Michigan

Clinton wins the Democratic contest by default, 1/3 of democratic voters are "uncommitted?" Uncommitted is an interesting vote, sounds like none of the above (Clinton, Kucinich, Dodd, and Gravel). Oh yeah, there are no delegates at stake, so big deal.

Romney wins, McCain second, and Huckabee trailing. South Carolina is next with Huckabee the likely front-runner. South Carolina was where the wheels fell off of McCain's 2000 Presidential campaign. The site of a political assault by the Bush campaign that played a little racism, a "push poll" that accused McCain of having an illegitimate child who was not white.

South Carolina for the Democrats is going to be even more interesting. It's John Edwards backyard and is going to have a large portion of African-American voters.

Michigan

Michigan doesn't have any democratic delegates because they moved their primary up so far. Hillary is the only major candidate on the ballot.

I'm not surprised that Michigan tried to gain more prominence in deciding the presidential nomination. Michigan is in dire straits economically as the auto companies have been suffering greatly, unemployment is high, and real estate has tanked out. Not surprising that they are turning to politics. Moving their primary ahead steals the national spotlight from the race to some of the above mentioned problems in Michigan.

The GOP race is full on. Seems like this is a "must-win" for Romney. But so was New Hampshire. My guess is that McCain and Huckabee do well. Romney is burdened with expectations, it will be difficult to be anything but disappointing.

Saw an interesting post by David Postman regarding Rep. Ron Paul and some newsletters published under a pseudonym spewing some hate-filled diatribes.

Read the post here.

NH's Comeback Candidates

McCain's "comeback" was expected in NH, which also doubles on the weekends as the "Irony State." How do you have a comeback in a state where you have won before and were leading in immediately before the election?

Hillary managed to pull off a victory. Compare it to a Heavyweight champ who got knocked to the canvas by an upstart challenger in the first round. Shake it off champ, go knock his block off and win the second round.

Did the Hillary movement wake up last night or was it just New Hampshire voters keeping things interesting? Inevitability has a certain quality that can unmotivate people who should be working hard (volunteers, staff, family etc.) because they think that the contest is in the bag.

It is unclear exactly why the polls got it wrong, although it is almost always one of two answers. The sample was either not representative of who was turning out to vote or the poll respondents didn't tell the truth or had a change of heart about who they were voting for.

Seeing Hillary get emotional was good for her image. It's ok for women to cry (even if they are running for President apparently), but probably not ok if Obama cried. Context matters and we are in uncharted territory with Hillary and Obama. What will the voters expect from a female presidential candidate?

The real question is whether or not this little emotional episode was planned or not. The Clinton's don't seem to do anything spontaneously, I wonder if there was an inner circle meeting evaluating the pros and cons of tears vs. letting her voice crack a little bit.

One thing is clear, this is going to be a bout to remember. Let's cast Obama has Cassius Clay and Hillary as Sonny Liston. Someone has a superior style that is undeniably fresh and needed versus someone who is carrying baggage and scars from battles fought in the 90s. It may not be fair, and it may be Hillary's "shot" or "turn" to run, but the country seems ready to take a chance on someone new.

Early Returns

Hillary leads Obama according to MSNBC, with 8% of the vote in 38% to 36%. They haven't said what precincts or counties are reporting. McCain leads Romney with Huckabee trailing. Lots of votes left to count, no way to tell how representative these 8% of the votes are.

Obama Baby Buggy Bumpers (Welcome to New Hampshire!)

Looks like Hillary is starting to crack. I think that she had her little "cry" moment to try and soften up for other women. If Oprah goes to New Hampshire Hillary will be road kill.

The Primary is tomorrow and Obama is about to deliver a knockout blow, to the once (pause) proud champ, Hillary Clinton, now a study, in moppishness. This is truly a sight to behold. Obama is holding a lead in the polls and is trending out of sight. No one has been able to attack him effectively. Obama is rubber and Hillary is glue. The last guy who was this "teflon" was William, Mr. Hillary Rodham-Clinton. He won.

Obama has momentum, money, a lead and no need to attack anyone, and he has a charisma that is undeniable. He's got the lead and seems to be pulling away. Obama's star is buring bright. The inevitable comparisons to the Kennedys are a little frightening. This star cannot burn out. There would be dramatic repercussions along every divide imaginable. This country has been divided and had elections that have been clouded by controversy and scandal. This country needs to go through some healing, if there are more dirty tricks or an assassination attempt, well I don't even want to mention it because of what happened with Bhutto. We all saw what happened in Pakistan, don't be so naive to think that it couldn't happen in Detroit, Chicago, LA, New York, or even all across the country. I pray this never happens.

Hillary has risen as far as she can go. It is unlikely that she would not have even gotten to be Senator had it not been for Bill's notoriety and fund raising ability. She is a well known commodity, and she is not known for being well liked. She is tough and she gets results, but somehow this year it won't be enough. She didn't want to get her hands dirty in 2004 and run against Bush. She figured 2008 would be a lock for her to get the nomination and she would walk to the White House in wave of Clinton nostalgia.

Yeah, well, nostalgia, it ain't what it used to be.

The Emperor's Clothes

President Bush held a press conference today. Announcing that despite the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) claim that Iran stopped pursuing nuclear weapons in 2003, Iran remains a threat to our national security and international interests.

Why does the NIE have information in it that is supposedly not available to our President, who claims to have only seen this information this week. Why has it taken this long to discredit the President's erroneous claim?

Bottom line, Iran was not and is not looking to start World War III like our President claims. If not them, then who? I'm going to ask the man in the shiny new suit of clothes.

Iran Stopped Weapons Program in 2003

I don't really remember what happened in 2003, I had to Google it. Here's a refresher in case you forgot. The Raiders were in the Super Bowl, and lost to Tampa Bay.

What else happened in 2003? Oh yeah, the invasion of Iraq. The Department of Homeland Security was founded. It was a banner year for the administration. Karl Rove and Scooter were destroying the careers of Valerie
"Fair Game Plame and Joe "Eat your yellowcake" Wilson

The drumbeats should fade away along with this administration and their deceptive ways. Iran is not a real threat. There is a good probability that Ahmadinejad will lose his election. What kind of threat is Iran now?

The real crime here is that there will be no investigation into what happened with Iraq intelligence, or who was making energy policy in the Vice-President's office, and why is there a continual string of intelligence that has no backing in reality? Who created the Iran threat?

Here's a hint, it wasn't Iran.