Email List
Most Popular This Week
- Everything Is Rigged: The Biggest Price-Fixing Scandal Ever
- Study: Monsanto's Roundup Herbicide Linked to Cancer, Autism, Parkinson's
- Picture of the Week
- 'The Gilded Age' Statistics Corporations Don't Want Workers, or Anyone, to See
- Bradley Manning is Off Limits at SF Gay Pride Parade, but Corporate Sleaze is Embraced
- Study: Monsanto's Roundup Herbicide Linked to Cancer, Autism, Parkinson's
- Everything Is Rigged: The Biggest Price-Fixing Scandal Ever
- Report: Toxic Chemicals Found in Thousands of Children's Products
- The Life and Death of Words, People, and Even Nature
- You and Your Family Are Guinea Pigs for the Chemical Corporations
Popular content
Today's Top News
On to Michigan, Nevada... and Maybe Oregon
New Hampshire has rewritten a script that called for settling the Democratic and Republican presidential nomination contests by February 5 at the latest.
The state that on the eve of its first-in-the-nation primary was supposed to settle some things has stirred everything up. Instead of sending Illinois Senator Barack Obama on his way to the Democratic nomination or giving former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney a New England-neighbor boost on the way to the Republican nod, New Hampshire has declared the race for the presidency to be wide open.
Obama gave his planned "new American majority" speech on primary night. But he delivered it not as a victory speech; rather, it came in the context of a concession to Clinton, who prevailed by a narrow but for her absolutely redeeming 39-36 margin.
The Clinton win was the stunner of the night, upsetting pollster and pundit predictions -- and proving that getting a little choaked up, as the New York senator did on the eve of the primary, can do more than a thousand soft-focus TV ads to make voters rethink their impressions of her. The McCain win was anticipated by the pre-primary polls that failed so miserably when it came to predicting the Democratic race, but it has the same effect as Clinton's victory.
"There is not going to be any premature coronation," declared New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, a Democratic contender who may not have won the contest but delivered the truest line of a roller-coaster night: "This race is going on and on and on."
How far?
To February 5 and perhaps beyond that day.
Of course, the candidates of both parties will follow a long campaign trail between now and then. They will compete in Nevada's January 19 caucuses, South Carolina's January 19 Republican and January 26 Democratic primaries, and probably in Florida's January 29 primaries.
Then they will go at it on February 5 in a score of states - including Clinton's New York, Obama's Illinois, Richardson's New Mexico, McCain's Arizona, Romney's Massachusetts, Mike Huckabee's Arkansas and Fred Thompson's Tennessee -- that will engage in the "tsunami Tuesday" voting that was supposed to settle both contests. But if this race that has not gone according to plan keeps producing unexpected and conflicting results, it is not unreasonable to imagine mixed February 5 results that could send the competition into states that were never supposed to matter: states like Wisconsin (February 19), Ohio and Vermont (March 4), Pennsylvania (April 22) and Oregon (May 20).
Whether the campaign gets to Ohio or Oregon remains to be seen, of course.
But one thing is certain: New Hampshire is over.
The exodus from the first primary state began almost as soon as the close Democratic contest was finally called for the woman who was not supposed to have a chance.
Clinton left in triumph, but also with a newly-populist message that acknowledged her determination to bid for the 25-percent of the vote that went to third-, fourth- and fifth-place finishers John Edwards, Bill Richardson and Dennis Kucinich.
"We are in it for the long run," she declared.
But she is running now as a different kind of candidate. In thanking New Hampshire, she declared, "In the past week I listened to you, and in the process I found my own voice."
That makes two candidates who have found their voices over the past week.
Obama, it should be noted, found his in Iowa.
He didn't lose it in New Hampshire. But he did lose - not just the vote but the expectations game.
So Barack Obama leaves New Hampshire having been the "Barack star" of the Democratic race but not quite as the "Barack star."
John Edwards is searching for a state where his brand of populism is popular.
John McCain wishes he could keep running in a state where independent voters have given him wins in both his presidential runs.
Mitt Romney is excited to be headed for states with closed primaries and caucuses where he can just concentrate on appeals to the conservative base.
Mike Huckabee is on the hunt for more evangelical voters.
Rudy Giuliani is looking for someplace to win.
Ron Paul is just having a great time, and continuing to confuse pundits and frighten insiders.
And they all might make it to the Badger state or the Green Mountain state or the Buckeye state.
That's a new notion. But this is a new race.
Two months ago, Clinton and Romney were the safe bets to win Iowa, New Hampshire and their respective nominations.
One month ago, Clinton and Romney were solid bets.
One week ago, Obama and Huckabee were looking like fair bets.
Today, all bets are off. And that means that, when you ask the candidates if they expect to be competing in the Wisconsin and Vermont Democratic and Republican presidential contests, they will say "you bet."
Indeed, making it to Madison and Burlington would be a triumph for any campaign. That's because Wisconsin and Vermont chose not to join the rush to "frontload" the primary process. As such, they offer the promise of a longer, more nuanced and more meaningful competition,
Most states moved their caucuses and primaries up to dates in January or early February to capture the spotlight in the first presidential contest since 1928 when neither the president nor vice president even toyed with the idea of making a bid for one of the party nomination.
It was always certain that 2008 was going to see competitive races for both party nominations.
It was never certain that the competition would play out in Ohio or Oregon.
But something has changed.
With the supposedly definitional Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primaries done:
On the Democratic side, there are now candidates - Obama and Clinton -- who can compete in all 50 states and potentially win the nomination, and a third - Edwards -- who can continue to compete in at least some of the states and to be ready to step in if another runner stumbles.
On the Republican side, there are now four candidates - Romney, McCain, Giuliani and Huckabee - who can spin a scenario that might take them to the nomination, and a fifth candidate - Ron Paul - who can continue to annoy the competitors with exceptionally well-financed rebel yell of a campaign.
Whether any or all of them will be competing in Pennsylvania or Ohio will be decided between now and February 5. But, after last night, there is every reason to believe that February 19, March 4 and even May 20 could be a definitional dates on the new 2008 campaign calendar.
John Nichols is a co-founder of Free Press and the co-author with Robert W. McChesney of TRAGEDY & FARCE: How the American Media Sell Wars, Spin Elections, and Destroy Democracy — The New Press.
© 2008 The Nation
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...



21 Comments so far
Show AllRalph Wiggum for president!
I hope they make it to Wisconsin unsettled I would love my vote for Edwards to mean something....
Oregon has just about perfectly mirrored the national political mood for a long time, and even correctly gave Gore and Kerry here the narrow victories that should have made both President, except for you-know-what. It would be nice to cast a primary vote that really mattered for a change, instead of having to hold our noses to support whomever the far too early states pick. GO EDWARDS!
The only thing this is really doing is filling the coffers of CNN.
and a little of Fox.
Have them answer questions on line and record them, hold them to it, nationwide. Let every democrat Republicans vote at once.
Screw this long drawn process, in which after every state, they give pseudo presidential speech.
Which is the same everytime.
We have an intertwined problem here of politics and media and corporatism. None can be Reformed without the others being reformed and they have a truly symbiotic relationship.
The long, long campaign benefits the corporations because it requires truckloads of money and the Corporations have truckloads of money to donate, er, invest in the candidates.
The media benefits because the Corporations own the media and get back their "investments" in the form of campaign advertising. I read somewhere that the Big 3 democrats alone spent almost $60 million in Iowa. $60 Million!!!!
The losers are the candidates with ideas who can't compete in this environment and the biggest losers are the American people.
I would say it is pretty nervy for a country to promote Democracy overseas when it has made a money drenched mockery of democray at home.
But don't forget the Democratic superdelegates, who I understand to be heavily favoring Clinton, a big thumb on the scale. None of the delegate totals on cnn.com etc. are including them. I don't know how locked-in they are, but as Katrina has written elsewhere on this site, it's shameful that the Democratic Party insiders aren't willing to follow the popular vote even within the party.
The SuperDelegates go to existing Dem party officeholders. I'd imagine most of them have made some commitment to one campaign or another. Of course they can always change, politicians being the creatures of integrity that they are.
They represent about 20% of the delegates that will gather here in Denver. About 800 of the 4000, so they are not insignificant. I'd doubt they'd all go to Hillary, but if they did she'd only need about 1300 of remaining 3200 delegates. Ie, about 40% of the vote.
They are mainly there to keep any outsiders or grassroots campaigns from winning the nomination. They were put in after McGovern upset the party by beating the party hacks with an anti-war campaign. So this year, you could think of them as the 'stop Kucinich' vote. When its a choice between competing corporate candidates that each have backing amongst the party elites, they'll tend to split more and wouldn't matter unless the nomination was razor thin.
It won't get to that. The reliance of the Dem candidates on big money means that when the big money decides to give up on a candidate, that candidate is through. But, since almost all the contests are on one day, its hard to see a sure winner being visible by then. So the big money won't abandon a candidate until after Feb 5. But whichever candidate loses that day will see all his money dry up and they won't continue to the convention.
For any who think the Evilcrats are the anti-war party, the above history is important. There's only one brief time where the Evilcrats have opposed the wars of the United States. That was at the end of the Vietnam war. The rest of the time, the Evilcrats have fully supported every war. In fact, until recently every war in the 20th century was started by an Evilcrat president. Papa Bush and the first Gulf war was the first break in that trend, if you don't count Lebanon and Granada as really being wars.
And its telling that after the one brief time when popular outrage forced the Evilcrats to oppose a war, the party quickly changed the rules to add these superdelegates to try to make certain that it never happened again.
If you are expecting the Evilcrats to be anti-war, please be aware of this history and know that electing the Evilcrats will never end a war.
To ZeroPointField ... there is no long drawn out process any more. On Feb 5th, there's esentially a national primary. It will be over in four weeks.
I liked the old way better. The longer process gave time for a grassroots campaign to grow and gather momentum. Nobody but political junkies was paying attention last year. So most Americans are really just paying attention now. That means that a successful campaign in this system must have the corporate money behind it flood lots of states with paid ads.
When there was a longer process, someone like Gov. Carter could get into the race, do a little better than expected, get some attention, to a little better the next time, get more attention and slowly build.
Edwards might be a closer fit to that model this time. I'm guessing a lot of voters just started paying attention to him after Iowa. But now its going to be over in a few weeks, and its going to be settled in favor of the candidate with enough corporate money to flood the nation with advertising before Feb 5. On Feb 6, its over and we'll know both nominees.
Bunching all of this closer together is just another way that the whole process is rigged to make sure that only the corporate backed candidates can become President.
As an Independent Oregon voter, I hope things still matter in May, when I plan to vote for the only candidate who offers real change, Dr. Ron Paul.
"John Edwards is searching for a state where his brand of populism is popular." John Nichols/The Nation -- it's maddening that even they are so dismissive!
I also hate the word "populism" -- it always sounds like Huey Long. Edwards is a fighter for ordinary people against the rich and powerful. I'd call that democratic, not populist.
This country is being swallowed alive by the power of banks, Wall St. and corporations. Edwards is the ONLY candidate who's making that clear, and what has to be done to restore our "people power." I've just had to spend $800 for a tankful of heating oil, so I could only afford to send the Edwards campaign $100 right now. But let's remember that John Kerry raised $78 million on the Internet in 2004; with Edwards not taking fatcat money, everyone who believes in him needs to make a donation as soon as possible, before the MSM block him out totally.
The antidote for money in politics is direct democracy.
Obama is the real deal. Clinton will sell you out.
"Judge Him By His Laws"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303.html
"Obama Forged Political Mettle In Illinois Capitol"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/08/AR2007020802262_pf.html
"In Illinois, Obama Proved Pragmatic and Shrewd" (Graphic of Illinois Legislation)
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/us/politics/30obama.htm
"Ron Paul is just having a great time, and continuing to confuse pundits and frighten insiders."
This has to be the best line I have read yet about the American horse races, and that includes some of those of Canadian pundits including this one:
http://www.counterpunch.org/chuckman01092008.html
The confusion of the US primaries has to be the ultimate disproof of Bush's "I am a uniter" spiel. No one agrees on anything anymore.
Obama and Clinton HAVE ALREADY SOLD YOU OUT!!
Give your votes and support to someone who is really fighting for you, JOHN EDWARDS! John can win with your support. Send him some love for having the courage to speak the truth, and for forcing Obama and Clinton to start talking about the issues that matter to working people.
EDWARDS '08
CoMarc
We will see about 02/05/08
I like Nichols a lot more when he says things like,
"despite the candidates' having spent years amassing millions in campaign funds, few will have enough to buy the television commercials they'll need to compete in the February 5 'Tsunami Tuesday,' when more than twenty states...will be voting as part of the most absurdly accelerated, money-driven, grassroots-stomping and confusing nominating process in the history of the Republic."
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080121/nichols
Adequate campaign spending limits now!
Believe or not there was a time when I supported Hillary at least to the point of donating a little money to her campaign. At that time, I couldn't understand why so many people don't like her.
Since then I began supporting Obama and he is and always will be my choice. Until recently Hillary hasn't really bothered me.
But her behavior around the New Hampshire election - the tantrums and crying and name calling - this is no future president. This is a woman who admits that her candidacy for president is all about HER. Get that? It's about her - not the country. Disgusting.
To dig her grave a little deeper, she has now ds'd Martin Luther King Jr. and instead sung the praises of LBJ. Unbelievable. Unforgivable.
Now I understand why I have seen so many bumper stickers that read "Anyone but Hillary '08".
This article belongs in USA TODAY. The author refuses to think outside the acceptable margins. He is auditioning and pimping himself to corporate media. He wants to be an anchor someday. But CD shouldn't be enabling him either. After all, you don't let drunks drive. And today these guys are more dangerous than drunk drivers. Just look at our tabloids.
Hoa binh
Why is this article linked to the headline "David Corn:
Clinton Smears Obama on Iraq — Again" on CD's home page? This isn't written by David Corn, and does not claim Clinton smeared Obama. What gives?
"Ron Paul is just having a great time, and continuing to confuse pundits and frighten insiders."
If these are the only choices I'm going to get, I'm thinking of confusing pundits and frightening insiders some more.