I don't know, I thought she came off sympathetically and I hate her. I think she made a serious mistake not running in 2004. I think if she had, she would probably be President right now.

If New Hampshire was 2 weeks away I think it might be the end. But we're talking Tuesday. And with McCain getting the full fluff, Obama might not get the independent numbers in New Hampshire he needs.

"What will Hillary offer?"

Clinton is now a niche candidate.

As blacks were to the Jesse Jackson for President campaign in '84, old women are to the Hillary Clinton for President campaign in '08.

She'll finish third in New Hampshire, and then perhaps we can get the Obama/Edwards race we deserve as a Party.

My two cents: I actually liked Hillary's speech. The team-player stuff was good, and she needs more of it, because the perception is that Hillary puts Hillary first. She came across as humble, which is how she ought to be.

She didn't establish any new rationale for her candidacy, but hell, I'm not sure that's possible.

i think the curtain closed for hillary tonight.
...just having heard obama's speech, it made me feel for the first time in so long, that his words were the spirit of america at its best.
i will not soon forget the speech of barak obama.
a truly shining and historical moment.
certainly, one of the great moments in politics during my lifetime.

"What will Hillary offer?"

According to Ben Smith, she'll offer the Democratic Party exactly what Giuliani offers - security and risk:

A Clinton supporter forwards the talking points the campaign dispatched to surrogates around the country, which focus on process -- that the race is a "marathon" and that she started behind in Iowa -- and include just one line of substance, a clear signal that the card she has left to play is the one she rolled out in recent weeks: Security and risk.

I think she looked pretty sad jumping on the "change" band-wagon so late in the game. She should have been more creative in an attempt to incorporate her original talking points into her speech. It's going to be a long night for her and her staff.

"She'll finish third in New Hampshire, and then perhaps we can get the Obama/Edwards race we deserve as a Party."

What an exciting two weeks that will be!

Her speech was good. Gracious in defeat, and positive about what she will be running on. Edwards also gave a good speech, but it was marred by his refusal to acknowledge the winner.

I thought Obama's speech blew chunks and he didn't acknowledge the other candidates at all. Typical BS. Sort of reminds me of "when dreams take wing". :-)

RalphB - you are a sore sad loser, aren't you, son? Now, go home, drink some nice cold water, and reacquaint yourself with reality. Obama spoke marvellously, while Clinton tried to patch together some rags for the future. The contrast is amazing, and I can't see Hillary coming back from tonight. New Hampshire will be Obama's on Tuesday, and South Carolina not long after.

"I don't know, I thought she came off sympathetically and I hate her. I think she made a serious mistake not running in 2004. I think if she had, she would probably be President right now.

Posted by: soullite | January 3, 2008 10:57 PM"

I really don't get why she didn't. If she had jumped in in 2004, I would have backed her in the primaries in a heartbeat and she would have killed the competition. In 2003-2004, she was projecting then-current trajectories forward four years, not expecting anything to change. That was stupid. After all, how many people really even knew Bush existed in 1995-1996? She had her chance and she chickened out because she was afraid of taking on Bush.

The idiot who placed Madelene Albright behind her in the podium should fired.

Were they trying to pander to the Florida retiree block ?

What was laughable is that they had to scurry to drag people back into the room to hold this so called rally......by all accounts it was like a morgue......thsi woman deserves to lose...she is a complete fraud and a nasty witch.

IMO Hillary is too pro war for me, so I am glad to see her do less well than expected but it is not over yet and IMO her name recognition will be difficult to overcome.

I imagine Hillary didn't run in 2004 because she surmised, correctly, that 2008 would be much more favorable to Democrats.

I don't imagine she was particularly worried about the primaries; she probably figured the nomination was hers for the taking whenever she wanted it, and that the general election would be the real challenge.

Hillary's concession speech was, without question, gracious and classy.

Your cynical impression of it says more about you, then about the speech or Hillary.

The people of Iowa have struck again. What happen in Iowa is pretty simple. The people of Iowa want power. They want to be the King makers. They are never going to anoint an overwhelming national front runner because then they aren't the ones picking the next president. Furthermore, Clinton's large early lead made her vulnerable because it opened a window for the others to go negative against her before the race in Iowa hit full swing, but no window for her to hit back in because once she needed to, the race was completely focused on Iowa where going negative is problematic. Also, with the second choice vote it was clear that this was a 5 against 1 contest. All the other candidates had a vested interest in ensuring that Clinton did not win because the race would have been over. That sent the second choice voters to Obama and Edwards explaining Edwards second place finish and Obama's wide margin of victory. The same thing happened to Dean in 2004. This process is a joke. I hope the people of New Hampshire have the good sense not to blindly follow Iowa. They did in 2000 and 2004. If they do in 2008, at least we will get the benefit of them rendering themselves obsolete, as they will have simply become the rubber stamp for Iowa's ridiculous farce of a contest.
As for Ezra's explanations of what this vote meant, I find them severely lacking. The voters of Iowa's motivation was to derail the frontrunner because that is what keeps them in the driver's seat and maintains their status as the king makers. Their rationalization was change. In other words, since they were going to vote for Obama so that he could be their anointed prince, they adopted his mantra and just spit it back at pollsters. Who the hell could be against change? But what does it really mean to say you’re for it?
Obama claims he is going to change the system and change politics. Anyone with half a brain knows he won't have the power to do that. The popularity he currently enjoys among independents and Republicans will not last once his is the nominee and he is both the target of the right wing attack machine, and forced to go after the right the way he has currently gone after the left on issues like social security, mandates, etc.

Right now Obama inspires love in people. But love is fleeting. People are fickle. Obama the underdog breaking racial barriers is not the same as Obama the front runner. As easily as people have fallen in love with Obama they can fallout. This is a significant risk considering his campaign is premised on a lie. While he claims to be practicing a new brand of politics, he clearly is not. His positions on health care, his willingness to attack his opponents from the right, his ridiculous explanation of past liberal views simply being a mistake by a campaign aid on a questionnaire, all show that he is just as willing to triangulate, and politic as anyone else. People are going to see this and when they do the honeymoon is going to be over.

I also think that the media including Ezra, have got this whole expectations situation all wrong. Clinton always had the advantages that would make her a national front runner. She, like Giuliani, never had advantages that would make her a sure bet, or even a good bet in Iowa. Bill only won there unopposed in 96. The machine is not an advantage in Iowa, it is a disadvantage because Iowans want to be the king makers rather than allowing the political machine to be the one with the power. It was reported that Clinton considering skipping Iowa. Ted Strickland, one of her surrogates, recently criticized the power of Iowa. Iowa defeated Hillary Clinton to protect Iowa's powerful status. It was always going to be tough for Hillary to win Iowa because her winning was not in the interest of Iowa's perch on the top of the ladder of power in determining who will be President.

As for Hillary's speech, she was correct in being gracious and in not risking creating a Dean type moment. She portrayed herself as a team player, something important because so many try to characterize her as being self interested. It was good that she didn't abandon her strategy for several reasons. First, it would have reinforced the perception that she will do anything to win. A recent poll shows Obama with lower favorable and higher negatives than Hillary. As Obama assumes the mantle of front runner he is ripe for a fall in popularity. Hillary needs to be in a position to capitalize on that and she doesn’t need her negatives going up at the same time. Second, by abandoning her current strategy it would be buying into this over blown Iowa hype. There certainly is support for Obama's message. There is also support for Clinton's message and Edward's message as well. It is quite plausible to attribute the marginal difference in support for Obama not to a whole sale acceptance of his version of change, but to Iowa's bias against dominant frontrunners and to Obama's personal charisma. That bias will not exist in other areas, and Obama's charm may eventually wear off. The media needs to stop pawning off these overstatements of what Iowa meant and view the process a little more critically. Hillary’s message last night was that change is coming, but that change is about, or at least should be about, a victory of the ideals of the Democratic Party, not about the charisma of one man. She is best prepared to implement those ideals in practice, and that is the change that is needed. Hillary message was about a victory for Democrats, Obama’s message was about a victory for himself. Anyone who has paid the least bit of attention to this blog over the last month should know that a victory for Obama may not be a victory for Progressive and Democratic values. Hillary must present herself as the best able to bring about change, whereas Obama is simply the best able to represent it. If the desire for change is true, and is not just a rationalization for star struck neophytes to worship their idols; then Hillary’s message could eventually resonate. Obama’s supporters’ dogmatic devotion to him, as manifested by their attacks upon the motivations of anyone who dares to criticize him, will hopefully cause people to see that the true base of Obama’s support is not about a mandate for his type of change, but rather stems from the cult of personality. If that doesn’t happen we just better hope Oprah is available to make several trips to Florida and Ohio this fall.

RJ, Iowa Democrats defeated Hillary because they're policy wonks and they don't like her policies. Caucusgoers are a crowd who actually read the books that people like Robert Reich and George Stephanopoulos have written about her husband's administration, and they don't like the way her influence pulled to the right. They well remember her experience in that administration - and it's not an asset.

Anne- Iowa Democrats did not defeat Hillary Clinton. Obama won 32% of the Democratic vote, Hillary 31%. Hillary was defeated by independents and Republicans; and mostly by people who had never caucused before. If these people have never caucused before, I doubt they are the policy wonks you claim.

Furthermore, your claim that the Clinton administration is unpopular with Iowa Democrats makes no sense. Clinton won Iowa easily in 1996, by over 10% in fact. Al Gore won Iowa in 2000 as well, not exactly an indictment of the Clinton administration.

Anne your obviously biased view is nothing but a blanket assertion backed by absolutely no facts and full of false claims. If you are indicative of the people of Iowa, you have just proved the point I was making.

Iowa's results will never reflect national polls because if it did it would prove that we don't need these retail politics to these anointed selectors to determine who should be President. That would render Iowa meaningless and it is obvious that the people are Iowa are more concerned with maintaining their sacred status than choosing a good President for America.

Anne- Iowa Democrats did not defeat Hillary Clinton. Obama won 32% of the Democratic vote, Hillary 31%. Hillary was defeated by independents and Republicans; and mostly by people who had never caucused before. If these people have never caucused before, I doubt they are the policy wonks you claim.

Furthermore, your claim that the Clinton administration is unpopular with Iowa Democrats makes no sense. Clinton won Iowa easily in 1996, by over 10% in fact. Al Gore won Iowa in 2000 as well, not exactly an indictment of the Clinton administration.

Anne your obviously biased view is nothing but a blanket assertion backed by absolutely no facts and full of false claims. If you are indicative of the people of Iowa, you have just proved the point I was making.

Iowa's results will never reflect national polls because if it did it would prove that we don't need these retail politics to these anointed selectors to determine who should be President. That would render Iowa meaningless and it is obvious that the people of Iowa are more concerned with maintaining their sacred status than choosing a good President for America.

It would be delusional thinking for the Obama fans to think that Clinton is finished just because of Iowa. If anything, Obama still needs to win NH or else lose everything. Hillary Clinton can still suffer to lose NH. That's how solid Clinton's lead is. And that's why the Obama fans really, really want to pile on to see if the momentum they got in Iowa will help them in NH.

I'm sorry, but's that's a no-go. NH is solidly behind Hillary. Even the latest polls taken after the Iowa caucus show Hillary with an overwhelming lead. The only reason why Obama won over there in Iowa is that he outspent everyone by 9 million dollars.