries, provide just one more argument for those who claim N.H. is not a representative state, and should not retain it's first in the nation privileges.

I left my PC on last night with two of the latest Democratic poll numbers on the screen, one showing Senator Obama ahead of Senator Clinton by 9 points, the other by 13 points. It was an interesting juxaposition as I read the front page of the Concord Monitor this morning, which showed Clinton over Obama by 3 points.

Much as I dislike polls, I confess to watching them and frequently getting sucked into giving them some credence. It's good to know that while we may be influenced by polls, clearly we voters are not being controlled by them.

From my perspective, it's still a wide-open race between Clinton and Obama, and on the Republican side between the top four candidates. Now all we can do is watch, cheer, and send money if we care enough to do that. Except, of course, for those political diehards who will travel to some of the other states to continue working for their candidate of choice.

I just rode the wave back from Concord. I know now at 48 yrs. old tomorrow, that I will never to listen to the polls again. I congratulate now, all the Hillary supporters and wish that Chris Mathews never ever had a voice. If there seems to be a probblem it's not the voters, it's the media. How do you loose a state that you are ahead in the polls by 10+ percent. But not to sound lame, New Hampshire is an interesting place. It was a weird night for me, but I will go to bed thinking about Thomas Dewey. Once again, congrats to all the Hillary supporters.

It has been fun to be part of the New Hampshire Primary experience. Obama is not a god, but he is someone who captured the spirit of America at it's best. People in Iowa listened to him and voted for him. People in New Hampshire asked him questions and voted for him. Obama won the last Democratic election because of the principles of democracy. I hear the line outside of Nashua is already a mile long to see Senator Obama and I am glad others have become part of this proud New Hampshire tradition. I am heading to Concord to meet with the young and the old Obama campaign workers. Larry the next beer is on me. I hope along with Barack Obama that people continue to use their voice to fight for the change, that many people in this country deserve. It is good for this country that people continue to participate and that their voice will be heard in the halls of Congress.“Obama in 08”. It's fun to get to ride a wave.

Campaigning is over, and during the interregnum between endless campaigning and what will become incessant analysis of the results of the voting, I’d like to raise another issue, the role of undeclared voters, the so-called independents.

Conventional wisdom has it that it’s a great thing that people who register as undeclared can pick up a ballot for either party before they go into the voting booth. I look at them as nothing but uncommitted spoilers. They should be barred from voting in the primaries of either party. What’s wrong with registering for one party or the other, then working to make it better reflect your own views? What’s wrong with folks who can’t abide by the platforms of either party working for a third-party candidate?

There are a lot of problems with our two-party system, but flaws and all, it has worked well for us over the years. The American federal government has been exceptionally stable since it’s founding. And, third-party movements can and do get started here. If Ross Perot weren’t such a kook personally, he might well have created a very viable third party in 1992. (As an aside, why isn’t Representative Ron Paul running as the Libertarian that he is?)

The thing that most bothers me about undeclared voters is that they can and sometimes do, even if they don't do it often, vote for the weakest candidate from one party as a way of trying to help their favored candidate of the other party. There is no way to stop this, and perhaps as they say, all is fair in love and war, and politics. But it’s sleazy.

It’s time for those who are undeclared to come out from under the bushes and either commit to one party or the other, work for a new third-party, or stay out of the process until the general election.

Larry, We pray you have peace and rest in Heaven.
We have never met a sweeter, more gentle man.
Our prayers with you Edie.
Brenda and Bob

Larry Parrish voted by absentee ballot from his bed at Hospice House in Concord. Larry was no fuzzy idealist; he was a hard-nosed, lapsed Quaker pragmatist, and an unwavering Obama supporter. Before we moved over to Hospice House from Concord Hospital, an old middle-aged friend came to visit and talked about entrenched Washington, D.C. corruption--you can't beat it, he said, you have to join it. Experience means knowing how to play it to get at least a little something for the people, and Hillary, he said, knows the ropes.
Later, while we were in hospice, a younger friend visited and during talk about the primary, let slip that he wasn't going to vote at all--what's the point--nothing ever changes?! These attitudes keep many people away from the polls. It seems to me, the attitude of my two friends is exactly what Barack Obama's campaign speaks to and why it is so important--his campaign and message re-energizes a disillusioned, cynical electorate who believes its vote doesn't matter and won't bother to vote. This development should distress us as much as anything else amidst the distressing state of things in the U.S. over the twenty year or so. As we've been told, the President of the United States has been elected by less than haIf of the nation's voting-age adults. You might say we deserve what we get if we let this go on. And you'd think these last eight years would make it clear how much it does matter who's in the White House, who appoints Supreme Court Justices, Federal Appeals Court Justices, signs executive orders, wages pre-emptive war, rescinds habeas corpus, and so on.
Maybe not this visiting old friend, but Obama has some of the most cynical people I know totally engaged in electoral politics this primary-- reading about issues, dreaming about change, believing that nothing will happen if we believe it can't and don't bother-- I haven't seen this level of intensity in a long time.
I don't know if my young friend will bother to vote; I sure hope he will. And I sure hope everyone else will vote for someone who makes them believe in something. We can't leave running the government to people who think they run things better without our imput; we won't have a democracy very much longer, will we. Larry Parrish made voting one of his last acts of will. He died peacefully Sunday afternoon.

It's nearly fish or cut bait time in N.H., and Senator Biden has, as everybody knows, withdrawn from the race, along with Senator Dodd. I'm now forced to make a decision among the remaining Democratic candidates. There is no point to be made in casting a vote for Biden.

I believe Senators Clinton, Edwards, and Obama and Governor Richardson each have something positive to offer, and I agree with many of the arguments supporters give for each of the four. The question is, which would make the best president? I believe the answer is Senator Clinton.

There is a certain amount of angst in my decision, as it bothers me to see two people who were at the apex of the U.S. Government for eight years ascend again to that high peak for another four or eight years. It's the 22nd Amendment thing, the concept that we don't want any one individual to gather too much political power. I believe the thinking behind the 22nd Amendment applies to husband and wife teams just as much as it does for individuals, but of course the lawyers would say we're stuck with what the words say, not what I or anyone else might propose was the intention of the amendment.

Having gotten that off my chest, and having just heard President Clinton discourse for over an hour at Daniel's Restaurant in Henniker, on Senator Clinton's behalf, I believe that of all the candidates, Senator Clinton is our best choice for president. In particular, her views on the way forward in Iraq most closely match mine.

Senator Clinton is more organized and disciplined than President Clinton, and she would most likely be a better chief executive than he was. She will tend toward less polling and quicker, more decisive decisions. The former president's strength is his knowledge and comprehension of the issues facing American and the world. I doubt there is anyone who can match his mastery of the issues that our next president will face. Senator Clinton could have no better advisor.

Life is about hard choices and compromises, I've decided that electing the person best prepared to lead our country forward is more important than worrying about the Clintons amassing too much political power. I believe they both have the best interests of this country at heart, and I'm comfortable with my decision. I believe that another four or eight years of Clinton leadership will produce the kind of real change that will benefit all of us.

Eleanor repeats the attacks that are coming from the Clinton camp, that Sen. Obama is somehow weak on the issue of choice. Obama has a 100% rating from NARAL and Planned Parenthood based on his votes in the State Senate and U.S. Senate. These organizations are none too happy about Clinton's distortion of Obama's record. She should certainly highlight her own very positive record for women's rights, including choice, but forget the attacks. They make her look desperate, which is what she is.

Speaking of attacks, she attacked John Edwards at the last debate (and since) because he touted his role in the Patient's Bill of Rights. It passed in the Senate, but then died. That is clearly not his fault, but that does not make a difference to the Clinton campaign machine.

Our nation is more than 200 years overdue for a woman president. However, Hillary Clinton is just too conservative and/or politically calculating to get the nomination (or to get my vote in the primary). If she gets the nomination, she would, as the polls indicate, have a hard time beating any of the Republicans. This scares me.

As I have said in the past, I like Obama for many reasons. I could get very excited about his nomination. However, for the NH Primary, I will be voting for the person who clearly has the fire in his soul to make the fight for the working class and the poor and the environment and against corporate power: John Edwards.

My family and I attended his event in Keene yesterday and were once again deeply moved by his passion for economic justice. Granny D, who has endorsed him, introduced him to the crowd. It was a great moment. A Maris Poll out today shows that he is within 6 points of defeating Hillary Clinton for second place in the NH primary. A vote for Edwards is an endorsement of the idea that we need a president who will have the courage to confront corporate power. Haven't we been waiting for such a president?

OH YEH, OH YEH !
Imagine Barack as President,
It's easy, if you try...
I've imagined Barack as President,
Many, Many, Many times before...
It's not like me, to pretend,
But we'll get him,
we'll get him in the end...
Yes we will,
we'll get Obama in the end...
OH YEH, OH YEH !

We work hard for him night & day,
We need Obama, it's true,
When we work hard for him everyday,
We'll help him change the country too,

So I'm telling you my friends,
That we'll get him,
we'll get him in the end...
Yes we will,
we'll get Obama in the end...
OH YEH, OH YEH

Well this primary is the time...
That Barack's gona change your mind...
So you might as well resign yourself to him,
OH YEH

Imagine Barack as President,
it's easy, cause I know...
I've imagined Barack as President,
Many, Many, Many times before...
So I'm telling you my friends,
That we'll get him,
we'll get him in the end...
Yes we will,
we'll get Obama in the end...
OH YEH, OH YEH
OH YEH

Peace, Beatles & Barack,
Brenda MacLellan

"Two Things" First, the next time the young supporters of Obama go to a 100 Club Dinner, I will read them the rulebook. Second, Hillary may have experience, but that does not mean the Republicans appreciate her experience. She will have a harder time convincing moderate Republicans to vote with her. Some people just do not like her and her husband Bill. They are not as perfect as some people try to make them look. I was teaching 7th grade when the President embarrassed himself, and for a few months I could not even mention his name in class without a snicker. Hillary and Bill are two hard workers, but they also have cut the throats of few people over the years and not everyone is happy with them. Where was Bill when Rwanda needed him? What about his dealings with the Chinese? What about her votes on Iraq and Iran? This other thing on the blogs, about Obama being like George Bush because he is a likeable guy. That is crazy talk. They are from two different worlds with two different visions. Obama is practical person who obviously enjoys hard work. Obama's ideas in many ways encompass the Democratic party. With Obama you get an intelligent, practical, hard worker who does not carry the baggage. The Clinton's carry baggage and in Iowa and in New Hampshire their baggage missed the train.

I watched the debates last night, and at one point they had all ten candidates on stage together. And what did I see---nine men and one woman. Women comprise over 50% of our population. In over 230 years of history we have been governed by men at all levels in the federal government. If we want real change, huge, significant change, we need to elect a woman president. We need a president with the courage of a Benazir Bhutto, the toughness of Margaret Thatcher, the persistence of a Rosa Parks, the compassion and human rights leadership of an Eleanor Roosevelt, and the intellect and political insight of an Abigail Adams who told John Adams while he was writing the constitution to “Remember the Ladies, and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors.”

Hillary Clinton embodies change. She has been a change agent for 35 years and has helped make this amazing moment in history possible. Let’s really change America and elect Hillary Clinton President of the United States of America. I am ready for REAL change. Are you?

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”—Santayana

Remember how we found George W. Bush more likeable than Al Gore? Bush was the guy we liked and wanted to have a beer with. He was the guy we elected to be President of the United States and look what a mistake that was. He was likeable, but had no real experience other than being the Governor of a weak-governor state. But we liked him. He said he would work with the other party. But we know how that turned out. He said he would bring the country together. But we know how that turned out. Likeably doesn’t matter, performance does. We need someone who has experience; someone who has a proven record of performance in making real change. We need someone who can lead the country forward from day one. We need someone who has proven she can work with members of both parties. We need someone that leaders around the world know, respect and can connect with from day one. We need Hillary Clinton’s experience, strength, intelligence, and common-sense grasp on the realities of the national and international political terrain. When you need major surgery, you go to the surgeon with the most experience; you don’t go to the intern no matter how likeable he is.

As I've previously posted, I don't like having the media moderate political debates, the media's job should be to report, not make and shape the news. But, I was very impressed and pleased with the way Charles Gibson and Scott Spradling ran last night's debates. They were the best debates of this campaign season.

I keep looking for the consistencies and inconsistencies between the candidates, and the degree to which the candidates are consistent in their own positions. I identify with Denise Rock's earlier post about wanting to take the best of several candidates, to mold various parts of each into a one perfect candidate.

I agree with those who see Senator Clinton as well-prepared to be our next president. She did an excellent job at the debate last night, and I don't see how anybody can fault her for not stating her views and positions clearly. On the other hand, Senator Obama is right on when he says, as he said last night, that words can make a difference. It is clear that he understands how his rhetoric has fired up millions of people nationwide, and that the enthusiam he is generating is good for this country. Vision, brains and leadership count for more than specific experiences when it comes to the presidency. It's a tough call between the two candidates, although I confess, I have more questions about an Obama presidency than I do a Clinton presidency. Clinton is a known commodity, for better or for worse.

As for Senator Edwards, the more I hear, the more he sounds like the same kind of uniter that Geoge W. Bush is, one that talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk. I keep wondering just which of those special interests in Washington he's going to fight. Will it be teachers' unions, the Sierra Club that lobbies on behalf of the environment, the AARP which lobbies on the behalf of oldsters, or one of many other organizations that lobby on behalf of issues that we Democrats solidly support? I believe the best model for an Edward's presidency is the Carter administration, which was brought down by it's own hubris and disdain for Washington politics.

As we get down to the end, I urge everybody to question his or her own decision-making process.

I have no argument with the posts citing rude behavior at the 100 Club dinner by many Obama supporters, but I take issue with Jan McElroy's implication that there were more Clinton supporters in the audience than Obama supporters.

Admitedly, mine is a subjective observation, and I probably overstated Obama's support when I estimated it at two to one over Clinton, but I'm quite certain that Obama had more supporters at the event than did Clinton. Standing and clapping when a candidate is introduced doesn't translate into voter support. I stood and clapped for all of them, they all deserved to feel welcome.

The boys were at it again tonight in a sort of tag team effort to accuse Hillary of being incapable of bringing about change -except for Bill Richardson who made the case for experience being important.
Hillary's comments about change- she has been a change agent for 35 years - from the special education law in the 70's right up to last year fighting Bush and the Pentagon in getting health care for the National Guard. She stands on her record and it is one that proves she knows how to make change happen in Washington. I liked her pointing out that she "embodies change"- she will be the first woman president - a huge change - one that is overdue in the US.

What we saw tonight from Hillary is a good example of how she would deal with a Republican opponent in those debates in the fall. She would correct their inaccuracies and not let them make false claims. Armed with the facts, and quick on her feet with a comeback, she is the one to send up against the Republican opponent.

I particularly liked her comment tonight while Edwards and Obama were waxing poetic about their "changes" that there needed to be a "reality check". She noted that the Patient's Bill of Rights that Edwards was touting as a change he was able to achieve, had actually never made it into law, only cleared the Senate. NO real change for the American people, and I wonder if he has anything else to point to that he did make changes on in his six years in Washington. You get the impression listening to him that he thinks governing is like winning a lawsuit.

And Barack Obama's repeated references to his ethics bill highlighted the fact that he is in his first term in the Senate and has no actual experience beyond that one bill in actually making change in Washington. I was shocked when he said he was watching the football game during part of the Republican debate. He didn't really answer the question about how he would respond to their comments that if he were the Demcoratic opponent they would challenge him on his lack of experience. Did he hear that part - or was he tuned into the Redskins then? Almost every one of the Republicans said he is too inexperienced and not qualified to be President- except for Huckabee who was shrewdly quiet on the issue. "Don't tip your hand to the Democrats before they vote. If they send us Obama instead of Hillary, we're golden" is how I read his quietness. Obama has an insolvable flaw - he can only get experience with time. And he is not ready for prime time.
This election is ours to lose, Democrats - the Republian candidates just spellled out how. Hillary is the candidate that we need to send to fight for us and to win back the White House. You don't have to "like" her - we're not voting for prom queen here. You just have to agree with most Americans that she is the most well-qualified candidate and the most able to win against the Republicans. And vote for her.

I was at the 100 Club for the Democratic Party last night and heard Kucinich, Clinton, Richardson, and Obama speak. Edwards had a prior commitment at a meeting in Portsmouth. I sat in the back of the room in the general admissions section, and there was a great advantage to that. I had an excellent view of the entire audience and its reaction to the candidates. What I saw was quite different from what my friend John Kjellman or the press reported who could only see the audience in the front tables. The largest and longest sustained reception was for Hillary Clinton. Almost the entire audience of 3,000 was standing and applauding and waving signs reading “READY” –ready to lead on day one.

The college kids, who the Obama’s campaign bussed in, were seated in groups of tables along the two sides of the room. Their behavior was appalling. As mentioned by other attendees, they were rude to the other candidates, especially Bill Richardson. While he was speaking, they got up and walked into the safety lane between the TV camera platform and the VIP front tables and podium and stood there waving signs so that others in the back three-quarters of the room couldn't see well. Richardson was a gentleman and didn't comment on their disruptive behavior as he was speaking, but the majority of the audience noted it. Later during Obama’s speech, while the kids were waving signs and applauding at a speech most of us heard at the last convention or repeated endlessly on TV ads, most of the audience figuratively sat on their hands. Other candidates had distributed signs and were cheered by people throughout the room. Their supporters---young and old---showed their enthusiasm, but their supporters didn't disrupt other candidates or rudely flaunt their signs by marching into the safety lane, violating both fire regulations and the rule of civility that is expected at these events to promote Democratic unity. This showed a lack of respect and an arrogant disregard for other people and reflected badly on the candidate.

Just as I posted my remarks (in "Obama chopped liver in the fall" ) about Obama skipping the vote to declare the Iran Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organizantion, and his pattern of voting "present" in the Illiniois legislature, the mail arrived and re-inforced my observation.

If I were undecided, and also pro-choice, these facts would affect my decison.

Clinton- has long fought efforts by far-right Republicans to limit or overturn Roe v. Wade.
Clinton- original co-sponsor of Freedom of Choice Act- guaranteeing the right to choose to every American woman
Clinton - secured FDA decision on over -the -counter sale of Plan B emergency contraception.

Obama - seven opportunities to stand up against Republican anti-choice legislation in the Illinois State Senate.
Obama - Seven times voted "present" - not "yea", or "nea".

Being there is not enough to protect choice.

I'm a State Rep. in the NH legislature - we had several "choice" bills this year. Lots of pressure from passionate groups- anti-choice groups, pro-choice groups, lots of hearings. Our job is to stand up and be counted. I stood up for choice, why didn't Obama?

Having just fielded a phone call and a visit from three obviously young and eager Obama volunteers, I wanted to add these thoughts. As a high school teacher who always urges her students to GET INVOLVED in SOMEBODY'S campaign, I think the excitement and involvement these young Obama volunteers are showing is GREAT! Just as Gene McCarthy brought a generation of us McCarthy kids into the world of political activity and commitment, Sen. Obama's candidacy is having a similar effect on this generation's teens and college students, and I hope they will remain as involved as many of my generation have. Political awareness and activity are not always easy, even though the rewards when they come are well worth it. Watching a candidate you absolutely adore go down in defeat can be devastating, especially to a twenty-something. I know: I witnessed it too many times in the 60's and 70's. And living through the past seven years has been both painful and embarassing for many of us. That said, I believe every committed Democrat, Independent, AND Republican must look to the future and carefully consider which candidate has not only the beliefs and values he or she wants our President to have but also the experience, knowledge, staying power, and judgement we all need our next President to possess. The idealism of youth is exciting; no one can argue with that. What also excites me is that this year we have several candidates- Edwards, Clinton, and Richardson- who have not only the beliefs and values but also the other qualities so important in this race.

For the past few weeks, I have accompanied distinguished visitors from the military retiree community as they have visited NH and endorsed Hillary Clinton. Lt. General Claudia Kennedy( the first three star female in the US Army) , Maj. General Paul Eaton ( whose op-ed piece in the NY Tmes criticized the war in Iraq) and former presidential candidate, General Wes Clark have each expressed their utmost confidence in Hillary's ability to lead the nation as President, They also expressed their confidence that she would do the necessary diplomatic work to avoid the use of military force. As Wes Clark repeated many times in his own 2004 presidential campaign, "War should only, only, only, be used as a last resort when all else has failed". Only one Democratic candidate is ideally suited, by temperment and experience, to meet the challenge we know will be posed in the general election. And that is- whom do you trust to keep you safe from the extremists who have sworn to bring down the US? And whom will do it while also preserving your civil liberties under the Constitution? I trust Hillary Clinton to do this - she has the strength, the stamina, and the experience to negotiate, to stand firm, but bend when necessary, and ultimately forge alliances with friends and foes. That is the underpinning of any work to create and maintain peace. Because of her work advocatng for the military and veterans on the Armed Services committee for the past 8 years, she has an intimate understanding of what it means to serve one's country in the military and the sacrifices military famlies make - and she has passed legislation that acknowledges and supports those who serve, and our veterans. She will be a great president and, in Wes Clark's opinion, also a great commander-in-chief. We have been at war for over five years - we lost over 1000 of our people just last year. Hillary can end this. And she'll do it in such a way that we do not need to go back to put out a fire we left smoldering. Oh, for the days when we could stop the genocide in Kosovo without losing one soldier, and create the Dayton Peace Accord that survives a decade later. Wes Clark, the person who led NATO and masterminded that great achievement has endorsed Hillary Clinton. Please vote with him and me for Hillary.

For political theatre, last night's 100 Club dinner was terrific. Governor Dean gave a great speech with good ideas about moving the Democratic party forward over the next year (knock on 25 doors three times), and he even simulated a primal scream.

The highlight for me was Representative Kucinich's speech. Near the end, in a paroxysm of fury, he appeared ready to levitate right off the stage. A grand performance! That doesn't mean he gets my vote, even though I like much of what he says. My disagreement with him is on Iraq, we just can't pull out precipitously, and my belief that his isolationist views are out of step with reality. The globalization genie is out of the bottle, and can't be stuffed back into it. (That doesn't mean that our trade policies don't need to be changed.)

Senator Obama gave a great speech, too, and his resonated with the Obama-friendly crowd. My guess is that Obama supporters outnumbered Clinton supporters by close to two to one. Senator Clinton did what she does best, she delivered a good, reasoned speech with nothing new and nothing to get excited about. I'm sympathetic to the reasons that both Obama and Clinton supporters have for supporting their candidates, and largely turned off by the arguments both groups of supporters give for the reasons the one they don't support would be a disaster.

Clinton's view on Iraq most closely matches mine. She is not (now) in favor of an immediate withdrawal, but would if elected develop a plan for withdrawal that would be implemented 60 days after the plan is completed. How fast a withdrawal, that she leaves to the imagination. Given that we're already drawing down from the mid-2007 peak of 160,000 troops, and indications that troop withdrawals will continue throughout 2008, her plan seems to me to be a plan for the status quo. That fits the profile of one who is plugged into the Washington establishment and is ready to go on Day One. And that's not a bad thing.

On the other hand, Obama looks to be on the cusp of a big new movement. It could fizzle quickly, just as Governor Dean fizzled in 2004, but there is excitement in the air that seems bigger than the excitement Dean generated. Obama is more of a risk than Clinton, but if he can draw millions of our youth into the process, and mobilize them in the same way Kennedy mobilized the youth of the 60's, that would be a tremendous thing and might be a risk worth taking. Without continued, ongoing support from his supporters after he was elected, Obama would be a failure. Big downside, big upside.

Senator Edwards was conspicuous by his absence last night. Anybody know why? I had already decided that with Senator Biden out, my vote is between Obama and Clinton.

The Democratic turnout in Iowa was fantastic. Obama has inspired a ton of young people to become active in the political arena and that in itself will help make America a stronger and better balanced country. I was at the Hundred Club Dinner last night and once again the young passion of Obama supporters was everywhere. I know other candidates can claim their support from the young, but the Obama campaing has really rekindled a torch. There are some who are complaing about the crowd surging to the front last night and they have their reasons. If you decide not to vote for a candidate because young people showed their enthusiasm, then the Obama campaign does not need your vote. I could list 100's of reasons why I decided not to vote for Hillary, but one of them is not because of the politics she plays. Political tricks and showmanship have been part of the Clinton playbook for decades. We will remain active over the next few days helping to get the vote out. On Monday my son and I are going up to Dixville Notch to film the historic voting at midnight. We are making a DVD for the History Channel and the NH Political Library. It should be interesting. Try to go see a candidate in the next few days and become part of the New Hampshire first in the Nation Primary.

Welcome aboard, Blythe D. I heartily agree with your observations about the behavior of the Obama crowd last night. The thought that comes to mind as I watched the well-organized and pre-planned march to the stage of the Obama crowd was "Are we obserivng the democracy in action, or demagoguery?" Made me very uncomfortable. Some Democrats seem to have stars in their eyes and are in love with "inspiration" . I prefer to see signs of Perspiration! Hillary has been in the trenches working for the American people in Education, Health care, the Environment ,and all the traditional Democratic causes, for more than 35 years. When Barack Obama was cutting his political teeth on the streets of Chicago, or was a state legislator in Illinois, as recently as 4 years ago, she was leading the country with innovative progams to reform education in the state of Arkansas, or tackling the health care issue when no one else would touch it. She was traveling the world, a la Eleanor Roosevelt, as our de facto ambassador. That world is watching and hoping we elect her. She has the record of achievement. He is not qualified to lead the country - even his speech last night was filled with feel-good platitiudes. He did not vote on Iraq because he was not in the Senate - but where was he last month for the vote to identify the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization? He skipped it - follows his pattern of voitng "present" instead of "yea or nea" in the Illinois senate. And now he claims Hillary was wrong on the vote for the UN resolution on Iraq, but he is not on the record for the Iran vote. For a guy who decries politics as usual, he seems like a master of it to me.
We need to vote with our intellect, not with our emotions. Would Obama be great to deliver the commencment speech at his alma mater, or a fascinating dinner guest? Sure. But America has already elected a guy they thought would be great to have a beer with- how's that working for us????. Let Obama earn his creds- in the Senate - he is just not ready to lead the country. We are charged with an awesome responsibility here in NH. We need to elect the person who will be the best President and also who can withstand the attacks of the Republicans over the next year of campaigning, I am convinced of HIllary's ability to be the best President - look at her record in her eight years in Senate working with both Republicans and Democrats - exemplary! Just as importantly, she has met the Republican attack machine over and over again and not just survived, but triumphed- ask the voters in conservative upstate New York who have re-elected her as their Senator. They judge her actions for them. I am afraid if we in NH give a second boost to Mr. Obama, we will be watching the Republicans make chopped liver out of him next fall.

I've just driven back from the NH Democrats Annual 100 Club Dinner with Jan McElroy. It was an interesting evening. All of the current candidates except John Edwards were there, and each gave a pretty impressive speech. Four days before our primary, it was helpful to see and hear them up close (or, at least, relatively so). However, it was one candidate's supporters and their obviously choreographed presence that actually brought me closer to Hillary's camp (I think she is electable AND she's definately up to the task of running against the Republicans and their frequent dirty political tricks) and made it clear I won't vote for Obama, and I don't want him to win NH. He's a good speaker, and I'm sure he's sincere in his candidacy, but the behavior of his supporters was inappropriate for this type of event and certainly insulting to Governor Richardson, who was in the middle of his speech when hundreds of Obama supporters, signs in hand and voices ready, surged toward the stage. I don't like the kind of "shove-it-down-your-throat" tactics Jan and I witnessed tonight, and I can't support a campaign or candidate who encourages them. Actively cheering your candidate when he or she is on stage is one thing, but rudely interrupting and, perhaps, trying to intimidate your opponents is something quite different. That behavior seemed indicative of the kind of media frenzy surrounding Obama's campaign. Earlier today I had a conversation with a much younger colleague. I was explaining to him why 40 years ago a 20-year-old college student supported an anti-War candidate who could not possibly win while today her almost 60-year-old self is carefully measuring which Democratic candidate can realistically move into the White House next January. I don't think I've become more cynical, but I certainly have become more practical AND more thoughtful about important decisions and choices. That 20-year old college girl, caught up in the glamour and media hype, might easily have joined tonight's Obama bandwagon, but this older gal will cast her vote for a candidate with more substance, more experience, and, I believe, more staying power. Hope's a wonderful thing. Certainly Bill Clinton made that clear back in the 90's. But we need more than just hope. We need a President with a clear vision and the ability to turn hope into reality.

Iowa's history and the media circus focus is on us now. We New Hampshirites are the tawdry darlings of the moment -- but come next Wed. morn the romance will be over and we'll be spurned. So let's make the most of it!
It's sweet to be a Democrat once again. Our 3 major candidates remaining have many more similarities than differences. The Republicans have a nasty situation brewing with their mismatched crew of candidates. Most of us Democrats can support any of our candidates with some enthusiasm. The Republicans can't say that.
Obama is the candidate who is most capable of beating any of the Republicans. His strong character and vibrant charisma can and will inspire - period. A rung down from Obama, Edwards has the passion and the credentials to draw Republican and Independent votes in Nov. As in Iowa, Hillary comes in third in terms of electability -- too many voters are simply turned off by her.
So let's keep the wave building for Barack!

Sen. Obama inspired people, particularly young people, to come out and caucus for him. They saw in him something different from the same old same old (and it is not just about race). His victory speech certainly reminded us of his elloquence and ability to inspire. I was impressed.

I was very happy to see Sen. Clinton come in third. Her positions on the issues, which are clearly to the right of all of the other Democratic candidates, failed to inspire. Many recognize that the last thing we need (as a party or as a country) is the same old politics. Clinton is the biggest recipient of campaign money from the defense and insurance industries, she is pro-clear power (same as Obama), she has generally been pro-"free" trade (although she has changed her tune a small bit during the campaign), she has never seen a Defense budget bill she didn't like, she voted for the Iraq resolution in 2002, which she has failed to adequately explain or apologize for, and then, this past year, she voted for the Iran resolution (unlike all the other candidates). Now, some Democrats reading this might accept or even embrace some of these positions, but taken as a whole they show that Sen. Clinton is out of step with her own party and not really offering us anything new or different. On top of all of this, polls show that she would be the easiest Democrat to defeat in November. Yikes!

Although I admire Sen. Obama and if he was the nominee I would certainly be very excited about his candidacy, I am still concerned that for all of the beautiful words, there is not enough substance. I am too unclear about what he would do and how he would do it. He needs to do a better job communicating the specifics. (He has offered a very specific health care policy, but it is the worst of the bunch.)

I remain an enthusiastic supporter of the number 2 finisher in Iowa: John Edwards. He has the fire, conviction, and commitment to challenge what some might call America's ruling elite. I do not seem him compromise away the well-being of the working class. I do not see him turning away from the poor, or dragging his feet on the war. His populist message is EXACTLY what we need today, for our party and for our nation. That is why New Hampshire's own Granny D has endorsed him. It is certainly why I will vote for him.

As I reflect on the Iowa Caucuses held yesterday I find myself feeling a little put off by the process. Not only are the rules for the Iowa democrats confusing, but they also seem to weed out ALL competition other than the main big name's in the election. True living in a place like New Hampshire or Iowa, you do get the privilege (some would call it a curse though) of reviewing all the possible candidates very in a light that most of the nation will not see or get until the general elections.

This being said, I still feel that here in New Hampshire we in the Democratic party (though this also still applies to our Republican friends across the aisle) still have the burden of almost dictating whom the nomination will go to, or at least how the rest of this primary season will play out. It is my feeling that if Obama does take New Hampshire that will be the beginning of the steam roller effect, (the same with Huckabee). Though should another candidate pull New Hampshire then the election is very likely to stay rather heated till Super Tuesday. I look forward to seeing how this plays out, as well as casting my vote and making my voice heard here in New Hampshire.

One of the most unique features of both the Iowa caucus process and the NH primary process is that they are both “open” processes. That means that they both allow people to enter the process at the last moment without pre-registering and that they allow people to switch their party affiliation on the day of the vote. For better or worse, it is different from the way most other states run their elections. Most states have “closed” elections. You have to have registered x numbers of days prior to an election, and Democrats can only vote for Democrats and Republicans, for Republicans. Independents may not vote for either. Candidates in Iowa and in NH can appeal to the Independent voters to switch and support their candidacies in the caucuses or in the primary, or bring in new voters for their events at the last moment. This distorts the results in fascinating ways as we witnessed in Iowa. We don’t get a picture of the voting pattern of the “core” party base in either of these states, and therefore, they are not a very reliable predictor for other states that are closed. But because of their front loading they do have an affect on perception that is disproportional to the small size of the population actually voting. So hang on folks, this race has just begun for both parties. It is going to be a rough and tumble ride for all who remain in the race, and we have lost a few passengers already.

There were no primal screams in Iowa last night, at least none in public, but Senators Biden and Dodd are out of the rece, and talking heads are suggesting that Governor Richardson won't be far behind.

The overall results were more or less as predicted by the pollsters. I understand that while Biden was able to portray himself as a very experienced, competent, even wise, foreign policy expert, there is something about his style that didn't come across as presidential. And that lead to the undoing of his campaign.

That said, I find it hard to accept Biden's 0.93% showing in Iowa, especially since he was polling in the 5% range. That brings me to my main point. Should Iowa Democrats be the ones who winnow down the field of Democratic presidential candidates before any other state gets to weigh in with its views?

Unlike N.H., where the preferences of voters for all the candidates are reported directly, and there is no 15% threshold to overcome, the Iowa Democratic caucus is designed to weed out the weak sisters of the campaign before the real voting starts. I think N.H. Democratic voters should be given the same chance to vote for all the Democratic candidates as N.H. Republicans have to vote for their candidates. Iowa Democrats should either change their caucus rules to match those of their Republican brethern, or should go to the end of the presidential campaign voting line.

It's down to voting, and horse trading of votes for the Dems, shouts, and perhaps a primal scream or two (or not) in Iowa. For Senator Biden, it all gets down to what Time used as a title to a story on him yesterday on it's website (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1699170,00.html), "Can Biden Defy the Iowa Odds?"

According to stories coming out of Iowa, many initiated by the Biden campaign itself, but some corroborated by journalists reporting from Iowa, Biden has been finding pockets of real support in rural Iowa. The big question is, when voting starts, will Biden supporters have the fifteen percent of the votes needed to pickup more votes from the other also-rans, or will Biden supporters be the ones giving up their votes to other candidates? There is a history of come-from-behind surges in Iowa. Tomorrow we will know. The results will obviously affect voting here in N.H. next week.

Unless you're an absentee ballot voter, you may be surprised to know there are 21 Democrats and 21 Republicans listed on N.H.'s primary ballots. (I assume that 21 each is a coincidence.) It is reasonable to assume many are not viable candidates for president, for one reason or another, and that it would be a disservice to host a "debate" for either party with all 21 candidates on stage.

That said, who should decide who gets on stage and who doesn't? Right now the question of who gets to decide is pretty clear, the large corporate media organizations that are planning to host the events this coming weekend (ABC: Dems and Reps on Saturday, FOX: Reps only, natch, on Sunday.) At this point, ABC is withholding some or all invites until after the Iowa caucus, but FOX has already said Representative Paul is persona non grata.

I strongly believe that TV news organizations, and I use the word "news" loosely, should go back to reporting news, not shaping it, and that political campaign debates, such as they are, should be managed either by the political parties themselves, or by some other non-partisan organization. FOX, ABC, CNN, and the rest of them should have their cameras there to report what happens at debates, they should not be controlling them. This issue may in the long run be even more important than who wins the next election, and I'm going to say more on this topic.

As I listen to candidates tell us what they would do as president, I ask myself, how many of those promises are realistic?

Governor Richardson comes to mind in this connection. He says he'll pay all teachers a minimum of $40k a year. Sounds laudable, although $40k a year in Berlin, NH is not the same as $40k in New York City. More to the point, teachers are primarily paid by local taxpayers, and their salaries are set by local school boards. You know, the old "local control" issue. Much as I'd like to see teachers paid higher salaries, I don't think the Feds should be creating another unfunded mandate for local school districts.

Here in New Hampshire we can't even agree on state funding of education, and Richardson is going to set teacher salaries on a Federal level? I just don't see how he can deliver on that promise. And, by the way, I've heard Senator Obama say something similar about paying teachers more money.

I'm not arguing against the objective, I favor paying teachers more, but I think the candidates should be promising things that are realistic, not pie in the sky.

And I must add, I think Richardson's plan to bring all the troops home from Iraq immediately is irresponsible and would lead to big problems in the Middle East, which is just now starting to settle down a bit.

One year down and one year closer to GW getting out of the White House. It is important to remember how the Bush administration has been a disaster for millions of people. It is important to remember in the year coming up that we need to elect a democrat that will pass health care initiatives, make efforts to improve our environment, be committed to making education a top priority and turn our foreign policy in the right direction. The world needs a break from Cheney and Bush. They have made their millions and will make millions more while they are still alive. They have robbed the bank of human kindness and should be shown the door. The bottom line for every democrat is to pick someone who whose policies are good but whose ability to get elected is better. If we can get a democrat into the White House, I feel the American people can push that President to accomplish many positive goals. There are really only two choices Edwards or Obama. Obama is not a superstar. Obama's ideas are not new. But he has proven over this campaign and in his choices in life that he picks the right avenues to travel. He has excellent skills in judgment and he we be able to work both sides of the isles. John Edwards is a good man, but he did not help win one state in the last general election and I do not want to take that chance this time. OBAMA IN O'EIGHT. Happy New Years.

I took Blithe Damour's suggestion to try Select a Candidate 2008 (you can find it by googling that phrase). I had some difficulty because I had to either skip questions (I skipped one) or select the best choice out of one or more that did not adequately represent my views. Knowing Blithe, based on her comment I'm guessing it was Kucinich who topped her list. More surprising to me, he topped my list, too, and my candidate of choice, Biden was several spots down. It made me question my own consistency, but mostly I took the difference between my first choice, and the one the computer said should be my first choice to the fact that few of the answers to the questions accurately reflected my views. This is the dilemma of finding the right candidate. None match our views exactly.

I was pleased to see that it was Democrats who topped my list, and the Republican candidates were all at the bottom, even the one I admire (with reservations), McCain. As one who believes in consistency, I found that to be comforting. To me, it's better to be wrong than to be inconsistent (say one thing, do another).

Stop sending money to the Clinton, Edwards and Obama campaigns, it's only making printing companies rich. Does anyone on any of those campaigns seriously think that any of us are going to change our voting intentions on the basis of the deluge of campaign brochures that have been flooding mail boxes for the past couple of weeks?

I would stop and read one good brochure from a candidate, but when campaign brochures fill my mailbox almost as fast as the snow has been filling my driveway lately, often multiple pieces from one candidate on the same day, I can't be bothered to read them. I toss them all (into the recyling bin, or course). All this overkill does is convince me to never contribute to a campaign that is doing well in the polls, as I just assume my contribution will be wasted.

Thanks to Donna Richards for a particularly insightful post on Dec. 28. She describes her journey through the primary season, her observations of the candidates, and how she made up her mind. I related to her journey...being most excited about Kucinich at first, seeing the many positives of each candidate, but finally coming around to a belief that Edwards was the best choice and would be the best president.

I am very excited about the prospect of an Edwards candidacy in the general election. More than any other candidate, he has the potential of winning big in the general election, having strong coattails that would lead to larger Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, and getting the most accomplished once elected.

Think of what a real populist could do for our nation!

This morning a friend forwarded me the Select a Candidate 2008 questionnaire. She and I are among the many still deciding whom to vote for on the 8th. I answered the questions and found the results quite interesting. My best match was Edwards, not a surprise at all. However, the ranking of the rest of the candidates in terms of my answers on various issues such as Iraq, Gay Marriage, Illegal Immigrants, the Line Item Veto, SS, and the Death Penalty did make me gasp a bit. My second best match is a candidate I've never even considered and whose last name I'm not sure I can even spell. After him are the two Democratic front runners who simply don't appeal to me and then the other guys I do like. Now I am asking myself what's up with me? Why do three of the candidates whose views are in sync with mine not interest me at all? I guess it comes down to my gut feelings about the candidates. Chris Dodd was near the bottom of my Democratic matches, but I could easily support him and vote for him. I am beginning to believe that for me this election is more about trust than about issues. I want an America we can feel good about again and a President I can respect but also like. If you haven't tried Select a Candidate 2008, you may want to go to the site and fill out your responses. The results may confirm the choice you have already made, help you make your choice, or raise some interesting questions for you.

Is national security still an issue for democrats? Some of the candidates have generated voter support on the reasonable assumption that their experience would enable them to make g