I hate to set this tone in what is only my second post here, but I just got through ‘replying’ to a fellow “blogsNH” blogger’s (Bill Bunker) post on the Concord Monitor Online web site, and I’m fired up!

BTW, I could use some supporters backing me up in the comments section there and also challenging his frequent ‘anti-progressive’ posts.

There aren’t nearly enough intelligent people challenging his warped logic, and since I just started writing a blog (computer-related) of my own there recently, I don’t think it’s appropriate for me to comment (like I’m tempted to).

I keep hoping people associated with the Democratic candidates he negatively opines about (like Hillary Clinton) will stand up and refute his warped (BS) rhetoric (in a major NH newspaper), but to date they’ve sat on their hands.

If intelligent people don’t stand up and challenge nuts like Bill Bunker, ignorant undecided voters are more apt to buy into his crap (for lack of a better word).

I’m actually having second thoughts about continuing my blog there because of this kook. The other day he was going on about global warming (in a post challenging the paper’s endorsement of Clinton):
“The Monitor assumes that global warming is a settled science in their endorsement. It is not and last week 400 meteorologists and climatologists reinforced that. It is no surprise that it was not front page news in the Monitor.”

I purposely chose not to have an ‘opposing’ blog because this nut just doesn’t accept reason. He’s an interminable blogger who thinks he’s “fair and balanced”, and needs to be set straight by folks other than me. Besides, I’d have to double my therapy sessions just to maintain my [semi]-sanity if I engaged him regularly!

Anyone here up to the challenge? I have a lot of respect for the people here at FDL, and I hope that one (or more) of you will accept it.

Actually this poll does show the consistant climb of Edwards, but it all depends on how far back you look.

These polls show Edwards losing ground (along with Richardson) from mid summer to about Labor Day. Why? What happened through there?

Then Edwards makes up a lot of ground very quickly in December. Why? Did he change something or was it just that people began to pay attention around then?

Somehow it seems the connection of people to a candidate doesn’t seem to be directly tied to political arguments or details. It seems more related to how well the public knows them (their name, appearance, their family, etc.) and whether they’re getting talked up by the press. Edwards has definitely suffered from not being mentioned by the press. But, he got on the tube a fair amount, so maybe the public liked his looks.

How can any of our candidates gain ground on these bases?

Obama is getting great video and talking head coverage, so he’s rising. Hillary has gone through some major downs and ups and downs and ups. She wasn’t always getting video, but then the public already knew her. She started from a high point in terms of name recognition and familiarity. She has to do well to get the talking heads to approve. Sad isn’t it. The public seems to place some trust in what the t.v. nuts say.

Edwards will never get the talking heads unless he makes a flub and then they’ll be all over him to destroy him like vultures. He has to be perfect and win over people in person, with no intervening filter. That makes the race much more costly and time consuming and tiring. That’s why Iowans came around to him and NH didn’t. He spent gobs of time in Iowa, but not as much in NH, where they had to depend on the press ‘interpretation’ of Edwards.

This is going to be very difficult for Edwards and it’s getting tougher for Hillary and it will take a major event to really short-circuit Obama’s connection to people.

I’ve seen some NH results and Obama seems to have stubbed his toes a bit. Hillary has come back into the game. Maybe the almost-crying helped her with people. Naturally, Edwards is out of the picture.

On to South Carolina where they already know Edwards pretty well. Let’s see how well Obama plays there and whether Edwards can win one for the gipper.

I predicted a week ago–she’s going to be knocked down after NH and she won’t get back up.

Hillary Clinton has run a campaign that is elitist–she took no questions from the public and she took no questions from the press, and she carefully controlled any appearances on TV.

Now that she’s been knocked down and can’t figure out how to get back up, she’s taking questions and talking to the press.

She’s learning how to conduct herself throughout the remainder of her Senate term.

Surprisingly, Edwards doesn’t seem to do all that well in the South. The fact that he is still in there swinging away without hardly any media attention says good things to me, that he has a solid base who have already made up their mind.

Edwards has been picking up in the polls lately. It’s not so much that he has a solid base, as that he’s the default choice for voters who don’t like Hillary (for whatever reason), and think Obama isn’t specific about what he’ll do in office or how he’ll achieve it.

That’s not to belittle Edwards’ achievements in the race; I like him and may vote for him in the primary because he sounds like the candidate who will fight hardest for the middle-class and the poor. But that’s where most of his base (15-18% of the Dems) is coming from already. Most of the increase above that base is due to the dynamic outlined above.

Dems

Obama 40
Clinton 29
Edwards 26
Richardson 4.5
Kucinich .4
Gravel .1

Pugs

McCain 34
Romney 28
Huckabee 14
Paul 10
Giuliani 8
Thompson 2

Republicans:
1. None of the Above
2. I couldn’t imagine checking the box for any of them

McCain
Paul
Huckabee
Romney

http://www.collectiveintellect…..e_iowa.php

Interesting that Edwards showing weaker than

Let us know what you think!