Just out of curiosity Seth, who is your overall least favorite candidate?

I'm going to pull a Bill Richardson here and say "Living or dead?"

Dead: George Wallace.
Alive and currently running: Probably this guy

Seriously though, of these guys it's hard to say. If by least favorite you mean one that I personally dislike, it'd probably be Fred Thompson. He doesn't want to work for the job, but if someone wants to give him the Presidency...

If you mean who do I think would be the most disastrous candidate that's probably either Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich. I'm glad they have principles but they're horribly impractical.

If you mean of people who actually have a snowball's chance in hell, then that's probably Hillary. I see shades of GWB in her that scare the living hell out of me, and I'm certain I can't take another 4-8 years of this red state, blue state bullshit. For the GOP, Giuliani; he's got an authoritarian streak that would have terrified the founding fathers.

New Hampshire has a mostly independent electorate. Don't get me wrong, it's more good news for Obama, and certainly good news for McCain, but McCain won New Hampshire back in 2000 and he got Rove'd. My guess is one of the other Republican candidates will pull the same trick in the more partisan states (read: nearly all the other red states) and he'll get hosed again by foul play. I'm not rooting for McCain or anything, I just think there's qualities about him that I'm able to respect, which i can't say the same for the others. Obama's got a strong start, and my hope is he can ride the momentum downhill, but who knows what he'll run into in the south which he needs at least Florida to win.

Truth be told I wouldn't be surprised to see a brokered convention for the Republicans unless the President (secretly) steps in "for the good of their party". In other times that might settle it, the Republicans are known for falling in line, but this President has no credibility with his party when the cameras are off (sometimes even when the cameras are on). If Huckabee seals up the South, Romney/McCain seal up the West and the rural Northwest states, and Giuliani takes the moderate populous states, they're deadlocked.

McCain is pretty much out of money, he's in debt to his ears, and most of the party faithful still hate him for immigration and campaign finance reform. New Hampshire's going to bring in some money, but he'd do well to skip SC and sink the money into Michigan, where he's got support from the state party chair Saul Anuzis and some traction. If he does that he could keep himself alive.

Huckabee is the next logical progression in the "mortgage the Republican party to the Evangelicals" plan. But the party elites (Defense Conservatives, Social Conservatives, and Fiscal Conservatives) hate him because he takes the parts of the Bible about "the least among these" seriously. He also has some serious money issues, but he's not as bad off as McCain.

Giuliani can't get the base to vote for him, so he's counting on Florida and what he's calling the "Feb. 5th strategy". Let me be clear, if you haven't won a single state by Feb. 5th, GAME OVER! Unless you sweep every other state there's no way you can wrap this up.

Romney's sunk a fortune into NH and IA and it looks likely that he's not going to win either. He has to ask himself how bad does he want to be president. (30 million dollars bad?)

What I'm getting at is that no one of these candidates looks likely to wrap the nomination up right now. Shy of someone pulling a Howard Dean moment, I think they're going to need to wheel and deal.

Looks like I jumped the gun on Obama, Hillary won New Hampshire, much to my dismay.

Today, the big news is that Hillary Clinton has won the democratic primary in the state of New Hampshire. You should only believe this if you cannot count to ten on your fingers. Obama has won 9 delegates in this state and Clinton won 9 delagates in this state. Amoungst people who can count, this means they tied. 9 is not greater than 9.

I am not mad because I prefer Obama over Clinton, I don't, I see little difference between the two. My problem is fundamental and on principle. I do like liars(i.e. new organisations) and I expect people( i.e. newscasters) to be able to count. I have found no national news site pointing out that the two candidates "won" the same number of delagates in NH.

Ignorance is not strenght, war is not peace, and 9 is not greater than 9.

Point taken, though I'll admit I don't understand the process as well as I should. My point is what people saw was a higher percentage, the reality is less interesting for most people. In reality Hillary is still trailing Obama by one delegate. Hillary's "moment" in that rallied women voters around her campaign in New Hampshire is what the press are now calling a turning point in her campaign. I'm not going to be so crass as to say she staged the whole thing, who knows how many would lash out at that remark. I just think they voted for her for the wrong reason. Women in New Hampshire have stated in press interview that her "moment" was the defining reason why they voted for her. I know I'm extrapolating here, but should we give the presidency to someone because they had a tearful moment and people protected her like a wounded kitten? I heard a woman interviewed on NPR say she wanted "a woman in the White House to clean up the men's mess in Washington." Does this sound logical? I can't vote for Hillary Clinton because I disagree with her policies. I also think that she bitterly divides this country. Ask a Republican what they think of Hillary Clinton and you can guess what their answer is. Some have already dubbed her "the bitch", which even I think is an undeserving title. Obama has a chance to actually accomplish something because he can persuade the opposition.

You don't get to decide what is or is not a legitimate reason to vote for a candidate. Such is the curse-blessing of living in a democracy. To that end, if you're looking for logic in politics I think you'll be sorely disappointed.

Little Story:

In the 1970s a presidential candidate by the name of Ed Muskie, gave an impassioned defense of his wife in the midst of a snowstorm in New Hampshire. It was widely reported that he cried during the speech, though he disputed it. That was the end of his candidacy. Is that a double standard? Who knows? We've seen such a paucity of women in high elective office that we're still learning the rules.

For instance it's widely believed that you can't attack a woman too viciously for fear of looking like you're a bully. This doesn't seem to be as true with Clinton. Probably because she's seen as being able to dish it out as well as take it. Women can't appear too weak or people won't vote for them for fear they can't defend the country, but they also can't appear too strong for fear they won't seem likeable. For as much as I believe Hillary is the wrong candidate for this time in our history. I have to acknowledge she's got a tough row to hoe (no puns). Women candidates have traditionally had to be hawkish to appeal to men (Golda Meir, Margaret Thatcher, etc.) And now isn't a great time to be a hawk, particularly in the Democratic party.

I'm not really crying out that this is some great injustice, or trying to convince people not to vote for Hillary. As for whether it's a legitimate reason, sure I get to decide. I think it's an outright crappy reason, but it doesn't make any difference. I know politics is all about getting voters to be emotional, otherwise they wouldn't engage in mud flinging contests. (figuratively speaking of course) Anyway, it's still a long way off before anything is decided, and I'm sure we'll all be sick of it by then.