Hillary Surges in New Hampshire following debate

http://wbztv.com/keller/local_story_155224247.html

Full poll results: WBZ/Franklin Pierce Poll

http://static.cbslocal.com/station/wbz/wbz/2007/june/debateresults.pdf

If voting now compared to (March).

Clinton: 38 (32)
Obama: 16 (25)
Edwards: 13 (15)

The rest in single digits.


I don't know about anybody else, but this is a lot more than I expected for Clinton and a lot less than I expected for Obama.

They have the confidence if they elect Hillary, (and Bill) she will turn the country back to the prestige we once had from the World in the 90's. And quickly undue the damage Bush has done to our military and the middle class.

After the debates I'm thinking it won't be Edwards. Do you see Biden? Obama?

A Clinton/Obama ticket! Now, that would be a winner...and Obama would then be set for 2016. And, of course they would be a great team not only for the party, but for the country and the world.

They are very polite toward each other these days ~ makes me wonder.

Like she was impressed with him or something, it was unmistakable and friendly, especially in contrast to her burn of Edwards.

And several times recently when they've crossed paths, they looked affectionate in the shot. I'm sure each at least appreciates the other's sharp mind, and he seems deferential toward her. He may just be playing his cards right ~ but it sure would be a terrific ticket!

I loved that look at Edwards, though. :scared:

They would have tried to put him on the edges, but his presence is just so commanding, he would have looked like a winner for sure.

But as someone said, we can't pull our entire Executive Branch out of the senate, because we'll lose the majority there. I think we'll have to wait and see what strategy comes into play. If the Governor of a state is a (D), we know we can get another Dem to fill in for an outgoing Dem appointed by the Governor, until the next election cycle.

I thought Hillary and Obama would split the difference. They were both so good.

As someone just watching at this point (working on a get out the vote campaign instead of for a candidate), I think she hit it out of the ballpark this time. She knows her stuff and it showed.

But I thought Obama was much better than this poll indicates.

But he's light in substance and I think people are wondering if he's their savior after all. He may surge again, there's plenty of time.

Hillary's rise in voting numbers I do get. That's based on different criteria.

Was he ever a "rock star" in New Hampshire? It's a state I know little about, but I'll bet they're less impressed with the latest trends than a state like CA.

Besides, the key to NH will be independent voters...

and concise (Obama has to work on that last one in debating venues....)

It is true in the end that the American people probably prefer to support someone who's more or less been there, done that. The country is really screwed up, and it will take some real knowledge to get us out of the mess we are in. In my opinion, that is why she is leading, because no matter if she was not President, she has the resources of a past presidency like nobody's business.

This is also why Gore has got so much support although he isn't even running. Many Americans are simply apprehensive of supporting those who will be learning by trial and error and they would prefer not to take a chance, as there is no margin left for errors. It's just the way that it is, and there is a clear rationale for it.

The mood of this country is really not for something "Fresh and Different" as much as the CW states over and over again......rather many want the "tried and tested", IMO.

a word I like is "seasoning/seasoned"...Hillary draws from a wealth of seasoning as she thinks before answering a question. Her answers will stand up under scrutiny because her answers are based on a strategic plan worked out in advance. We all agree, Obama is intelligent, but he lacks the seasoning that can only come with time, like a good wine.

She is well seasoned and has a crackerjack mind!

I would feel so safe under a Clinton/Clark team. The whole world
would rejoice!

I really don't know why anyone would want the job right now!

In times like these, people may want some degree of change, but they are insecure enough to not want any surprises either. Perhaps Hillary is less of a mystery than the others. Even if people say they don't like her, they might vote for her perceived competence vs. the relative inexperience of the others.

She has IT:applause: :applause: :applause:

My mom was only lukewarmly supporting Hillary (because she's a woman, etc.) but after watching the debate, she's now totally pumped to support Hillary and wants to get involved with the campaign, etc.

since she did so well in the debate, and I also thought Obama would have been higher. Interesting that KOS polls so differently.

he had 32 democrats who were undecided and they all like Edwards the way he connected to the voters. They thought Obama was TERRIBLE!! and though Biden came in second place.

think opposite! :eyes:

Republican Operative Frank Luntz is the author of the new book "Words that Work: It's Not What You Say, It's What People Hear"
http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=309

I also thought Hillary won on assertiveness alone. The first-half hour was miserable for her (saying we were safer now than in 2001, trashing the Iraqis and getting backed into a corner on not having read the NIE), but she essentially owned the last 45 minutes of the debate and that's what most people walked away with. Edwards was very aggressive and it mostly backfired on him. I trust th results of this poll more than Luntz' groupthink panel.

Sorry, Hillary-backers, but she still reaches me as Republican-lite. Please convince me otherwise.

I would say this: I think it is quite possible that she has (and probably ALWAYS has) taken a long-view perspective of things. I suspect that she knows that as a Democrat and a woman, she MUST appear more hawkish than she would prefer in order to succeed at this task, and if she wants that appearance to be convincing, she must BE more hawkish than she would prefer. By this theory, she would have been able to rationalize that some time ago so that her record and her behavior are consistent and substantial. I would assume this takes a lot of confidence- to be able to 'be' hawkish but not overly so- in her judgment and communication ability, and I certainly hope she is up to the task, because if she wins and something like N. Korea flares up, I wouldn't want her with an itchy trigger finger just out of habit or just for appearances.

As time goes by I personally am becoming more confidant in her ability to keep this in perspective. She seems pretty quick to raise her hand when the question is about whether to be tough or not, but she usually finds a way to soften or qualify the initial bold statement with insight and reason. Some may call this triangulation, but I think triangulation is a good thing for a successful candidate. This isn't an issue advocacy group trying to advance their own agenda. This is the person who has to listen to all the issue advocacy groups and find a path forward.

Anyway, I suppose you could take the same scenario and substitute other issues, but I don't know what they are. She's pretty good on choice, environment, arts, wildlife, civil rights, education, labor, poverty, and veterans. On trade I don't hold the same distaste for NAFTA that many other liberals do, but she says she wants to revise that anyway. I think it's her hawkishness that is the deal-breaker for many, and, so far, I'm thinking she might be capable of stepping up to the brink to overcome historic perceptions without losing her balance.


http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=55463

It could prove to be brilliant strategy if she gets the nod.

that's the one that counts.

I don't think we can tolerate 4 more years of hell. I know that I can't. I'm not getting any younger, ya know!

So WINNING is very important to me this time, not just "best on the issues". Within reason of course.

Obama is the only other candidate that has a chance, unless someone else gets in.