If Hillary loses New Hampshire, she should skip South Carolina and go straight to California

That would be my advice. Just go full bore in the Super Tuesday states. She's going to probably lose South Carolina regardless because of the black turnout regardless of what happens in New Hampshire, win or lose.

She's heavily invested in the race, whether she's 1st, 2nd, or 3rd in NH.

Right now I'd say NH is going to be a real tough battle for her. Edwards and Clinton did well in Iowa but Obama did better.

..she should not pass go and go directly back to her Senate Seat.

I was a BIG Hillary backer in the beginning, but now, I have lost any appreciation of her. She has lost my vote. Obama , I cant vote for because the Repubs would eat him up alive in the general election.

And, the one guy who can win, easily, Al Gore, just won't give in.

So, where does that leave me.

Edwards? Yeah, he's OK, but who would his running mate be? I can't handle Richardson, although he does have good diplomatic skills.

Kucinich says the right things that I like to hear, but he hasnt got a snowballs chance in July in Phoenix.

Joe Biden has some positives, but he's another one, IMO, that just cant win in November.

Dems have painted themselves into a corner, especially if Obama emerges as the candidate. That would be a republican dream.

It's time, IMO, for someone to step up to the plate and swart swinging for the fences. Who? I havent got a clue.

........second candidate in New Hampshire.

Will they go for Edwards or Obama? Or maybe just stay home??!!!

market, so to speak, and the unpredictability quotient rises.

It looks more like a McCain win for the Pukes, but it feels odd and uncertain on the blue side.

Nevertheless: IF Clinton loses NH and SC .... She will most likely be too crippled to carry CA ....

I am one of those who thinks WIN WIN WIN with any of the Democratic party candidates .....

Nevada is tucked between SC. Though if she loses NH and still wins Nevada, I think she still loses SC pretty easily.

And she needs to be competitive in NH and SC. She has to do at least that to stay viable before Super Tuesday. Make a race out of the contests she loses and win one herself. That can buy time for her to still possibly turn her campaign around even if Obama wins both NH and SC. She would become a definate underdog though if she loses both NH and SC.

Coming in third in NH would create an impression that Clinton was in free fall. But I don't see that plausibly happening. Edwards didn't have that much support in NH before Iowa and finishing 9 points behind Obama in the state where Edwards was the strongest cost him momentum - it doesn't give him any. Clinton always had stronger support in NH than in Iowa. If Edwards won Iowa it would be a very different scenario - even if he finished a very close second, or at the very least defeated Clinton decisively for second place with her far behind him, he possibly could have overtaken Hillary in NH. Edwards was the front runner in Iowa for a much longer period of time than Hillary ever was. She held her own against him even if neither of them held their own against Obama.

Now there are two impressions working strongly against Edwards. Number One is that Obama is not only the new frontrunner, he is also now the obvious Clinton alternative (anti-Clinton as folks say). That hurts Edwards' chance of picking up new supporters. The second is the perception that it is a two person race now. Voters aren't fooled by Edwards edging out Clinton for second in Iowa, they both lost badly to Obama. But because Iowa was always the only state Edwards showed strength in, he just got soundly beat in the only state where he was competitive. That is very different than Clinton's situation since she has topped the polls in almost every state in the Union PLUS Clinton didn't need Iowa to sling shot her fund raising to compete for Super Tuesday, but Edwards did.

So for the above reality based reasons the media will intensify treating this as a two person race now. That won't help Edwards pull ahead of Clinton in New Hampshire either. Only a total Clinton melt down at this point could make her lose to Edwards there, and I don't see that happening. They both could lose badly to Obama, that is possible, but I can't see how Clinton would slip behind Edwards in New Hampshire.

is that the American people have had 16 years to get to know Hillary. She just can't magically remake her image in a week.

But it is almost a month until Super Tuesday. I maybe incorrectly assume that you think Clinton to be a more deeply flawed candidate than I do, and if your view is essentially correct than even three months would not make a difference. I don't see her that way though, and she is right when she says that Iowa was never looking to be one of her strongest States. John Edwards was supposedly very popular in Iowa and one can say that Hillary just fought him to a virtual draw there despite it not being one of her stronger states.

There is ample time for Hillary to regain her footing and gain late breaking momentum heading into Super Tuesday. The fact that it is possible doesn't prove it will happen, but it can. I think that would be very difficult though if she doesn't win at least one contest before then - which is why I point to Nevada as possibly crucial.

I'd guess, however, that every democrat with a real interest in politics has seriously considered her as a candidate. Edwards and Obama supporters are people who looked at Hillary and went "meh."

but she might make it close.

and why would she lose that state? as far as i can tell she still has good numbers nation wide and by pulling out of south carolina would admit defeat in that state. her national numbers would crash and then she`d be screwed

before Iowa because people in other states not consumed by the early elections (like IA, NH) are not concentrating. So a 20-point national lead nationally for HIllary was always just based more on name recognition and familiarity than anything else. The states where people have been concentrating are showing that she is much weaker than her national numbers.

But sure, let her go to California..


Barack Obama visits Oakland, California

.
.

..she should just follow her 50 state plan.

She "lost" to Obama in Iowa by one delegate . If she repeats that in New Hampshire she will trail Obama by 2 delegates.

All that bloated media blitz and hysterical Obamulation here for a one delegate lead?

Oh, the reality !

He beat her by 8 points. That's the reality that you refuse to see.

;-)

But beyond that, there is simply no way Clinton can win California. California is all about cutting-edge change, the new frontier. In short, the California dream is all about hope. It always has been, and always will be.

We are most diverse state in the nation, and Obama resonates with the people. All the people.

California is Obama country. There is really, sincerely, no point in her wasting resources here (although I hope she tries).

And spare us all her bullshit.

money for the GE, and DROP THE FUCK OUT.

I hope everyone stays in until February. Feb 5 is going to be wild.

isn't it? CA is in Februrary, I thought.

I don't fear a Hillary-Obama slug-out in California. I think it's a state where he could do very well especially coming off of three big victories (if it happens) IA, NH, and SC.